stevenkesslar

As always, PK, I am at your service, and happy to oblige. I absolutely commit to you that I will see to it that most escorts lower their rates. There's just one simple thing I'd like you to do for me, okay? Get Congress to decriminalize. Can you do that, please? Because that's the best way to lower rates. Okay, if Tarte Gogo can have fun and go to rhetorical flourishes, I'm figuring I can, too. I hope that maybe what comes out of this, eventually, is a more informed debate than the one Congress just had. Mostly what I'm for is multi-faceted resistance. I'm glad this is being debated. And my main rhetorical question for everyone to think about is this: if you don't like this idea of resisting, fine. So what method of resistance are you for? I do think this proposal is a valid form of resistance. And just to clarify, part of what I mean by resistance is what people will do to survive. If you believe in supply and demand, which most of us seem to, FOSTA is more likely to drive rates up, not down. Again, I think that's just supply and demand. By going after unspecified websites, Congress immediately put an artificial (or maybe it's better to say "legal") constraint on supply. It did nothing to change demand. It also increased risk. I think Fresh Fluff's point about a "cartel" is a good way to think about it. In the long run, she's probably right that cartels don't tend to work. But in order to work - think OPEC - it helps if you can put an immediate and serious constraint on supply - even if it is a politically manufactured one. That's what Congress actually just did. Remember that. Escorts didn't do it. Congress did. Right now websites that offer supply are dropping like flies. Case in point. Out of curiosity, I clicked on Zachary's hyperlinks. If you click on TER Reviews, you get this: https://www.theeroticreview.com/FOSTA.asp Oops! To make it even more complicated, what I just about supply and demand may not be quite right. Because by increasing risk, maybe Congress did actually decrease demand, as well. That remains to be seen. Several people in this thread have said, "Screw you then. I'm taking my testicles and going home." I think in part it really depends on what law enforcement does. Maybe we're about to see an aggressive war on any website that seems to have anything to do with sex. Because we all know that if there is sex, there could be sex trafficking! I can speak for myself on this one. I got into this right when the internet (and Hooboy's site) was taking off. So in that sense, I was just very lucky. I spent close to $0 on websites or ads, because I let reviews on this website - which were free - speak for me. If I'd had to operate out of bars, street corners, or other venues, I probably would have said, "Fuck it." Over a long period of time, my assessment of personal legal risk in this area was somewhere between zero to minimal. If I had viewed the legal risk as being significant, I might have just stayed out of the game. Or I may have done exactly what this thread is talking about - the "less is more" strategy. I don't really know - it's all speculation, so it's all bullshit. But I'm pretty sure the basic point about supply and demand is right. If you reduce supply and increase risk, it's likely to drive rates up, not down. Maybe I'm wrong. But we'll all get an opportunity to see. I actually can think of one real world example of just how far this could go. I was never hired by a Saudi sheikh. But I was friends with a couple of escorts who were. It's an absurd example, but is is actually real. You have huge religious and legal constraints on supply - to the point where Plan A is to leave the country to get access to supply. I knew one escort who had a regular who flew into the US under the pretense of going to a weight loss camp. That's moving to the Trump extreme of supply and demand: money just really wasn't an object. At the extreme, that's what happens when you say it's punishable by things like public flogging, or death. My best guess is that decriminalizing would have the opposite effect. If you want to reduce rates, PK, I think that's our lobbying ticket. When the Rentboy thing happened, I spent a lot of time reading article after article about how things work in countries that have decriminalized. My impression is that it generally led to a big increase in supply. I'm going to go toward the more extreme examples, just to make the point. It's as if sex trafficking was legalized. I read story after story about how poor women from Africa or Eastern Europe were being brought in to legal brothels. In some articles, allegations were made that even though it was legal, it was against their will. Like their pimps were connected to criminals back home who could say if they ran away, or didn't comply, their families would suffer. Honestly, I assume at least half of what I read was bullshit, made up or exaggerated by cops or moral warriors. If you want a quick review of the alleged upsides and downsides of legal prostitution in Germany, here's a good link. It's worth noting that even though prostitution has been legal there since 2002, the law was changed last July to fight sex trafficking, which is still perceived as a big problem in Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Germany#Legislative_reform_(2002) The basic picture that seemed very clear was that decriminalizing tends to make things abundant, accessible, and cheap. That makes sense. It's happening with pot in California right now. If we did the same thing with "recreational" prostitution, I have every reason to think it would play out the same. Although we sure don't have to worry about that right now, do we? We're clearly headed in the opposite direction, full speed ahead. Whatever Congress thinks they know about sex trafficking, it's far from clear that they know much about prostitution. All you have to do is read Congressional reports that equate hiring "prostitutes" with sex trafficking, and you can figure that out pretty quick. By that standard, I think we pretty much know that the President of the United States is himself a sex trafficker. Go figure. I'm not sure I buy what Sen. Wyden said, that Congress will "regret" this vote. I think it's more reasonable to think that at some point - like in several years - they will clean the bill up. In the mean time, I'm not at all surprised that escorts are thinking along the lines of the proposal this thread started with. And the negative reaction doesn't surprise me, either. If I were to be critical, I'd say we all fucked up last year by not storming the Capitol. But I'm a realist, and there's no way that was ever going to happen. And even if it did, it's far from clear that would have stopped the bill from passing. If you don't think the reality is that there are going to be a lot of new constraints on supply, you're kidding yourselves. That's exactly what FOSTA is intended to do. And if you don't think that is somehow going to have an effect on price, you're probably kidding yourselves, too. I'll say it one more time just so my meaning is clear: that depends a lot on how aggressive enforcement of the law is. Fortunately, I don't think we have to worry about becoming just like Saudi Arabia. This won't become a hobby beyond the reach of anyone other than rich and powerful sheihks. I stand by my basic argument, though. I wasn't arguing this is the best way to resist FOSTA. I could go with PK's line, and argue that the best way to resist is decriminalize. If we're talking about supply and demand, that's what seems most likely to increase supply and reduce rates. Obviously, we're not headed to decriminalization anytime soon. Given the way we are headed, it makes complete sense to me that escorts are considering a "less is more" strategy of resistance - meaning raising rates and having fewer clients. I'm no expert, but it strikes me as the exact opposite of what's happening in Germany. And in both cases it's following the laws of supply and demand. And if you don't like it, I'd suggest you place the blame on the politicians who just made it that way. The other thing I intended to say, and will say again, is that I love the fact that there's already organized efforts starting on how to resist. As much as I'd personally prefer to see it happen the way the kids in Florida are doing it - like let's get 100,000 or so people to DC next month - somehow I don't see that happening. I think I can also say from personal experience that when it comes to overt resistance, there is no reason yet to think that anyone is going to get a lot of support. I actually was surprised how many regular Rentboy users were silent when Rentboy was thrown under the bus. And to be clear, I'm not judging that reaction. I'm simply stating it as a fact. I had a lot of discussions with people I'm very close to about how they felt. Most people felt there were plenty of other websites, and it just wasn't worth the fight. If FOSTA now means most of those websites go away, it might lead more people to rethink whether resistance makes sense. But that remains to be seen. It is very early days. At this point, the main think I feel I know is that I am in favor of is resistance, plain and simple.

