Should Escorting be legalized?

[Bilbo]

RE: ferklempt

 

And now I'M agreeing with Reggie!! Woh!

 

(Sorry, Reg, couldn't let it go past this old actor. In a lot of ways, children's theater is like vaudeville. )

[ad rian]

>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.

 

I think the main advantage of legalization is that one does not face the prospect of being ripped off by on-line Hustlers and scam artists like David on Rentboy. I guess I am not ure why anybody would prefer a brothel to cyberscorting so I am not surprised that even in Amsterdam the brothels are declining. I must say though that I have been pleasantly surprised by the cyberscorting regimes that I have found over here so for now at least legalization dos not appear to be crucial apart from the scam issue noted above.

[+ deej]

>I think the main advantage of legalization is that one does

>not face the prospect of being ripped off by on-line

>Hustlers and scam artists

 

How so?

 

In other "legal" professions, there are plenty of online ripoffs. I get several dozen SPAM e-mails daily offering everything from "magical" weight loss to get rich quick schemes. They are nothing but legal scams intended to take money out of my pocket.

 

If anything, you'd be MORE likely to encounter scam artists because the guys who hesitate now for fear of walking into a law enforcement sting wouldn't be so hesitant. :-(

 

And it's not restricted to online enterprises either. Ralph Nader has built an empire around exposing scams. And perhaps you've heard of Enron and Arthur Andersen? The only reason they're being prosecuted is they got caught. If the company hadn't collapsed, they would have gotten away with it.

 

PT Barnum was right: there's a sucker born every minute. Legal or not, you'll always need a good bullshit meter when hiring an escort. Decriminalizing it won't automatically make every practitioner a model of respectability.

[ad rian]

>If anything, you'd be MORE likely to encounter scam artists

>because the guys who hesitate now for fear of walking into a

>law enforcement sting wouldn't be so hesitant. :-(

 

I don't agree. In Holland if someone tries to scam you, you call the police and they take care of the problem. I think that sanction is a greater deterent to scam artists.

 

>Decriminalizing it won't automatically

>make every practitioner a model of respectability.

 

That's for sure, but it is a quetion of incentives. A regulated open legal economic activity to me is more likely to bring about the desired conduct.

[+ deej]

>I don't agree. In Holland if someone tries to scam you, you

>call the police and they take care of the problem. I think

>that sanction is a greater deterent to scam artists.

 

OK, that isn't just decriminalizing. You're talking about regulating as well.

 

I'm sorry but I just don't trust the US Government with what they've got on their plate NOW, much less giving them access to the goings on in my bedroom. We're talking about a government that recently spent $8,000 to put curtains up to cover bare tits on a statue in the Justice building.

 

Do you really want them passing laws about having sex?

 

Don't go there.

[ad rian]

>>I don't agree. In Holland if someone tries to scam you, you

>>call the police and they take care of the problem. I think

>>that sanction is a greater deterent to scam artists.

>

>OK, that isn't just decriminalizing. You're talking about

>regulating as well.

>

 

In a legalized or decriminalized context (it does not matter much for my argument), the only regulation I advocate is regular public health checks of escorts. If we can check elevators regularly, what is the big deal here? Apart from that, acts of fraud would be dealt with appropriately by the criminal law and law enforcement. I fail to see that a regulatory leap unless you see criminal law as "regulation". Interesting, but not a widely held view I suspect. The bottom line is that the escort would not be prima facie a criminal, only the scam artists would be.

[+ deej]

>In a legalized or decriminalized context (it does not matter

>much for my argument), the only regulation I advocate is

>regular public health checks of escorts. If we can check

>elevators regularly, what is the big deal here? Apart from

>that, acts of fraud would be dealt with appropriately by the

>criminal law and law enforcement. I fail to see that a

>regulatory leap unless you see criminal law as "regulation".

 

Where's Reg when we need him?

 

You're meandering all over here. Decriminalizing is one thing. That means you can't be arrested for it.

 

Mandated testing is regulation. That requires legislation.

 

Now, what do you intend to call law enforcement about if you're scammed?

 

You might have a breach of contract suit, but you don't call the police for breach of contract. SOMEWHERE there will have to be a law that is broken if you intend to call the police. Somebody has to write that law, and it needs to pass committees and vote barters and get passed.

