SHOULD we out them?

[+ Tom Isern]

Question: (And this is not rhetorical—I don’t have a final opinion. I post this in the lounge because, while the question may seem political, it is actually more an ethical issue.)

 

Most escorts have had them—clients in the public life of the "opposing" party. I've been flown west to spend weekends at the homes of close personal friends of George I and George II. I've spent evenings with big-wig Republi-con party bosses in DC and here in New York—a fact that amazes me due to my postings here, my well-known animosity to all things Republi-con. They continue to hire me anyway.

 

Question: When these Republi-con bigwigs go back to their wives and families and political lives and publicly spew hatred and discrimination out of their closet doors, do they deserve an escort's continued silence/complicity?

 

(My apologies to those who may think this issue exhaustively mapped in another thread. The issue does have current relevancy.)

 

Also...the question could be posed about Democrats too. The Republicans have no monopoly on homophobia. We may be seeing, after this next election, a crop of more conservative and family-loving, gay-baiting Democrats...

[DaninWA]

If the political leanings and behavior of your clients is so important to you, why do you accept the appointments with theses guys? To borrow a line from Nancy Reagan, "Just say No."

[JT Brooklyn]

IMHO..At about 3500 to 5K for a Fully Paid Weekend, sounds like it definitely is in the "Working Guy's" JOB Description.

 

LOL :P

[Guest Merlin]

Try to see the other side sometime. Many gays believe that marriage should be preserved as an institution, and that changing the definition to mean "anyone can marry anyone else, and get a divorce at will" is destructive. At that point, we will have to ask, does marriage serve any purpose at all anymore? And, is there any basis left for denying the right to polygamy and polyandry? This is not based on hatred or homophobia, but upon a more objective view of what is better for society. Do not imagine that everyone who disagrees with you hates you.

[SAdler]

I agree. Just dont take the clients if it's that big a deal to you. I understand some may "need" every single client possible but if your personal ethics are questioned as a result and you think you have the right to contemplate OUTTING these people you don't appear to have that "need."

 

As an escort you are not only providing your time but your DISCRETION. If you don't feel like you can hold up your entire part of the bargain then you're in the wrong line of work.

 

People are people. If you want to get political; do the right thing and lobby against the platforms, not the people. That may sound naive to think that politics isn't about mudslinginging but eventually I would like to think our culture can see mudslinging for what it is, a dance around the issues.

 

Even here on "these" boards we will take an issue, associate it with a person and the silly, mindless and wanna be intellectuals will beat a person over the head with something just because it makes that person look "bad." They only look bad in the minds of those morons because those of us that know better see mudslinging for what it is, a pathetic attempt of a bitter individual to take the focus off how fucked up their life might be because they have nothing of merit or substance to say so they can attack someone else. If they took a step back and realized that the "issues" they're supposedly debating have already been discussed and discarded, they would probably have nothing left to contribute to make themselves feel important.

 

Wow ... I didn't even BRING a soap box with me to this post but there ya go

[Louis]

To me an escort is a person providing a service...discrete or otherwise, (much like a doctor or lawyer). To me its not the integrety of the client, but the integrity of the escort. If a person offers a discrete service, then it should stay discrete......that being said, if a person sees an escort going to the hotel room of high ranking political person, then the they are the ones who should expose the situation.

As much as these two faced politicians disgust me, there is your integrity to think about too. A person's word is more important than anything in my view, and when an escorts advertised discrete service, then you are breaking your word if you go public.

Sure when I hire escorts I want an escort with a certain body type, but I also want to hire someone who is a class act.... and keeping a code of silence is a class act....at least when you share the bed with these politicians, you know there is one classy person in the bed....yourself:-)

Louis

[SAdler]

I cannot WAIT for the Supreme Court to tackle this one, the new list of privilege:

 

Attorney-Client

Doctor-Patient

Spousal

Escort-Client

 

Better yet, clients should just start carbon copying all correspondence about their time only affairs to their lawyers so emails can’t be used against them in court

[Epigonos]

Scott my luv we have disagreed in the past which has always been part of the fun of being around you. On this one, however, we are in complete agreement. BRAVO -- what a logical, professional, and concise post.

[AdamSmith]

Fallacy

 

>Try to see the other side sometime. Many gays believe that

>marriage should be preserved as an institution, and that

>changing the definition to mean "anyone can marry anyone else,

>and get a divorce at will" is destructive.

 

This is off the main point of this thread, but it bears pointing out that equating same-sex marriage with letting "anyone marry anyone else" is fallacious demagoguery.

 

As for "divorce at will," this is also a non sequitur, as no less than George F. Will points out: Straight married couples hardly seem to need help from the gay community in driving divorces to record levels.

[Lookin]

< People are people. If you want to get political; do the right thing and lobby against the platforms, not the people. That may sound naive to think that politics isn't about mudslinging but eventually I would like to think our culture can see mudslinging for what it is, a dance around the issues. >

 

Amen, and well said Scott!