Since you quoted me, I'll take the bait. I'm not endorsing this approach, or rejecting it. But you are right. I feel it is one way to resist a bad law. I also said, and will reinforce, that it is definitely not unifying. Touche, Tarte Gogo. Your letter is hilarious parody. Everybody is welcome to their opinion, and - thankfully - their sense of humor. So here's mine. I wouldn't say this is directed at clients, or that it is deceitful or exploitative. Any more than I would say that as a landlord raising the rent is directed at tenants, or is deceitful or exploitative. Everybody here is actually agreeing that FOSTA did not repeal the laws of supply and demand. So if an escort charges too much, they won't make a dime. Just like if I try to charge too much rent, nobody will rent my house. It's just supply and demand. It will work better for some escorts than others, for exactly the reasons Zachary said. FOSTA does increase risk. And as several people are saying, some people will say, "The risk (or price) just isn't worth it." For others, the risk will be worth it. And they'll be willing to pay more. And they'll feel they got what they paid for - including discretion and security and an absence of risk. To take it to the extreme, Miami Looker is right. If you are Donald Trump, $130,000 ain't shit. If I had to complete the sentence, "This action is directed at .............," here's how I would complete the sentence. This action is directed at survival. And I think it actually works both ways. If an escort you know and trust charges more, he's interested in surviving. And if you pay him more, it's because you're interested in surviving. Again, I'm not endorsing this approach, or rejecting it. All I'm saying is nobody should be surprised that it's one way a market will respond. All of this begs a question which I think needs to be discussed, but not in this forum: whose job is it to come up with new legislation? Speaking for myself, that's actually the most important question. And if that's what you want, take that to the politics forum. Assuming that once the law is signed, there still is a politics forum. Sadly, past experience suggests that most escorts and most clients are not going to get on a plane and go meet with Senator Blumenthal or one of his aides to talk about this legislation. I would love to be wrong about that. I want to say more about why I think this will end up being one way to resist, because what Sunday Zip said suggests my point did not quite get across. But first let me paint the picture of a few scenarios that are not likely to happen. My best case scenario is that overnight , millions of people who actually hire what Rentmen now calls "performers" of various types - because I'm pretty sure it is actually millions of people, starting with POTUS - would get on the phone to their US Senator or US Rep and say, "What the fuck do you think you are doing? You will never get a penny or a vote from me again." If millions of people did that, it would have an immediate and profound impact. But, being a pragmatist, I just don't think this is a likely scenario. It didn't happen last year, so it probably won't happen now - when it's too late. There is another worst case scenario that no one is talking about, thank God. The rhetorical threat that was used last year, that obviously didn't work, is that this would drive people back to street corners and dark alleys. Maybe members of Congress likely didn't believe it, or maybe they just didn't care. My own two cents is that it was a very lame argument. In part, it implies that a certain amount of sex trafficking on the internet is okay, so that I can have it easy on the internet, too. What a lot of politicians said is that a certain amount of sex trafficking is absolutely not okay. You can say that's cynical, but you can't say it's surprising. But that doesn't mean that Blake and Zachary are packing their bags and going to live in a dark alley, either. Again, thank God. Because if they were smelly and homeless, my guess is nobody would want to hire them. The internet ain't going away, and neither are Blake or Zachary or lots and lots of others like them. Sorry, Congress. Nice try. So to me the realistic scenario is that escorts like Blake and Zachary are just going to hunker down and figure out how to survive in the new era of repression. And that's not rocket science. There may be fewer clients, and there may be a higher risk premium. And it will all be governed by the same rules of supply and demand. Honestly, speaking for myself, I'm glad I'm older and don't have to deal with it. I prefer the good old days, thank you. FOSTA was intended to take a swipe at sex traffickers who are alleged to thrive on the internet. It was clearly written by people who mostly don't have a clue about prostitution. They probably heard a whole bunch of really disgusting things from cops and moral warriors. FOSTA was not at all about making things more rational, safer, or better for the actual market of "performers," or the millions who hire them. It is not at all clear how one gets from where we are today to a rational and safer market that is decriminalized or legal, or even just tolerated. So, actually, what Blake and Zachary are talking about is a realistic best case scenario, I think. The reality we know is that what the cops are saying is a complete myth, and most people simply are not being trafficked. They are "performers" or entrepreneurs or whatever you want to call them. They'll figure out a way they can survive and thrive, even if the overall market shrinks. It's still a huge market, with millions of customers. And, sorry Congress, it ain't going away. Meanwhile, it's going to be interesting to see what happens with sex trafficking in the three years between now and when the GAO has to report back to Congress. Backpage is gone. But will trafficking survive on the internet? Will there be serial closures of whatever websites the traffickers migrate to? Or will they go to the dark web? Or will they just be driven off the web? I know what the goal is, which is to dramatically reduce the number of people trafficked, which advocates of FOSTA think was driven up by allowing it to thrive on the internet. I sincerely wish them luck. My hope - you can call it my utter naivete if you wish - is that in three years time there is a better informed and less puritanical debate than the one we just had. I hope that some of what was intended in terms of going after sex traffickers actually works. And I'm 100 % sure that somehow, someway, the misdirected attacks on "prostitution" will fail. That's exactly why I said that, as much as this is an act of resistance that has nothing to do with politics, it actually could have a significant impact on the future of this political debate. By surviving, it's at least possible that escorts will actually pave the way for having a somewhat more realistic discussion about what makes sense down the line. If we are going to blame anybody in this picture for being exploitative, let's blame the traffickers. I don't think Congress is to blame for wanting to go after them. I personally applaud their intentions, if not the actual details of the law they passed to do it. And I don't think we should blame escorts or the people who hire them for trying to survive and deal with the realities of a deeply flawed law.