 

There will be NO law enforcement unless there is a law to enforce.

 

I don't know what you're smoking, dude, but I sure wish I had some right now.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

RE: Yes

 

Deej,

 

I learned that the first day I read the postings here, argue and attack for the sake of arguing and attacking, makes the long drawn out days of sitting in front of the screen go a bit faster for some of these individuals

[Matt_Vancouver]

In Canada, it is legal to be an escort, in fact the provices of Alberta and British Columbia (not sure about the others) have a government issued 'escort liscense'. (this is not common knowledge, most people I speak with, had no idea this was the case)

In order to obtain a liscense, the applicant must first pass a police security clearance, be affiliated with a liscensed escort agency, pay a liscensing fee(every 6 months) and sign a contract aggreeing to follow the by-laws set forth by the provincial government.

It can be a long and costly process, which deters alot of the people who are interested. And unfortunatly the 'legalization' doesn't solve the problems that it originally intended to solve. IE. Safety for both client and escort, eliminating street trade(which will always be there, no matter what) and security for the escort, which is provided by the agency(in my experience, the agencies are typically run by either slimeballs, or drug dealers, and in Alberta the majority of them have been charged at some point for breaking the law)

Technically I'm working illegally. I am not working for an agency, and I'm not liscensed. But if I were for some reason arrested, I would not be charged. I'm familiar with the laws in my area, and any charges would probably be thrown out. In another country? Hard to say, but I would assume as long as certain things are not openly 'discussed' it's not an issue.

There are pro's and cons to legalization, unfortunatly finding a way to do it, that is of benefit to everyone involved, is proving difficult(at least here)

Matt(living on the edge of the law: )(badass)

[ad rian]

>Where's Reg when we need him?

 

He is not the only lawyer here, my friend.

>

>You're meandering all over here. Decriminalizing is one

>thing. That means you can't be arrested for it.

 

Yes, but it does not affect my argument in this case. No meandering on my part.

 

>Mandated testing is regulation. That requires legislation.

 

Yes, I said that.

 

>Now, what do you intend to call law enforcement about if

>you're scammed?

>

>You might have a breach of contract suit, but you don't call

>the police for breach of contract. SOMEWHERE there will have

>to be a law that is broken if you intend to call the police.

>Somebody has to write that law, and it needs to pass

>committees and vote barters and get passed.

>

The law to enforce would be ordinary theft. You don't need a special law. There is no special law in Holland. Do you think there is an individual law that makes it illegal to steal or defraud that is differentiated for each and every product or service. You need to go to a law school that is acredited, my friend.

 

So to be clear, I advocate limited health care regulation, and decriminalizatin or legalization that would permit the ordinary criminal law to deal with fraudulent or abusive escorts. Of course, as theft of service is also a crminal offense in most places, escorts would also be protected. QED.

[+ deej]

OK, now I understand where you were going. It sounded like you were advocating something specifically enacted for the purpose.

 

Thanks!

[Guest regulation]

>>In a legalized or decriminalized context (it does not matter

>>much for my argument), the only regulation I advocate is

>>regular public health checks of escorts. If we can check

>>elevators regularly, what is the big deal here? Apart from

>>that, acts of fraud would be dealt with appropriately by the

>>criminal law and law enforcement. I fail to see that a

>>regulatory leap unless you see criminal law as "regulation".

 

I'll address the above paragraph in a moment.

 

>Where's Reg when we need him?

 

I just can't win around here. First some hooker from New York accuses me of ignoring everything else I could be doing and spending all my time here. Then, when I'm away for a day or two, I'm told I am not here when needed. Good grief! :-)

 

>Now, what do you intend to call law enforcement about if

>you're scammed?

>

>You might have a breach of contract suit, but you don't call

>the police for breach of contract. SOMEWHERE there will have

>to be a law that is broken if you intend to call the police.

>Somebody has to write that law, and it needs to pass

>committees and vote barters and get passed.

