Prostitution ? What about cops ?

[Bilbo]

In fact, that is the way that it happened to me here in Houston. There was no money exchanged, nor did I actually say that I would have sex for money. When we got together the entrapper first asked me if we could just have oral sex as he just wasn't ready for anal. Then he checked with me on the amount of money. Maybe he followed that up with a clarifying question that combined the two, but I don't really remember.

[CT Dick]

Ouch, sorry to hear it, Bilbo.

[Guest Mark]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-01 AT 11:52PM (EST)[p]Yep, I too, was arrested and convicted for prostitution in Richfield, Minnesota (suburban Minneapolis) in April of '98. I never accepted money in my hands. But all it took was my agreeing to do something sexual for a specific amount of money. It was a terrible experience, but enough time has passed that I can now say "Oh well--who ever said life was fair?" Still, I think I'm probably one of the happiest sex workers around.

[Guest Traveler]

>I am not a lawyer so

>this is not sound advice:

>

>

>I don't think that there actually

>has to be an exchange

>of money for the cops

>to make a bust.

>

>I have heard/read about busts where

>the cop said something like

>"You're gunna let me fuck

>you for $150, right?" and

>then when the escort agreed

>he got busted.

 

I must say a statement like "You're gonna let me fuck you for $150, right?" would set up every warning light! By the same token, I would walk out if an escort said to me "So you want to fuck me for $150, right?". I don't know if there are any experts on the subject here, and I suppose it depends on the jurisdiction, but wouldn't it be safe to say "How much to you charge for an hour?" and later "Do you like to top?" or "Are you a good kisser?". I think if the guy responded by "So you want to top me for $150", you could assume it's a cop.

[Guest Traveler]

>>Questions

>>Stefan: Well, if you are in

>>retirement and only seeing certain

>>people, why do you always

>>post your contact information?

>>And Regulation, if you are so

>>anti-prostitution, what the hell you

>>doing here?

>

>

>Would you mind reproducing on this

>board any post of mine

>in which I stated that

>I am opposed to prostitution?

>

 

Your previous comment about "Well, you could just obey the law" seems to make it pretty obvious. You were basically telling him he shouldn't be doing it.

[Justice]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-01 AT 07:14AM (EST)[p]n/t sorry about the duplicate post.

[Justice]

>I don't know if there

>are any experts on the

>subject here, and I suppose

>it depends on the jurisdiction,

>but wouldn't it be safe

>to say "How much to

>you charge for an hour?"

>and later "Do you like

>to top?" or "Are you

>a good kisser?". I

>think if the guy responded

>by "So you want to

>top me for $150", you

>could assume it's a cop.

 

I think that the only safe way to operate is have to separate discussions: one about the rate and one about what you would like to do together.

[Guest regulation]

>Your previous comment about "Well, you

>could just obey the law"

>seems to make it pretty

>obvious. You were basically

>telling him he shouldn't be

>doing it.

 

 

"Obvious" only to those who have trouble undertanding English. I said nothing more than that someone who is worried about being arrested for committing a crime always has the option of obeying the law instead. That seems to me the simplest and easiest way of dealing with the problem he raised.

[Guest regulation]

>You're so pragmatic. Is the status

>quo that comfortable for you?

>

>

 

All of the comments on this board about prostitution are pragmatic. I can't take seriously comments from people who benefit from prostitution about the principles behind prosecuting "victimless" crimes, any more than I can take seriously comments from people who want to profit by doing business with Iraq about the morality of economic sanctions. It's clear their comments are self-serving and have nothing to do with principle.

 

>

>Does your vocabulary have a definition

>for victimless crime?

 

No, it doesn't.

[Bilbo]

May I strongly suggest a good read? I'm only halfway through it myself, but I find it very factual and fascinating. It is "The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing The World" by P.H. Ray and S.R. Anderson. It is largely about how there are many Americans nowadays who are trying very hard to become personally integrated, trying to live out their own ideals, even though sometimes it requires what other people might consider hardships, such as changing jobs to one that although it is more fulfilling and filled with more integrity for them make them much less money.