So is $130,000 too much money to ask for? :confused: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2018/04/06/how-much-money-is-stormy-daniels-making-from-her-alleged-affair-with-trump/#6a7d7d23290f I couldn't resist throwing this one in. How's this for irony, speaking of fees? A bill that equates prostitution with sex trafficking is about to be signed into law by the first President of the United States who is alleged to have paid a prostitute six figures. And even more ironic. The service that was worth $130,000 was basically this: "Just keep your pretty mouth shut." Which should communicate something about the potential economic value of discretion and confidentiality for people who value it. That Forbes article is an interesting take on what this thread is partly about - the economics of supply and demand for people like Stormy Daniels. I mostly threw this in because the whole thing is funny. But I also think maybe there's a few lessons you can draw from it. It certainly does suggest there is a premium that some people will pay in an environment where discretion is important. If there are people thinking that FOSTA raises the risk premium for escorts you know and trust, they are not wrong. The other thing that is just weird as hell about the Stormy Daniels thing is that it seems to have had no apparent impact on Trump's popularity with the "pillars of salt" community - like the evangelicals. Shouldn't they be shocked, and leading a call to go back to a time when prostitutes and the Presidents who hired them were turned into pillars of salt? I really don't have a clue. But I have to wonder if beneath the surface this kind of behavior isn't gradually eroding support for the puritanical vision of America. FOSTA itself is in part a misdirected attempt at repression that is 100 % certain to fail. POTUS himself, if he chose to really be honest, could have a nice little fireside chat with America about why prostitution ain't exactly about to go away, and how hiring Stormy Daniels and paying her to shut up doesn't make POTUS a sex trafficker. It's just all way too weird, isn't it? Back to this thread, it is understandable to me that in this environment a lot of escorts are going to sweep the politics of it under the rug and just focus on hunkering down and surviving. And Trump and Stormy are a perfect example of how some people will pay a hell of a lot of money to get something they value.

