Prostitution ? What about cops ?

[adriano46]

Regulation,

 

Funny how when I come across any of your input here, I usually do so with great fear and caution. But being such a cold and snowy day here in the Northeast, I figure I may as well jump in here and also have your rage aimed in this direction.

 

Your first remark to Stefan - in my simple reading of your "advice - was of the nature "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" but with an unsettling "moralizing" knife in the advice.

 

I do not think many here do not understand that prostitution in the US is illegal; they also take risks when meeting any escort (as do the escorts when meeting clients). I assume you also frequent escorts (or why are you here???). So we can assume you participate of your own volition in this illegal act. IF you do not frequent escorts... I guess I just wonder why this even concerns you.

 

Many of us, knowing the illegality of prostitution and sodomy laws, do not wish to be "complacent" with such questionable laws, especially when local police forces target escorts and prostitutes perhaps because they are vulnerable targets and these busts produce nice headlines which distract us from seeing their own ineptitude or worse.

 

Also casting accusations at someone being a drug addict or at least impaired by them is a bit far fetched here when you, sir, hide your identity and have no profile to trace... Remember that other proverb about people who live in glass houses???

 

I think you bring a different perspective to many topics here but somehow you manage to easily go off the civility road when anyone dares differ with your admittedly difficult positions.

 

Time out for a cocktail - so if you wish to accuse me of alcoholism... fine but my doctor recommends a glass of wine in the evening to help me be calm. I'm just following his advice. Oh - and Joey Ciccone is - IMHO - a nice guy. I can't say that about you as we have never met, but Mr. Ciccone and I have on many occasions.

[Guest cassius]

Why don't you try holding your breath, it won't be that long.

[Guest regulation]

>Regulation,

>

>Funny how when I come across

>any of your input here,

>I usually do so with

>great fear and caution. But

>being such a cold and

>snowy day here in the

>Northeast, I figure I may

>as well jump in here

>and also have your rage

>aimed in this direction.

>

 

You're jumping at shadows. There is nothing happening on this website that is important enough to me to enrage me.

 

 

>Your first remark to Stefan -

>in my simple reading of

>your "advice - was of

>the nature "If you can't

>stand the heat, get out

>of the kitchen!" but with

>an unsettling "moralizing" knife in

>the advice.

>

 

That comes from inside your head, not from my post. His post said nothing about the morality of his situation and neither did mine. Do you equate law and morality? If not, why do you assume that I do?

 

>I do not think many here

>do not understand that prostitution

>in the US is illegal;

>they also take risks when

>meeting any escort (as do

>the escorts when meeting clients).

>I assume you also frequent

>escorts (or why are you

>here???). So we can assume

>you participate of your own

>volition in this illegal act.

>IF you do not frequent

>escorts... I guess I just

>wonder why this even concerns

>you.

>

 

Are you saying that only people who actually hire prostitutes can have any interest in the issue of prostitution? Does that really seem rational to you?

 

 

>Many of us, knowing the illegality

>of prostitution and sodomy laws,

>do not wish to be

>"complacent" with such questionable laws,

>especially when local police forces

>target escorts and prostitutes perhaps

>because they are vulnerable targets

>and these busts produce nice

>headlines which distract us from

>seeing their own ineptitude or

>worse.

>

 

Since violent crime rates in most major cities have declined precipitously during the past decade, I don't know what it is you think the cops are trying to hide -- the fact that they're winning the war on crime?

 

>Also casting accusations at someone being

>a drug addict or at

>least impaired by them is

>a bit far fetched here

>when you, sir, hide your

>identity and have no profile

>to trace... Remember that other

>proverb about people who live

>in glass houses???

>

 

I guess you didn't notice the many posts by Traveler in which he talks about using drugs and even recommends them to others. But I did notice them. If he is going to put that aspect of his life out there for people to read he can hardly complain when they read it -- and neither can you.

 

>I think you bring a different

>perspective to many topics here

>but somehow you manage to

>easily go off the civility

>road when anyone dares differ

>with your admittedly difficult positions.