 

In addition, Tom, I don’t think using consensual sexual activity as a weapon against someone else is a good idea - not when we do it, and not when it’s done to us.

 

Even if you do it to expose hypocrisy, it still keeps us rooted to the idea that it’s OK to judge someone because of his sexual preference. You might get people upset with the guy; but it’s probably going to make them more judgmental toward gay sex, rather than less.

 

If you find yourself in the sack with a raving homophobe, why not ask him directly if he will consider softening his rhetoric in appreciation of the good time you just showed him. After he’s paid up of course!

[Flower]

>Better yet, clients should just start carbon copying all

>correspondence about their time only affairs to their lawyers

>so emails can’t be used against them in court

 

Scott, I enjoy your posts and was laughingly thinking something similar to your new list of privileges while reading this post. But the attorney-client privilege will not protect otherwise discoverable material such as emails just because you send it to your attorney, whether first, concurrently, or later. If the email was only to your attorney and concerned a matter he was or is about to be representing you on, then you can tell him most anything and have it privileged except about an intent to commit a future crime.

 

This is a common misconception, even among some attorneys, but documents or other things take on no special sanctity just because they've been brought to an attorney. If they were discoverable before you gave them to your attorney, they are afterwards also. In fact your attorney's office is susceptible to a search warrant if there is probable cause to believe he/she is secreting unprivileged evidence.:+

[N.N.]

Ethical issues don't always lend themselves to

hard-and-fast rules. In something like 99.9%

of all cases, I'd say the escort should be discreet,

but there are exceptional cases where it becomes

a judgment call, and a difficult one at that.

[dannyrossmoore]

Mr Isern:

If you don't have enough professionalism and integrity to keep a clients identity confidential just because they have different political opinions than yourself, you shouldn't be working in this field.

[+ ArVaGuy]

>Mr Isern:

>If you don't have enough professionalism and integrity to

>keep a clients identity confidential just because they have

>different political opinions than yourself, you shouldn't be

>working in this field.

 

 

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/cpapa8162/Avatar%20Options/applause.gif

[whipped guy]

As far as hypocrisy is concerned, there is enough to go around the entire political spectrum and back several thousand times… and it has been that way since the inception of political thought… as such it should be of no concern to your entrepreneurial endeavors.

 

All of us who are in some sort of business that has direct contact with the public are placed in such situations on a daily basis. In an ideal world a Yankee fan should be able to patronize a barber who is a Red Sox fan and not live in the fear of having his ear lopped off by “mistake”.

 

When one is in business one provides a service to the best of his ability… he is at the service of the client. It is rewarding when a customer is pleased and thrilled with the services rendered. A business operation among other things should be apolitical. Clients and entrepreneurs alike should assume such to be the case. Fortunately you are in the type of business where you can pick and choose your clients. Still, given the type of regulars you have attracted, you have provided an acceptable service, and your politics have been of no concern to your clientele… so take that as your cue... and that is how it should be… and it should be a two-way street… it's all part of being and acting “professional”… If you can’t handle it, you don’t belong in business… and if you act on your feelings in a drastic way, believe me… you won’t be in business for long…

[+ Tom Isern]

I’m not surprised to see some on this site use my question as an opportunity for moralistic grandstanding, but remember folks, this was a QUESTION, not an opinion. I have not promoted outing clients, but asked if there were circumstances under which it would be the “right” thing to do. To those of you who have jumped all over me for even asking such a question, is there absolutely no situation you can think of in which outing a client would be the ethically right thing to do?

 

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument—and this is good for escorts or clients—that your sister’s husband is going to an escort on the sly—a friend or mere acquaintance of yours—and taking it up the ass raw. You know the escort is HIV+. Do you tell your sister?

 

Or how about this—hypothetical again: Let’s say that your client is a member of the US Supreme Court. He casts a deciding vote stripping all queer people of citizenship. Remaining silent, you and all your queer friends and all their queer children are about to be deported to South Bumfuck Island. Sound impossible? Dream on. It’s a persistently-articulated dream of the far right.

 

I apologize if some think this issue has been “discussed and discarded”—as if it were as simple as that. And as if what was perhaps the popular position a year ago should forever remain the same. And as if there was no reason, given the news from Colorado, to re-open the debate. Something tells me there remains a lot to be thought through and articulated on this issue…

 

P.S. I have never outed a client and have no intention of doing so. But that does not mean my mind should be shut down and put on autopilot OR that it is unprofessional to contemplate the circumstances under which such a thing may be the right course of action.

[JT Brooklyn]

Mr Whip..Crack That Whip ~~~~ You are so right.

 

IF the thought even OCCURS to a Working Guy..HE shouldn't be Working It!

 

It's Time for him "To Leave The Party"..... :P

[whipped guy]

Tom… your thoughts and contemplations are simply part of human nature. You are an individual with strong beliefs… a sincere and rational individual who would never act on those thoughts in a brash manner… Still I can’t help but sensing vile and bitterness in your postings, which proves that venomous feelings have no party affiliation and are evident across the entire political spectrum. Yes, that “un-Don Quixote-like impossible dream” lives in the hearts of far right conservatives and far left liberals alike.