I just got a good laugh out of the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs. And I'm not even sure I can explain why. And I'm not even sure if it's comedy or tragedy. The first paragraph is brilliant. I've been an escort for a long time, and it rings true to my experience. There's a very simple story that makes the point to me. Very early on I told a guy my hourly rate, and he said all he needed was 15 minutes. So how about if I pay you a quarter of what you want? I said no. It was a defining moment for me, about my self worth. We all get to define who we are. And I guess I just felt like I wasn't going to be that kind of cheap girl. Maybe there are actually idiots in Congress who think they are going to get rid of certain forms of behavior they find morally objectionable. Hell, they tried to get rid of Gay sex for thousands of years. So you sure have to give 'em credit for persistence, I guess. But the laws of supply and demand do apply. Even when people got stoned or turned into a pillar of salt, people still managed to be Gay and get their needs met. So I don't think demand is going away. And yeah, in this kind of environment certain escorts can not only do fine - they can do better than ever. You could nickname FOSTA the "Get Backpage" bill, but you could also nickname it the "Hire An Escort You Know And Trust" bill. And Zachary is right. There is a premium in that service. Before I became an escort, I was a paid political activist. So when I filter the second paragraph I quoted through that part of me, it doesn't sound brilliant. It sounds more like politically illiterate. FOSTA is a stunning repudiation of a certain kind of labor. It shows overwhelming contempt for our economic well being. On an emotional level, it actually does make me feel like we are back to the bad old days, of stoning people and turning them into pillars of salt. Granted, you can say the people who did it are idiots, or hypocrites, or corrupt. But they do happen to also be the people who write the laws that govern this country. So, actually, it still kind of matters. Ask the millionaire owners at Backpage about it, if you're wondering whether Congress actually has any power. Both parts of what Zachary said are true, and both parts of my response are true. I think the way this discussion is going confirms what I said earlier. Most escorts are not particularly interested in overt political activism. However, they are all pretty much entrepreneurs who are going to figure it out, and try to survive, and thrive. I love that response. It sort of goes with the territory that you have to be able to take rejection and move on. And in it's own way, even though this response has pretty much nothing to do with politics, it actually is going to have a political impact. Because in three years when Congress gets their nice little GAO report about how well FOSTA worked, guess what? Escorting in America is going to be alive and well, because of people doing exactly what is being described here. And Congress is going to have to deal with the fact that they were about as successful at getting rid of escorting as the moral warriors were at getting rid of Gays. The last thing I'll say is that it doesn't surprise me that this is not a unifying response. It makes complete sense to me that this is one way a lot of escorts could choose to respond to FOSTA, and survive. And Blake's first impulse was completely right: if it were me, I wouldn't be discussing a rate increase with clients, or asking permission. I'd just do it. I can relate to that on another level. I'm a landlord. I don't ask permission to raise the rent. I just do it. And my tenants don't ask permission when they need a new refrigerator or furnace because the old one broke down. They just expect me to replace it, so they have one that works. You get what you pay for. Supply and demand. The thing I'm trying to judge, and that actually belongs in the politics forum, is whether there is going to be any attempt at a unifying response that is actually political. This forum - Ask An Escort - is not the place for that discussion. I'm commenting here simply to say that, if past experience is a guide, an organized political response is probably going to be an uphill climb. For a lot of people, maybe most people, the idea that you can speak up, fight back, and win when it comes to political power is pretty much outside their experience. Blake already said that's not his interest, and I completely respect that. We all get to choose how we do our thing. If this is what most escorts end up doing, I'm actually grateful for this response. Because, like it or not, the message being sent by Congress here really is that your labor sucks, and we really don't care about about your well being, and we are going to exterminate you. And it just turns out that a lot of resourceful young people are saying, "Yeah? Really? Well just you wait and see, you prick." :oops: And the escorts saying this are actually right. Three years from now, if Portman and Blumenthal are still in Congress, they are going to have to deal with the fact that their fancy, pretty new law just didn't work as planned. Aw. Ain't that just a shame? This is resistance, pure and simple. I love it. I love it. I love it.