So, yes, I try to make my ideals a part of my life, living by them. And therefore, when I try to defend them, yes, I am also defending all of my way of living including my income. I am not ashamed to be willing to defend my personal interests.

[Guest regulation]

>So, yes, I try to make

>my ideals a part of

>my life, living by them.

>And therefore, when I try

>to defend them, yes, I

>am also defending all of

>my way of living including

>my income. I am not

>ashamed to be willing to

>defend my personal interests.

 

I never said you should be. But no one should expect me to equate people who defend prostitution because they make money from it or use it to get off and people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.

[BewareofNick]

Let me totally clear about this...

 

I did NOT have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky!!

[Bilbo]

We all have ideals. And if we are trying to live up to them, then we deserve to be allowed to compare ourselves to other idealists for doing the same kind of thing, in our eyes. Whether or not those other idealists would agree with us. IMHO

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-01 AT 09:51AM (EST)[p][>>So you think Rosa and her

>>friends would support the authorities

>>busting down bedroom doors to

>>enforce the laws of 19

>>states against two consenting adults

>>in private with or without

>>the exchange of money??

>>I doubt it!! MHO

>>

>

>How would you know?

 

Neither of us know... but this is a minor tangent you to took instead of addressing the real issue that brought up Rosa Parks.

 

Just to closeout Rosa Parks, I brought her up as a stark counter example to your apparent position that laws in a democracy are necessarily deserving of obeying just because they reflect the view of the majority or the vocal minority with political influence. (Rosa Parks took strong exception to this view.) If I have misintrepreted your view, then I fear I am not alone among the readers of this thread. I realize that these exact words won’t be found in your messages, but... I think a reasonable man reading this thread would reach this conclusion -- I leave it to the other readers, whom I believe to be reasonable men, to make their own judgment. For the benefit of those other readers of this thread you might consider clearing up any misunderstanding that I and others have so that they understand correctly your argument.

[Guest Traveler]

>

>>Your previous comment about "Well, you

>>could just obey the law"

>>seems to make it pretty

>>obvious. You were basically

>>telling him he shouldn't be

>>doing it.

>

>

>"Obvious" only to those who have

>trouble undertanding English. I

>said nothing more than that

>someone who is worried about

>being arrested for committing a

>crime always has the option

>of obeying the law instead.

> That seems to me

>the simplest and easiest way

>of dealing with the problem

>he raised.

 

No. Your comment was simply judgmental and, frankly, rather stupid. If someone were to ask "Hey, I live in Texas where gay sex is illegal. Am I in danger of being arrested?", a response of "Well, you could just leave the state" is judgmental, inane, and essentially non-responsive. Did you think your response was in the least bit helpful? More like smart-assed. It's intuitively obvious to an ice cube that not participating in prostitution eliminates the possibility of legal entanglements. The purpose of your comment was to insult Stephan, not to help him.

 

I could just see Regulation's syndicated advice column:

 

"I'm a fisherman and I'm worried about an accident at sea? What can I do to reduce my chance of such an accident?"

"Don't be a fisherman!"

 

"As a doctor, what can I do to reduce my chance of being involved in a malpractice suit?"

"Don't see patients."

 

"I'm a mountain climber. What can I do to reduce my chance of getting altitude sickness?"

"Stay at sea level."

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

:-)

[Guest regulation]

>No. Your comment was simply

>judgmental and, frankly, rather stupid.

> If someone were to

>ask "Hey, I live in

>Texas where gay sex is

>illegal. Am I in

>danger of being arrested?", a

>response of "Well, you could

>just leave the state" is

>judgmental, inane, and essentially non-responsive.

 

 

A better analogy to the response I gave would be: "If you want to live in Texas but don't want to deal with the danger of being arrested for having gay sex, the only way to eliminate that danger is to avoid gay sex." Perhaps your years of taking mind-altering chemicals make that distinction difficult for you to understand, but the fact that you have difficulty understanding the distinction does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

> Did you think your

>response was in the least

>bit helpful? More like

>smart-assed.