 

Let's not confuse criminal law with civil law. The fact that prostitution is a crime means that a contract to commit prostitution cannot be enforced by a civil action. It does not mean that what Anthony Holloway does, for example, is not a crime. If AH offers his services as a prostitute in order to get people to give him money up front and then refuses to provide the services he promised, that's still fraud even though had he kept his promise he and the client would have been committing a crime. His victims could file a criminal complaint now if they cared to. Most clients in that position wouldn't care to do so because it would mean admitting their own unlawful behavior.

 

I know many of the gay and gay-friendly people in politics. I don't think there is much chance that prostitution will be legalized, and if there is any move in that direction it will come from straight politicians rather than gays. The last thing gay leaders want is to focus on an issue that associates gays in the minds of the public with prostitution, pornography and promiscuity. That is not what is needed at a time when gay voters want to see progress on issues like marriage and adoption.

 

I don't think there is any chance at all that prostitution will be legalized without the enactment of a regulatory regime that is designed to deal with the issues behind the present ban, just as has usually been the case with legal gambling. Screening escorts for STDs would be part of that regime, and there would be other issues as well. And just as has been the case with gambling, there would continue to be people (like Matt) who don't want to comply with that regime and would try to function outside it. Many escorts are HIV+; if STD testing is required for legal escorting, do you think they will simply stop doing it? Escorts are not like elevators.

[Bilbo]

Why accept a health card requirement?

 

I agree that decriminalization will be a long time coming, as recognizing gay marriages and allowing gay servicemen and allowing gay surviving spouses to receive military spouse's survivor benefits, as well as maybe a few other gay priorities will and should come first. Since I think that they will be coming right along within the next quarter of a century, perhaps we should start now with building up the grass roots support for decriminalizing escorting so that we can pull right out into traffic when it is our turn.

 

However, why does it seem that the consensus here seem to think that it is only sensible that such legislation should require a health certificate? I can think of several other professions where the practitioner's health could affect mine - flebotomist, doctor, nurse, dental assistant, dentist, cheff, fry cook, fast food grill person - where to the best of my present knowledge such health certificates are not required. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I may have been ignoring things posted on walls.) If a flebotomist causes me to become ill, I can (I think) sue for malpractice? And wouldn't decriminalizing prostitution put an escort who was guilty of malpractice (unsafe sex) in the same, sueable position?

 

And this Canadian law that people who are in a profession which is normally done by both independents and corporate workers would all have to be working for someone else ... Where is the respect and the freedom in that?

 

I know that gay marriage seems to have to go through a period of second class citizinship to get where it belongs. But surely that is being brought about by people who don't want to be in gay marriages, not by people who would seem to have a positive interest in the subject. Why should our proponents be considering forcing the same kind of thing on us?

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

Why should our

>proponents be considering forcing the same kind of thing on

>us?

 

The reason is simple: a somewhat greater risk against infection. Why would any freedom-loving person oppose that. To me, the essence of a liberaterian view on these matters is voluntary assumption of risk. But the assumption can't be voluntary unless the HIV status is disclosed, and the proponents are prepared to accept regulation to that limited extent. And given the reticence of some on these threads for escorts to voluntarilly disclose their status, I think here we have a market failure that justifies that limited regulation.

[+ deej]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>The reason is simple: a somewhat greater risk against

>infection.

 

Give it a rest, babe. You're playing a broken record.

 

Your chances of infection from having sex with an HIV+ partner who has good medical care and a low viral load are probably lower than a guy who recently tested negative but then sero-converted and has a viral load through the roof although it's undetected so far.

 

But that's the permission slip you want to have. Go for it!

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>>The reason is simple: a somewhat greater risk against

>>infection.

>

>Give it a rest, babe. You're playing a broken record.

>

I take it your record is not broken?

>

>But that's the permission slip you want to have. Go for it!

 

Why do you want to dictate the choices of others? Why are you against full disclosure, and allowing individuals to make informed choices? On the one hand, you argue against regulation, but on the other you want to dictate your choices to others. Curious logic!

[+ deej]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>Why do you want to dictate the choices of others? Why are

>you against full disclosure, and allowing individuals to

>make informed choices?

 

I am not against it and have never said that I am. I simply see no point in it.

 

I think your "rose colored glasses" view of the world is inappropriate incorrect and, frankly, dangerous for anyone adopting it.

 

You are entitled to your point of view, and I've said as much to you. Why am I not entitled to my point of view?