I'll tell you what I love about this. It's an act of resistance. I personally would call it nonpolitical resistance. And I won't make the mistake I did on a separate thread started by Blake, and try to pigeonhole him into any kind of overtly political stance. But whether this is political or not, it is 100 % resistance. And I love that about it. Politics and resistance of course do not repeal the laws of economics. There is always an element of supply and demand in any pricing structure - even if it's just a lemonade stand. So how this works out in practice will likely vary for each escort. But what won't vary is this. Presumably right now we're all supposed to just play Chicken Little and say "Oh, my God. The sky is falling! What will I ever do?" This runs directly in the face of that. You can all judge for yourself whether or not this is folly. But one thing it is definitely not is fear. My guess from my personal experience of knowing and working with lots of escorts for 15+ years is that most escorts are not overtly political animals. They don't tend to gravitate toward lobbying, public meetings with legislators, and focusing on the steps involved in enactment of a bill like FOSTA. It is outside their experience. And in that sense, I'm just a freak. But most escorts are entrepreneurs concerned about running their own small business. This appeals to that instinct or sensibility, which I'm pretty sure is more broadly shared than the kind of political radar I have, which preceded my escort career. To each his own. I'm going to keep saying it's time to slow down and think. But one thing I know for sure is the best path is one of resistance, not submission. I like any effort that at core is designed to say, "Sorry, we ain't giving up, and we ain't going away." This is an effort by people who are saying just that: we ain't going away.

Oops! Responding to my owned question, from the Wired article above: Nicole Navas Oxman, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said Friday afternoon that the agency would issue a press release after charges are unsealed, but things did not go as expected. "The Court has ruled that the case remains sealed and we have nothing to report today," she wrote in an email Friday evening. https://www.wired.com/story/feds-seize-backpagecom-site-linked-to-sex-trafficking/

That CBS piece says the federal charges will be "unsealed" later today. I Googled it and could not find anything. In order to seize assets they had to get a judge to approve a complaint, ala Rentboy, right?

I love this line from the article: "It feels like a fairy tale. It’s not. What it is is a mercy."

Nope. Just Googled the picture and fell in love.

Preaching to the choir, but here's what so fucked up about this. https://nypost.com/2018/04/03/nypd-sends-warning-texts-to-creeps-looking-for-prostitutes/ From the Post article Moondance hyperlinked above. Thanks Moondance. "Police have posted phony listings on sites like Backpage.com for years, but always waited until the would-be john showed up and then arrested him. But while a single ad typically leads up to a dozen men to actually show up in person, another 25 to 75 guys call but either don’t book a “date” or never arrive, sources say. The ones who don’t seal the deal get the warnings, which the NYPD’s human trafficking team began sending out in February. “There’s nothing you can do about the regulars who do this all the time,” a source told The Post. “But hopefully it will scare people trying it for the first time, or legitimate people who have jobs or families who don’t want to get arrested.” Think through the logic of that. This won't deter the "regulars," so the whole point is to deter "legitimate" people. Like people who have jobs and families. So "regulars" who are not "legitimate" don't have jobs or families? What the fuck does "legitimate" even mean in this context? There's a cover story in TIME this week about arrests for undocumented immigrants going up under Trump, and it made me think there are some parallels to the new crusade against prostitution. This NY Post story seems to confirm it. As far as the feds know, illegal border crossings are way down since Trump was elected. Some of it is likely simply Trump's crackdown rhetoric. And some of it, they are speculating, is fear that even if you get across the border, you are more likely to be arrested and sent home. Under W. and Obama the policy was to focus on arresting and deporting criminals (excluding the fact that you are undocumented, which makes 100 % of undocumented people criminals). Under Trump, the policy has been broadened to include all roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants, including people who are law-abiding, have kids, go to work every day. There's a few problems. Doing that doesn't deter people who are already here, and have jobs and families and kids. It just fills them with dread and fucks up their families, kids, and jobs. The second problem is that ICE estimates they have the resources to catch about 4 percent of undocumented immigrants every year. So if you add no resources, and vastly increase the number of targets, what you actually do is dilute the effect of enforcement. You may deter more people from coming into the US - maybe. But you fill everyone undocumented in the US with dread, and you don't catch more people. So probably what you do is catch less actual criminals. That's what the quote above suggests about this effort. "Regular" sex traffickers likely won't be deterred. In fact, they don't respond to ads - they run them. So who you end up bagging are relatively more "legitimate" people, according to the NYPD spokesman interviewed. But "regulars" won't be stopped. It's not clear whether the ad NYPD ran involves children or imples involuntary "trafficking." But the quote in the body of the article - "A lot of these girls are being forced or coerced to work as prostitutes — it is human trafficking,” suggests that NYPD just equated prostitution with trafficking. There's no way to tell whether these efforts actually reduce the number of trafficked women or kids - although even the NYPD quote seems to suggest it doesn't. I think what could eventually turn this around is if there is evidence that it hasn't stopped trafficking, or even put a dent in it. Probably the best argument of opponents of FOSTA was that it would simply make sex trafficking harder to fight, by driving it underground. How you document that is a good question. But the way to undermine the bill, eventually, is the same as what happened with Prohibition. It could have a similar effect of targeting all kinds of so-called "legitimate" people without getting rid of or even deterring the underlying criminal activity.

