Should Escorting be legalized?

[foxy]

What are the pros and cons for an escort?

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Yes

 

It provides recourse to both the client and the escort in their dealings for what should be an business relationship.

 

It would also make it possible for escorts AND porn actors to unionize or otherwise negotiate for benefits, including residuals (for models and actors) and more important for health insurance, retirement, etc.

[Guest LG320126]

RE: Yes

 

>It provides recourse to both the client and the escort in

>their dealings for what should be an business relationship.

>

>It would also make it possible for escorts AND porn actors

>to unionize or otherwise negotiate for benefits, including

>residuals (for models and actors) and more important for

>health insurance, retirement, etc.

 

 

You are like a Thanksgiving turkey going around gobbling(babbling) incessantly! Give it a rest Franco.

[+ deej]

RE: Yes

 

Some of us actually enjoy Franco's CONTRIBUTIONS here.

 

Your dogged pursuit of late doesn't exactly fall into the contribution category. More like stalking.

[Guest bottomboykk]

RE: Yes

 

I agree with deej. Give it a rest, LG320126! x(

[Guest regulation]

RE: Yes

 

>Your dogged pursuit of late doesn't exactly fall into the

>contribution category. More like stalking.

 

Some of us actually enjoy LG3's CONTRIBUTIONS here.

 

I think it likely that legalization would mean a decrease in escort prices. Illegality constitutes a significant barrier to competition since it discourages new entrants into the market and also limits the channels by which buyers and sellers can communicate. Removing that barrier would probably mean more information and more choices for buyers, which would put downward pressure on prices.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

CONTRIBUTIONS

 

>>Your dogged pursuit of late doesn't exactly fall into the

>>contribution category. More like stalking.

>

>Some of us actually enjoy LG3's CONTRIBUTIONS here.

 

Thank you, Reg, for mostly responding to the original post and contributing to the thread; when you have done so, as shocking as you might find this, I have enjoyed your contributions. When you have simply attacked (as when you or others have simply been attacked), I have always found that distasteful. Since you like to go back to the old threads, I am certain that you must be aware of an instance where someone attacked you and I defended you?

 

Now, let's get back on point.

 

It may lead to lower prices. It may lead to higher prices. On the other hand, it might also force escorts who are not good companions to get out of the business and it might force clients to be limited in their choices. This would, as a market economy has shown us, lead to higher prices over all.

 

Cable television has not necessarily provided us with better television, just more choices. Networks may not make as much money but they are still powerful entities with wide reach. The producers, writers and other talent of highly rated shows are making more money than ever. If Lucille Ball and Milton Berle could command the equivilent of what Courtney Cox and Drew Carey make today, they would have been far richer people.

 

I am not for higher prices for escorts. I am for legalization because it would provide BOTH the client and the escort the opportunity to more legitimately transact in a professional and businesslike fashion - THE POSITION I HAVE ALWAYS FAVORED.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>What are the pros and cons for an escort?

 

Are there any cons which don't embrace the Moral Majority Agenda and that also don't apply equally to consensual sex between adults on a nonfinancial basis (which one would think also contrary to the MM Agenda but less so it seems)???

 

 

Caveat -- I am distinguishing between street hustlers and 'escorts' which I interpret as 'prostitutes' available over the internet, print ads, or yellow pages i.e. behind closed doors or advertised only in venues where such services are actively sought out.

[+ deej]

RE: Yes

 

>Some of us actually enjoy LG3's CONTRIBUTIONS here.

 

So in other words you are in favor of actively discouraging participants who wish to contribute to discussions, and you support those who only wish to stifle input and participation?

 

Thanks for clearing THAT up, Reg. I had no idea you were such a supporter of censorship.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Yes

 

>>Some of us actually enjoy LG3's CONTRIBUTIONS here.

>

>So in other words you are in favor of actively discouraging

>participants who wish to contribute to discussions, and you

>support those who only wish to stifle input and

>participation?

>

>Thanks for clearing THAT up, Reg. I had no idea you were

>such a supporter of censorship.

 

 

Try not to be such a hypocrite, deej. LG3 stated his opinion about Franco's posts, which is perfectly legitimate under the "message center rules" that you are always exhorting everyone to follow. You then did exactly the same thing -- you stated your opinion about LG3's posts. Now you tell us that it's okay when you do it, but when LG3 does it he's trying to "stifle input and participation." Sheer hypocrisy.

[Guest aarongreyLa]

I think that escorts should be given some type of legal immunity. I do not know if it will ever be legalized totally. I should but I do not know when or how. I just know that we are being punished for providing one of the oldest professional services. There is no victim involved. The result is positive on both sides. I think it is wrong to make some one pay when there is no victim involved. I think that deep down inside people know that we are better than that. Americans know right from wrong. Penalizing sex workers based on acts between consenting adults where there is no victim is wrong.