 

 

Who said I was trying to be helpful? I'm expressing my opinion, not writing an advice column. And by the way, where does a drug addict like you get off calling someone else "stupid"? Isn't that a bit like Genghis Khan calling someone else a "warmonger"?

 

 

It's intuitively obvious

>to an ice cube that

>not participating in prostitution eliminates

>the possibility of legal entanglements.

 

 

I can think of no one better qualified to represent the point of view of an ice cube than you.

 

 

> The purpose of your

>comment was to insult Stephan,

>not to help him.

>

 

My purpose is to comment on the through-the-looking-glass quality of this discussion. Perhaps for criminal defense attorneys it is an everyday matter to hear people who routinely commit crimes complaining about the inconvenience of being arrested. For most of us, however, it's a novel and rather weird experience, to say the least.

 

 

 

>I could just see Regulation's syndicated

>advice column:

>

>"I'm a fisherman and I'm worried

>about an accident at sea?

> What can I do

>to reduce my chance of

>such an accident?"

>"Don't be a fisherman!"

>

>"As a doctor, what can I

>do to reduce my chance

>of being involved in a

>malpractice suit?"

>"Don't see patients."

>

>"I'm a mountain climber. What

>can I do to reduce

>my chance of getting altitude

>sickness?"

>"Stay at sea level."

 

 

And your response to all of the above situations would be: "Just pop a few pills and it won't bother you any longer," correct?

[Guest regulation]

>We all have ideals. And if

>we are trying to live

>up to them, then we

>deserve to be allowed to

>compare ourselves to other idealists

>for doing the same kind

>of thing, in our eyes.

>Whether or not those other

>idealists would agree with us.

>IMHO

 

 

Sorry, B, but you are not going to persuade me that you or anyone else became a prostitute out of idealism.

[Guest Mark]

Guys--

 

I think we should leave Regulation alone. He's getting on everybody's nerves--and he's probably enjoying it. He clearly doesn't agree with the majority of us here.

 

And by the way Reg, we don't need to persuade you to believe anything we say here. You made up your mind before any of us said a word. You're not open to discuss or debate this issue. You obviously have an agenda.

 

Mark

[Guest regulation]

>Guys--

>

>I think we should leave Regulation

>alone. He's getting on

>everybody's nerves--and he's probably enjoying

>it. He clearly doesn't

>agree with the majority of

>us here.

>

 

If your nerves can't stand hearing any opinions that differ from yours, why visit a message board? Wouldn't it be easier just to talk to yourself?

 

 

>And by the way Reg, we

>don't need to persuade you

>to believe anything we say

>here. You made up

>your mind before any of

>us said a word.

>You're not open to discuss

>or debate this issue.

>You obviously have an agenda.

>

>

>Mark

 

I have been discussing the issue. You just don't like what I have to say about it, and you think anyone who says something you don't like should be ostracized.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>Who said I was trying to be helpful? I'm expressing my opinion, not writing an advice column<

 

Who are you, Don Rickles? It was, after all, advice which was being sought by Stefan and not your thoughtless opinion.

 

>But no one should expect me to equate people who defend prostitution because they make money from it (or use it to get off) and people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King<

 

Why, because the ideals of a prostitute couldn't possibly be as lofty as those of someone like King? How do you know Marty didn't turn a trick or two on his way to the top? If his secondary platform had been freedom for people of every race to do what they choose with their bodies (regardless of their reasons), would that have diminished the impact of his primary civil rights agenda?

 

>Sorry, B, but you are not going to persuade me that you or anyone else became a prostitute out of idealism<

 

He's not trying to. He's merely saying that everything is relative and his personal ideals are as important to him as Rosa Parks are to her and Jesse Helms' are to you. And don't our own respective sets of ideals help shape who each of us are? And in turn influence our decision making, including career choices?

 

>A better analogy to the response I gave would be: "If you want to live in Texas but don't want to deal with the danger of being arrested for having gay sex, ....avoid gay sex."