Brilliant. That's like saying the way to go after rape is to go after all sex. Because the less sex, the less rape.

https://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000119 I'm not a lawyer, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Prostitution is generally regulated by states, right? Above is a list of federal and state laws and punishments. Until recently, as the text implies, my understanding is that you ran afoul of the feds generally when it crossed state or national boundaries - e.g. "interstate or foreign commerce." They went after Rentboy using The Travel Act which dealt with prohibited activities like illegal gambling and prostitution in interstate commerce. For purposes of the Travel Act and the new revisions, which all fall under Section 18 of the US Code, my understanding is that Wikipedia writes about "prostitution" would apply here: "The inclusion of state-level crime in the Act is important because it effectively federalizes certain state laws which may not have analogous provisions at the Federal level." Does anyone know if there is a separate federal definition of prostitution, or does it simply piggyback on state definitions for purposes of interstate or foreign commerce? The main target of FOSTA is "interactive computer services," so I'm guessing that means the state law that would apply is the state where the "interactive computer services" does business out of? In the case of Rentboy I believe New York law applied. Does anyone know that for sure? https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865/text FOSTA keeps referring back to "interstate and foreign commerce" so I assume that means a local website in areas where prostitution (brothels) are legal in Nevada is exempt. I suppose the interesting question is what if you located an "interactive computer service" in one of the areas where it is legal - although I presume the local laws in Nevada may already written in a way that preempt that option; e.g. some counties charges fees based on the number of prostitutes or rooms. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-prostitution-laws.html If my understanding that it goes back to state definitions of prostitution, California law for example requires physical contact of a sexual nature. So while "tokens" on Chaturbate could perhaps be regarded as another form of payment, my guess is that Tarte Gogo is right and a "porn" website that pays tokens for performers online who you never meet or touch would be regarded as porn, not prostitution. If that is correct, that may be where other websites go - whatever it is they are actually providing, they could make it sound like this is a porn service where you look but don't touch.

Happy birthday, Eric. I wanted to get you this cake. Unfortunately it wasn't available. So I got you this one instead. http://sophieswift.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/glorious-inspiration-gay-birthday-cake-and-amazing-wish-kvnty-a-happy-birthday-btchs-delicious-cakes.jpg Just be careful not to eat too much.

Touche. I think we should make a collective decision to view this as comedy, not tragedy. Anybody who knows the lay of this particular land - which excludes most members of Congress - could predict that while this law has mostly laudable goals, the way it was written would have all kinds of unintended consequences, some of which are just silly. I'd say we should keep a stiff upper lip. But a lip is a body part, and suggesting I want somebody to be "stiff" could be taken as a solicitation. So I won't.