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>I think your "rose colored glasses" view of the world is

>inappropriate incorrect and, frankly, dangerous for anyone

>adopting it.

 

Well, as has been explained in another thread by others, there is a cetain rose in your color to your spectacles too, so much so that you seem completely blinded to elementary mathematics, logic and statistics!

>

>You are entitled to your point of view, and I've said as

>much to you. Why am I not entitled to my point of view?

 

You are entitled to your view, but in my world of legalization with regular health tests, you would be free to ignore the aditional information. In your world of legalization and no regular health tests, I would be denied the information that I think helpful to make informed choices. That's what makes me a freedom fighter and you a petty dictator!

[+ deej]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>You are entitled to your view, but in my world of

>legalization with regular health tests, you would be free to

>ignore the aditional information. In your world of

>legalization and no regular health tests, I would be denied

>the information that I think helpful to make informed

>choices. That's what makes me a freedom fighter and you a

>petty dictator!

 

Where, please tell me you pompous prick, where did I say that health tests wouldn't/shouldn't happen. Where did I say they shouldn't be required? Where did I try to prevent having them done?

 

Where?

 

I said they don't matter all that much. That's a VERY different thing.

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>I find it laughable that guys won't hire a HIV+ escort who

>probably has good medical care and a low viral load, but

>will happily bump pussy with a "negative" escort who may

>have sero-converted yesterday and has an undetected viral

>load through the roof.

>

If he sero-converted yesterday, chances are he would not have a viral load through the roof today.

 

But I give up, I am just happy that 2 threads later and many posts on each you have joined the camp of legalization and disclosure. The advantage of disclosure for you is that if you believe that crap you are saying you would be better able to identify anf purchase your preferred HIV+ escorts with their superior health care and low viral loads. As Jeff points out, you will have all you can choose from which should give you the added benefit of decreased costs (except for your own health care) because the rest of us will indeed likely make an informed choice and turn away!

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>I'm opposed to the assumption that someone who last tested

>negative for *anything* is still negative. That seems to be

>the default assumption here, otherwise there would be no

>differentiation between hiring a HIV+ escort vs. a "assumed

>to be" neg escort.

>

And I forgot to add for the umpteenth time that the assumption is yours not ours. All the proponents are arguing is that the risks are likely to be lower all other things being equal. You are the only one who seems to assume that we are arguing that if the risks are less than 100% they must be 0. All we are saying is that each person should make an informed choice and weigh that risk against the risks of having sex with someone who is definitively known to be HIV+ all other things being equal (e.g. safe sex in both cases).

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>Where, please tell me you pompous prick, where did I say

>that health tests wouldn't/shouldn't happen. Where did I say

>they shouldn't be required? Where did I try to prevent

>having them done?

 

Post 27, 29 and 31.

 

>I said they don't matter all that much. That's a VERY

>different thing.

 

It also looks like the debate on the other thread has convinced you. Several of us tried hard to get you to agree to that. Glad to have you on board you not so very pompous prick!

[Bilbo]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

I believe that I am the main proponent of the moment, though not as often posting a one, of not having a health card requirement, and I will remain one, I think, as long as the card is not required for other professions.

 

Ad rian, what you are asking for is an invasion of privacy, and one that is not effective because the escort's HIV status could change much faster than the card is likely to be required to be renewed, and one that is basically unneccesary if you are practicing safe sex. (Yes, I did skip that other thread, since I have seen so many others here that it looked like. Are there any new arguments on it?)

 

Is what you are looking for a permit to practice unsafe sex? Are you suggesting that the clients should be required to show the escort a health card as well? If not, and if you find an escort suicidal enough to play along with five, sometimes more, gentlemen such as yourself each week, just how long do you expect him to be HVI negative?

 

One of the best tenets of safe sex is to assume that everyone, including yourself, has the disease, whether they do or not. So, if you would like to look at the wall and pretend that there is a health certificate there boldly proclaiming that this escort (whichever one you are with) is HIV positive, please do so. It will help all of us live longer.

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>I believe that I am the main proponent of the moment, though

>not as often posting a one, of not having a health card

>requirement, and I will remain one, I think, as long as the

>card is not required for other professions.