 

I know you feel you have a battle to fight and win, but you certainly do not need to take that fight here. Pursue your mission with ardor, fervor, and passion, but there are other “forums” where it might be better to expend your energy as you try to win the next skirmish in this ‘war’ we live in called ‘life’.

 

Peace…

 

(I never get involved in these types of politically-tinged discussions… and this may be my first and last time…)

[+ purplekow]

Gentleman, ultimately we are discussing hookers and procurers. It is usually in both parties best interest in these situations to keep the nature of the illegal relationship private. While it may be expected that personal business will stay personal, it should never be assumed.

If a man does not wish his wife to know of his being on the down low, it is probably best that he not have his guests back to his house and introduced to the family.

If a public figure wishes to remain truly private in his sexual life, it is his responsibilty to insure that he doesn't do anything to jeopardize that. That might include avoiding hiring escorts and not using illegal drugs. The more public the figure, the more discretion one should take. Mr. Hazzard didn't insure his own privacy. Mr. Jones is not bringing up a brief fling which happened decades or even years ago, before Mr. Hazzard came to the public arena, this was an ongoing thing. While it is unlikely that I will be hiring Mr. Jones anytime soon, despite a rather nice body on what appear to be somewhat dated photos, because of this, Mr. Jones ultimately found it more in his own interest to expose Mr. Hazzard. Mr. Hazzard left himself open for that, no matter the issue which triggered Mr. Jones' action; gay marriage, 15 minutes of fame, poor tipping.

In a relationship where phone callers don't use real names and exchanges are spoken in code, one shouldn't expect honesty about discretion. One can hope for it, but one should not expect it.

Does anyone remember the 90's? Monica and Bill's escapades exposed his private acts and impeachment proceedings resulted.

As long as people care what people in power do privately, the people in power best keep their noses clean or be prepared to defend their actions.

So Tom, if you want to out your political clients, for whatever reason, that is your decision. You and they should be ready to pay the consequences for that. I believe that if the stakes got high enough, most of us would cross our own line in the sand in this matter.

I am wondering how many escorts out there would have outed. Rep. Foley if they knew he was getting frisky with underage boys. I would hope that the good of speaking out would have outweighed some misguided notion of client-escort privlege.

[Guest carter07]

Tom, you asked the question, here is my opinion as someone who hires and who fathered a gay son: If you have to ask the question, you shouldn't accept appointments from people in power who can affect the lives of the gay community. There was a letter to the editor of my local paper that urged voters to vote for candidates who were against "protected civil rights for homosexuals." As a matter of personal integrity, if I were an escort I would never accept an appointment from a candidate who would vote to deny civil rights to homosexuals. But that's me, not you. We each gotta do what we gotta do, in the end.

 

An aside re the post about same-sex marriage: Marriage, as the word is commonly used, can be a religious rite or a civil ritual. No church can be required to marry anyone it doesn't want to marry, straight or gay. The civil law, however, should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. Call it civil union or something else, my son and his partner of many years are entitled to have their commitment to each other recognized in society and are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities in civil law that are granted hetero couples.

[Epigonos]

Purplekow in essence I agree with you. I taught school in an extremely conservative community in Southern California for 30+ years. If the fact that I hired escorts had become public knowledge my career, my livelihood and my retirement would all have been in jeopardy. Knowing this I was unwilling to take the risk so I did NOT hire. Once I retired the risk was eliminated. I began to hire escsorts almost immediately. Yes public exposure of my hiring might be embarrassing today but it would not be dissastrous -- I can live with that. I sincerely believe that we must always behave in private in a way that we can stand having made public. If we cannot stand that possibility then we had better behave differently. Yet knowing this still does not in my opinion excuse Mike Jones' exposure of his relationship with Ted Haggard. He violated a confidence. Now if Ted Haggard couldn't stand being exposed he should have behaved differently.

[JT Brooklyn]

"Hooker's and Procurer's"...

 

I guess that about sums it up!

 

It's Sat Nite..So let's ALL go and do some "Hookin & Procurin"! LOL :P

[Louis]

"Hooker's and Procurer's"...

I thought I was paying people for their time...and what ever happend during that time was at mine and the escort's discretion:-) at least that's what I have been told:-)

Louis

[Samai139]

I don't believe there is a federal law outlawing polygamy or polyandry, is there? If there is not, then individual states must have passed such laws. Has there ever been a case brought to the US Supreme Court challenging those laws?

I've lived in countries where polygamy is practiced, mainly by Muslims and animists, and fail to understand why the United States of America should legally bar those practices, by members of any religion.

P.S. I don't mean to hijack this thread from it's original intent, so forgive me in advance, or perhaps the webmaster will transfer it.

[Epigonos]

Utah was denied entrance into the Union until it outlawed polygamy. There is currently a case about to be tried in Arizona, I think, in which the head of a excommunicated sect of the Mormon Church is accused of polygamy as well as several other crimes involving the women he forced into marriage.