I actually edited something about the legislative language out of a draft of my earlier post, in part because I didn't want to get this kicked into the politics forum. So I'll try to say it in a non-political way. Part of what went wrong while Mommy and Daddy were away is that the bill started out using the words "sex trafficking." If you look at a press release from one of the co-sponsors, it went on and on about "sex trafficking" and the word "prostitution" was not used once. Then another one of the co-sponsors put out a report slamming Backpage and used "sex trafficking" and "prostitution" interchangeably. Part of what's sad about Mommy and Daddy not having spoken up is that a lot of confusion and heartache could have been avoided here. Different agendas got confused and melded together. It is not clear that was intentional on the part of everybody who supported the final product. If anything, I'd almost read things as indicating the opposite: a bill that was intended to address "sex trafficking" got hijacked by moral crusaders who had a much broader agenda. Whether that agenda was liberal female legislators who view any form of prostitution as sex trafficking, or conservatives who think any pornography and sex on the internet is bad, or some weird coalition of the willing - who knows? The one thing I think we can say is this was not intended as an attack on Gay men or Gay websites. We don't prey on women, and it's no longer PC to just assume we prey on young boys. So everybody be sure to have your Gay card handy. I actually think in this case it protects us from being harassed and targetted. How's that for irony?

And for those of you who are worried that the sky is falling, I think this also should be a pretty strong signal that the sky is not falling. I've been following this since last year. My assumptions, which of course could be wrong, are based more on an understanding of politics than of intricate aspects of the law. I've always assumed that it would be difficult or impossible to go after a multi-faceted website that is compromised predominantly of Gay men, where Gay men talk about all kinds of things. That may include escorts, but it also includes discussions like this one, about our civil rights. To try to go after a website like that would just be an enormous political blunder, I've thought all along. It could easily be construed as an assault on Gay freedom of speech. Rentboy wasn't that kind of site. At the margin, it could say it did educational services or whatever, but they were pretty clearly focused on one thing. If there was one potential "Gay" website that would be at risk due to SESTA/FOSTA, I thought it was pretty obvious which one that was: Rentmen. I thought maybe they'd say, fuck it. It ain't worth the bother. We'll just leave the US alone and let them figure it out. I'm sure that would have cut off a huge part of their users. But if you wanted to pursue the "sky is falling" scenario, that's where I would go. It's early days, but I think we can assume that Rentmen has checked with their lawyers and this indicates where they are going. Which basically means they ain't going nowhere. While there may be inconveniences, I think this is mostly good news. If there is logic to FOSTA/SESTA, it's this: the nature of the internet itself facilitated a handful of "outlier" websites (Sen. Blumenthal's word) that led to a dramatic increase in the sex trafficking of women and children online. I think the numbers are all suspect, but I've read things like an eightfold increase. I suspect nobody really even knows. But the anti-sex trafficking advocates probably have a point, that access to a handful of "outlier" internet websites made a horrific criminal activity easier. If this is the inconvenience we all have to go through to take out a few of the outliers, this is not that bad.