 

I have already stated that I believe doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, stock brokers, elevator inspectors and even accountants etc.are under some form of prudential regulation, however imperfect that may be at any given time or place, therefore in a world of legalized escorts, I think health care "audits" are a necessary and reasonable corollary. If that regulation could be done by a self-regulatory organization under state mandate than that's fine too.

 

>Ad rian, what you are asking for is an invasion of privacy,

 

It is no more an invasion of privacy than asking a lawyer or docor disclose details about his or her professional qualifications, and take continuing education courses.

 

>and one that is not effective because the escort's HIV

>status could change much faster than the card is likely to

>be required to be renewed, and one that is basically

>unneccesary if you are practicing safe sex. (

 

Nobody said it would be perfect. No regulation is, but nor is the current world of deception and lack of information about the escort's status.

 

>Is what you are looking for a permit to practice unsafe

>sex?

 

No, as I have written here and on the other thread as have others, the argument proceds from a view that all other things being equal practicing the same safe sex practices with an HIV+ escort is more risky than with one who is not. How much less risky will vary according to the people and practices, but it is clearly less risky a priori. That is not to say that either activity is or will ever be risk free, but that a client has a right to make an informed choice.

 

Are you suggesting that the clients should be

>required to show the escort a health card as well?

 

I think a client should be honest, but I would not impose a regulation on him just as we do not for clients of lawyers, doctors etc.

 

>If not,

>and if you find an escort suicidal enough to play along with

>five, sometimes more, gentlemen such as yourself each week,

>just how long do you expect him to be HVI negative?

 

Again, you and others are misreading our argument to be an excuse to practice safe sex. Nobody has argued that on either thread.

 

>One of the best tenets of safe sex is to assume that

>everyone, including yourself, has the disease, whether they

>do or not.

 

Yes, but assuming that eveyone has it, is still a different proposition from sleeping with someone who knowingly has it. That is a risk that I an d others choose not to accept. Why does that bother you so much? Why are you not willing to respect that choice? Is yours a business decision, or something else. If something else, what is it?

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>>I believe that I am the main proponent of the moment, though

>>not as often posting a one, of not having a health card

>>requirement, and I will remain one, I think, as long as the

>>card is not required for other professions.

 

The practice of law, medicine or dentistry does not normally involve a transfer of bodily fluids from the practitioner to the client. The practice of prostitution often does. How many reviews have I seen on this site in which the client complains that the escort didn't ejaculate or get an erection? Quite a few, so that seems to be an important element of the transaction for many. If there is a terminal illness that can be transmitted by a transfer of bodily fluids, people in a profession in which that is a normal occurrence certainly present more of a risk to public health than others.

 

 

>>Ad rian, what you are asking for is an invasion of privacy,

>

>It is no more an invasion of privacy than asking a lawyer or

>docor disclose details about his or her professional

>qualifications, and take continuing education courses.

 

To suggest it's an invasion of privacy to disclose whether or not you are infected with a terminal and contagious illness when you are applying for a license to do work that creates a risk of transmission of that illness is very silly, Bilbo. You have often railed against the failure of our society to spend more on AIDS research. Can it be true that our society has an important interest in finding a cure for AIDS, but no interest in preventing its transmission? I hardly think so.

 

>>and one that is not effective because the escort's HIV

>>status could change much faster than the card is likely to

>>be required to be renewed, and one that is basically

>>unneccesary if you are practicing safe sex. (

>

>Nobody said it would be perfect. No regulation is, but nor

>is the current world of deception and lack of information

>about the escort's status.

 

 

Good point, ad. There is simply no way to argue that consumers are NOT better off having more information about the risks of the goods and services offered to them. The only people who have an interest in concealing such information are people who hope to make money by concealing from consumers the facts about what they are offering.

 

 

>No, as I have written here and on the other thread as have

>others, the argument proceds from a view that all other

>things being equal practicing the same safe sex practices

>with an HIV+ escort is more risky than with one who is not.

>How much less risky will vary according to the people and

>practices, but it is clearly less risky a priori. That is

>not to say that either activity is or will ever be risk

>free, but that a client has a right to make an informed

>choice.

 

 

I really don't see how anyone can disagree with the above.