Aaron Grey

http://www.aarongreycalifornia.com

aaron@aarongreycalifornia.com

[Guest regulation]

RE: CONTRIBUTIONS

 

>Thank you, Reg, for mostly responding to the original

>post and contributing to the thread; when you have

>done so, as shocking as you might find this, I have enjoyed

>your contributions. When you have simply attacked

>(as when you or others have simply been attacked), I have

>always found that distasteful. Since you like to go back to

>the old threads, I am certain that you must be aware of an

>instance where someone attacked you and I defended you?

 

 

I am aware of several occasions on which you have attacked me and others in exactly the manner you have lately complained about. For some strange reason you did not seem to find that behavior distasteful when you were the one engaging in it. You have no business criticizing others for doing the exact same thing you have done. You can count on me to remind you of that every time you presume to lecture others for failing to uphold standards that you yourself have not upheld. There may be members of this site who are in a position to complain about personal attacks. You are definitely not one of them.

 

>

>It may lead to lower prices. It may lead to higher prices.

>On the other hand, it might also force escorts who are not

>good companions to get out of the business and it might

>force clients to be limited in their choices. This would,

>as a market economy has shown us, lead to higher prices over

>all.

 

The above aren't arguments, they are merely a series of conclusory statements with no reasoning to back them up.

 

>Cable television has not necessarily provided us with better

>television, just more choices.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

>I am not for higher prices for escorts. I am for

>legalization because it would provide BOTH the client

>and the escort the opportunity to more legitimately transact

>in a professional and businesslike fashion -

 

They have that opportunity right now. There is nothing about the current situation that compels escorts to lie about their personal attributes in their ads, for example. What you seem to be saying, on the other hand, is that introducing into the business of prostitution the same legal standards and sanctions that apply to legitimate businesses would compel both sides to behave in a fashion similar to that of legitimate businesses. So, for example, the escort who lies in his ad would be reported to the FTC. Perhaps.

[MiamiLooker]

RE: Yes

 

>It would also make it possible for escorts AND porn actors

>to unionize or otherwise negotiate for benefits, including

>residuals (for models and actors) and more important for

>health insurance, retirement, etc.

 

 

Since porn actors aren't considered prostitutes in the legal sense, what prevents them from unionizing/negotiating benefits now?

[Guest regulation]

RE: Yes

 

>Since porn actors aren't considered prostitutes in the legal

>sense, what prevents them from unionizing/negotiating

>benefits now?

 

Good question.

[Guest LG320126]

RE: Yes

 

>Some of us actually enjoy Franco's CONTRIBUTIONS here.

>

>Your dogged pursuit of late doesn't exactly fall into the

>contribution category. More like stalking.

 

Deej, sorry you feel that way and yet I guess we can agree to disagree. As far as me stalking Franco, he's not my type so no chance of that. I am not making personal attacks on the man, just commenting on the fact that IMO, his posts are more for the sake of making his presence known here than it is for constructively contributing.

 

The topic of the thread concerns the pros and cons of legalizing escorting. Nowhere does it refer to porn stars and as far as him having insurance and retirement plans, he can have that anytime he wants to - nothing to do with legalizing escorting. This is the point I have been trying to make of late: to me the man's posts, for the most part are pure mumble jumble and I feel he is doing nothing but promoting his presence here. I have not, and will not make any personal attacks on Franco as I don't know him and for all I do know he is a great guy - just don't appreciate his constant babbling is all, plain and simple.

[+ deej]

RE: Yes

 

OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Franco's original post on this thread attempted to add to the discussion. Your original post did not. You are simply dogging Franco, in several threads. Not a very welcoming or contributing attitude, eh?

 

There is much crossover between the worlds of porn and escorting so it is legitimate to bring porn into the discussion.

[+ deej]

RE: Yes

 

>Since porn actors aren't considered prostitutes in the legal

>sense, what prevents them from unionizing/negotiating

>benefits now?

 

For starters, they are not generally employees of the studio. They are independent contractors. (Although I wonder how the IRS would view a "Falcon Exclusive".) Independent contractors generally are not provided benefits in ANY profession. They purchase their own medical coverage, life insurance, etc. They are not in a position to negotiate anything because there is no employer to negotiate with.

 

And, skanky as it sounds, the studios simply wouldn't put up with it. There's always someone younger, prettier, or who can take more up his ass or down his throat coming along who will work for peanuts. The studios know it and so do the performers.

 

The guys would end up with a nice union card but no work.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Yes

 

>>Since porn actors aren't considered prostitutes in the legal

>>sense, what prevents them from unionizing/negotiating

>>benefits now?