Lawyers can argue whatever they want. If they are lawyers that work for a federal agency, they have a lot of money behind them. If they are lawyers that work for a federal agency basing a case on a federal law passed almost unanimously by the US Congress, they have a lot of money and power behind them. Any future case would be speculative, but here is the original DHS complaint against Rentboy: https://www.scribd.com/doc/276080730/Rentboy-Complaint-Redacted I started counting the number of times the word "escort" appears, and gave up counting. It appears a lot. I'm no lawyer, so you can interpret what that means for yourself. For anyone who does not know, this original DHS complaint caused an uproar in part because it seemed to many as if it criminalized Gay sex. That was actually what an editorial in the New York Times said. DHS subsequently cleaned that up and in subsequent written filings did their level best to tie Rentboy.com to "sex trafficking," which has a specific legal definition. Guy is right that the bill does not use or define the word "escort." That's a double-edged sword, I think. Since it's not defined, there's ambiguity. At least with Rentboy, DHS took whatever ambiguity they could find and drove a truck through it. I also agree with Guy that the legal system does not work on synonyms. It works on lawyers. And lawyers cost money. That's why the first thing DHS did is seized Jeffrey's assets. Good luck explaining yourself. There are a few silver linings in the cloud from Rentboy, I think. First, to the extent that this is perceived as a war on Gay sex, that won't go down well. I hope that lesson won't be forgotten. Second, it's worth remembering that the judge who ruled on the plea bargain admitted she was troubled deciding the case, because she realized that the argument that Jeffrey provided a service that made people safer had validity - but at the same time it was that very service that allowed DHS to go after Jeffrey. My point is that this was never really tested in court, based on prior law. Some future judge may feel very differently. But you could take that as an indicator that this may not be as black and white in court as some might assume. This provides a very clear indicator that websites not domiciled in the US will not assume they are beyond the reach of US or international law enforcement. I personally think that's a wise decision, if you look at how the US went after file serve companies based outside the US, like Megaupload. The founders were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand. Go figure. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16642369 The Rentmen TOS states the following under "Section 22: Applicable Law": "These Terms of Service shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Germany, without giving effect to any principles of conflicts of law. You agree that any action at law or in equity arising out of or relating to these terms shall be filed only in the state courts located in Hamburg, Germany, and you hereby consent and submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purposes of litigating any such action." One might wonder why Rentmen cares, if they are legally domiciled in part or whole in Germany. Clearly, Rentmen has decided they don't want to be the legal guinea pig. Thanks for posting that email, because I think it is instructive. There is nothing surprising here. Welcome to the world of whack-a-mole. Excuse me, I meant whack-a-word. If it sounds like "prostitution," it's bad. If it doesn't, it's good. My guess is that the next really big Gay prostitution website will be called something like "Tea For Two." I think this also provides a clear indicator that offsite services - websites outside the US - have just been handed a huge competitive advantage. I would imagine the folks at Rentmen, on balance, are actually pretty happy right now. While they may not be immune from anything the US can do, they will likely be harder to reach. This also should paint a picture of what happens next. As several people have stated, the criminals who run sex trafficking rings are criminals, and they are quite aware of that fact. So being told they are criminals in and of itself won't stop them. There are already plenty of penalties under the law for sex trafficking. This just enhances them and focuses attention on websites. So now there is an obvious next step: domicile your sex trafficking website in Viet Nam, or Thailand, or The Philippines, or Russia, or Mexico, or Kenya - you know, pretty much the countries that you might be trafficking from. If you are a smart criminal, with resources, probably the ideal country for locating a sex trafficking website in would be one with: 1) lots of poor women and children and 2) a dysfunctional or nonexistent legal system. If I am right, and such websites emerge, it provides fodder to go back to Congress and make a case that you actually just made US law enforcement's job harder on a goal we all agree on. I'll keep saying it ad nauseum, but as victims of discrimination and exploitation Gay men are natural allies of the anti-sex trafficking community. Eventually I'd guess that will become clearer and clearer as the deep problems with the law manifest themselves. We all know how well Prohibition worked. If the goal is to redo Prohibition and focus it on "sex trafficking," that is an admirable goal that will be extremely hard to achieve. Having everybody united behind you would make achieving it easier. By seeming to call for a Prohibition on "prostitution" - not to mention in an ambiguous way that also draws in things like internet-based "pornography" and internet-based "sex," Congress just made achieving an admirable goal divisive, confusing, and impossible. The Rentmen notification makes that painfully clear, I think. My guess is Congress will eventually figure that out, just like they did with Prohibition. But it will take a while. Meanwhile, enjoy your whack-a-word, guys!

I really, really tried. Honestly. But reading your statement, I just have to say it. Has anyone else noticed the striking resemblance between two guys who are part of this discussion? They are both beautifully handsome, and by virtue of that don't really get the credit and respect they deserve. http://image.nj.com/home/njo-media/width600/img/entertainment_impact/photo/call-me-armie-hammer-portraitjpg-c7d3c7f5efeae622.jpg

Great. Now you had to fuck up my day by pointing out that there is a version of Garrell that is male, not fictional, and completely unattainable.

I've always been open-minded and flexible. Doesn't it show?

Don't worry. Quite honestly, I didn't really have a thing for Anchise. It was pretty much all about wanting to have sex with Elio and Oliver. And while I am ashamed to admit it, watching the French actress Esther Garrell surprised me, because it's the first time in a while I've felt really attracted to a woman. As in, my God would she be hot to fuck. Which makes it even better that this is fiction. Because I'm too old, and too Gay.

It's not safe. Too many Californians.

'Love, Simon' Star Keiynan Lonsdale Drops Lyric Video for Queer Anthem 'Kiss the Boy' https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/pride/8265533/love-simon-keiynan-lonsdale-kiss-the-boy-lyric-video

Well, not quite. I just checked and CMBYN has grossed $38 million globally to date. If the number cited for the budget by somebody - $3.5 million - is anywhere in the ballpark of accurate, that's a pretty good return on investment. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=callmebyyourname.htm It's top two weeks, when it earned about one fourth of it's domestic box office, were the week of the Oscar nominations, and the week after. So Oscar helped it along. Love, Simon has already earned way more than it's budget just on a few weeks of domestic release. Assuming it has a global release, it will earn back a multiple of what it cost to make. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=untitledgregberlantifilm.htm Go, Hollywood, go!

"The strength of a film like this is it starts conversations." + 1000