 

Yes, that analogy is far more concise. There's right and there's wrong and never the twain shall meet, eh? It must be easy in the black and white world, what with all those clearly defined paths to take. Vapid and colorless, but simple, easy, livin'.

 

>And by the way, where does a drug addict like you get off calling someone else "stupid"?<

 

He didn't call you stupid, he stated that your response was "rather" stupid. How could you not see that distinction? What are you on drugs or something? Don't you understand english? Sorry to regurgitate your own crap this way, but you seemed to be having so much fun doing it that I wanted to give it whirl. Not too much fun after all.   - jc -

[Guest regulation]

>>Who said I was trying to be helpful? I'm expressing my opinion, not writing an advice column<

>

>Who are you, Don Rickles? It

>was, after all, advice which

>was being sought by Stefan

>and not your thoughtless opinion.

>

>

 

And who are you supposed to be, Abigail van Buren? Since your post doesn't contain any "advice" for Stephan does that mean you are also out of order? Or does that rule apply only to people you don't agree with?

 

 

>>But no one should expect me to equate people who defend prostitution because they make money from it (or use it to get off) and people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King<

>

>Why, because the ideals of a

>prostitute couldn't possibly be as

>lofty as those of someone

>like King?

 

No, because the "ideal" being discussed, the promotion of prostitution, isn't as lofty as those of someone like King. Are you saying that it is?

 

 

How do you

>know Marty didn't turn a

>trick or two on his

>way to the top?

 

Try that question on the nearest African-American. Please.

 

 

If

>his secondary platform had been

>freedom for people of every

>race to do what they

>choose with their bodies (regardless

>of their reasons), would that

>have diminished the impact of

>his primary civil rights agenda?

>

 

Yes, it certainly would. The message of King's movement was a simple one: treat us as equals because we are just like you; we are hardworking, churchgoing people just like you and our goal is to join your way of life, not to change or destroy it.

 

>

>>Sorry, B, but you are not going to persuade me that you or anyone else became a prostitute out of idealism<

>

>He's not trying to. He's merely

>saying that everything is relative

>and his personal ideals are

>as important to him as

>Rosa Parks are to her

>and Jesse Helms' are to

>you. And don't our own

>respective sets of ideals help

>shape who each of us

>are? And in turn influence

>our decision making, including career

>choices?

>

 

Do they? Are you saying that he, you or anyone else became a prostitute in order to advance a specific set of ideals? Like what?

 

>>A better analogy to the response I gave would be: "If you want to live in Texas but don't want to deal with the danger of being arrested for having gay sex, ....avoid gay sex."

>

>Yes, that analogy is far more

>concise.

 

I think the word you're looking for is "precise."

 

 

There's right and there's

>wrong and never the twain

>shall meet, eh? It must

>be easy in the black

>and white world, what with

>all those clearly defined paths

>to take. Vapid and colorless,

>but simple, easy, livin'.

>

 

Isn't that the situation of anyone who has ideals in which he believes deeply? On which of your ideals would you be willing to compromise?

 

 

>>And by the way, where does a drug addict like you get off calling someone else "stupid"?<

>

>He didn't call you stupid, he

>stated that your response was

>"rather" stupid. How could you

>not see that distinction?

 

 

I did. It's what logicians call "a distinction without a difference."

 

 

What

>are you on drugs or

>something? Don't you understand english?

>Sorry to regurgitate your own

>crap this way, but you

>seemed to be having so

>much fun doing it that

>I wanted to give it

>whirl. Not too much fun

>after all.   -

>jc -

 

No matter how much you might like me to, I'm not going to be a complacent target for abuse, especially not from a world-class pillhead like Traveler.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Seems to me that mind altering chemicals might be in order for some around here... mercifully so.

[Guest cassius]

This is the most interesting thread because of the discussion regulation started. I don't think prostitution should be a crime but it is and always has been and I don't see that people who choose that life should be complaining about something they knew about going in. You don't take a job running a jackhammer and bitch about the noise.

[+ Lucky]

Hey Cassius, that stung like a butterfly! I can't wait for your second post!