>

>For starters, they are not generally employees of the

>studio. They are independent contractors. (Although I wonder

>how the IRS would view a "Falcon Exclusive".) Independent

>contractors generally are not provided benefits in ANY

>profession. They purchase their own medical coverage, life

>insurance, etc. They are not in a position to negotiate

>anything because there is no employer to negotiate with.

 

 

The facts you state in no way distinguish porn actors from actors who work in mainstream films. Those actors are members of a union -- either SAG or AFTRA -- and any producer who wishes to contract for their services in a film must sign a contract with them that meets the minimum standards contained in the master union agreement.

 

>And, skanky as it sounds, the studios simply wouldn't put up

>with it. There's always someone younger, prettier, or who

>can take more up his ass or down his throat coming along who

>will work for peanuts. The studios know it and so do the

>performers.

>

>The guys would end up with a nice union card but no work.

 

If porn actors had the same quality of leadership and solidarity as mainstream actors I suppose they could accomplish the same thing -- in other words, they could organize and compel all major film producers and distributors to sign a legally enforceable union agreement providing minimum standards for any contract with such an actor. The major film studios have never been able to break the artists unions they deal with. A number of the films you are seeing this summer -- including the next Tom Cruise / Steven Spielberg film "Minority Report" -- were rushed into production last year due to the threat of strikes by both the writers and the actors unions. The studios knew quite well that if the strikes materialized no major artist would cross the picket line and they would be left with little or no new product for this summer.

[+ deej]

RE: Yes

 

>If porn actors had the same quality of leadership and

>solidarity as mainstream actors I suppose they could

>accomplish the same thing

 

Perhaps. I don't see it happening in a business where a major career spans all of 5 years, and most are far shorter. Porn actors are expendable and the smart ones know it. No union will change that.

 

And by the way, many of them already have SAG cards. They're just not getting work, which is why they're doing porn in the first place.

 

It's a little absurd to compare Tom Cruise to (f'rinstance) Tom Chase. ;-)

[Guest regulation]

RE: Yes

 

>Perhaps. I don't see it happening in a business where a

>major career spans all of 5 years, and most are far shorter.

>Porn actors are expendable and the smart ones know it. No

>union will change that.

 

Let's not change the subject. The subject is organizing so that porn actors could obtain the kind of benefits that Franco spoke of. Neither he nor I nor anyone else claimed that unionizing would guarantee anyone a lengthy career. Many mainstream actors have careers that are shorter than five years. That doesn't mean they can't enjoy the benefits of a union while they are working. A union can't force any producer to hire one union actor for a part rather than another union actor, but it can force the producer to adhere to certain minimum standards in its contract with any actor it does hire.

 

 

>And by the way, many of them already have SAG cards. They're

>just not getting work, which is why they're doing porn in

>the first place.

 

 

So why doesn't SAG organize the major producer / distributors in the porn industry?

 

>It's a little absurd to compare Tom Cruise to (f'rinstance)

>Tom Chase. ;-)

 

You will find no such comparison in any post of mine. I mentioned a little something about the history of the upcoming Tom Cruise film to show the power that film industry unions can wield.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

ferklempt

 

yawnstretchyaddayaddayadda

[Guest regulation]

RE: ferklempt

 

>yawnstretchyaddayaddayadda

 

Translation: "I'm not capable of posting a mature and intelligent response to what you said, so I'll post a mindless insult instead."

[Donnie]

RE: Yes

 

>I think it likely that legalization would mean a decrease in

>escort prices.

 

And why the fuck does that matter to you, regulation, someone who never ever hires escorts?

[Guest regulation]

RE: Yes

 

>And why the fuck does that matter to you, regulation,

>someone who never ever hires escorts?

 

Donnie, you know nothing about my hiring practices and you never will. Why would I want to share such information with a creature like you?

[BgMstr4u]

In fact, there is a place where male escorting is legalized, and which shows an interesting history -- the Netherlands.

 

I am not sure what year the legalization occurred. But the market curve of the business there is not especially positive. At first there were several Houses of Boys with pretty good quality. I certainly enjoyed several of them on my trip there in 1995. There were at least three, and some less formal establishments as well, with a wide variety of lads, some of them actually appearing to be older than 20 (those crazy Europeans DO love their lads young). I am under the impression that the HoB phenomenon is not nearly what it was. Several reports back from the Amsterdam front recently have discussed a much less interesting scene.

 

At the same time the internet has become the locus of choice for lads of the evening, and the quality of those folks has increased.

 

Seven years ago the going rate in the HoBs was 200 NFl. My recollection is that this worked out to about $120 US. A fast survey of the Amsterdam Escorts on this site puts them in the 200-300 NFl range, or between 100-130 Euros. In fact, this seems quite stable as prices go -- not much more than 200NFl in many cases.

 

Conclusions? The brothels aren't doing as well under the cyberescort and legalization regime, and prices have risen a bit, but actually not all that much.