>

>

 

If you are honest you will have to admit that it is Traveler, not I, who first introduced words like "stupid," "inane" and "smart-assed" into our conversation. As I said before, I am not going to be a complacent target for that sort of abuse.

 

 

>Time out for a cocktail -

>so if you wish to

>accuse me of alcoholism... fine

>but my doctor recommends a

>glass of wine in the

>evening to help me be

>calm. I'm just following his

>advice. Oh - and Joey

>Ciccone is - IMHO -

>a nice guy. I can't

>say that about you as

>we have never met, but

>Mr. Ciccone and I have

>on many occasions.

 

I don't really care whether he was nice to you. People who shower me with insults for no other reason than that they disagree with my position on an issue don't deserve and won't get my respect.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-01 AT 09:08PM (EST)[p]Beware of new posters showing up in contentious threads in which Regulation participates -- there is some history, but I won't belabor the point. Just beware. :-(

 

Although the evidence is thin, I sense a familiar edge to the tone...

 

Oh what I wouldn't give for IP addresses...

[Guest regulation]

The only thing familiar here is your tiresome and mendacious habit of trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with you by claiming he is another manifestation of me. Is your ego really so fragile that it can't deal with the possibility that there is more than one person in the world who doesn't share your point of view? That is truly pathetic.

[BewareofNick]

Tampa yankee: "Oh no he didn't... i will bitch slap your ass!!"

Regualtion: "Yeah, you and what army?"

Tampa yankee: "talk to the hand biotch!"

 

Regualtion picks up his chair and tries to hit Tampa, but Steve and the rest of the security team manage to keep him from harm.

 

The crows meanwhile chants:

JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!JERRY!! JERRY!!

 

I come on stage after Steve has separated the two combatants, "So, what you're saying is that there's no hope for this relationship?"

 

Regulation growls and tampa just gives him the death stare.

 

"I'll be back with a final thought"

 

As the camera fades to black, the next show preview runs:

 

"Next on Springer: Straight hustlers who rip off their unsuspecting gay clients."

 

The Springer Cam takes us to Anthony Holloway's trailer in Massachusetts where we see him running in after having ripped off yet another client. "get that camera out of my face bitch!!"

 

Fade back in to Jerry sitting on his stool:

"Sometimes, there is no common ground to be found. Even though we might try our hardest to bend people to our point of view, it can often be a lost cause. But something that we can do is treat people with respect and kindness rather than being rude or malicious. Whatever happened to old fashioned civility, where we could just nod and smile at someone while all the while thinking in our head how full of shit they are? Where's Miss Manners when you need her? Until next time, take care of yourself....and each other."

[Guest 7Zach]

When I first read the initial threads, I was amused because Stephen claims to 1) no longer be escorting and 2) still escorting 3) only escorting with existing clients or 4) only having a lover who escorts. I also thought that the thread got off to a funny start owing to Stephen's sensitivity to the above: people wanted to know and he's not telling.

Perhaps that's the reason that the questions posed were contained less information on how to avoid a bust for an admittedly illegal situation, and why some posters seemed derisive in their comments. And even though these posts did not seem particularly helpful, in view of the overall tone of the posts, I thought they fit right in. I mean, Stephen's posts were for the most part offensive and silly, a winning combination.

That said, in terms of the original question,I know the police can't engage in any sexual behavior with the escort, and I know for purposes of the sting that they want to get it clear that the exchange of money is for sex, therefore any conversation on this line, as everyone knows, but generally ignores I suppose, is verbotten. That said, an initial kiss on the lips and touching prior to any conversation could be the easiest way to find out since it puts the person on the other side in the position of consensual affection. The odds are that such person is not gay and will not want to testify to this readily.

How then to get to the issue of what someone likes and dislikes in an initial conversation where questions of rate also come into play. That's a tough one cuz your implying the very thing the law states is the crime; my only idea on this has been to find out what someone enjoys in the broad sense, and what someone enjoys in the more intimate sense, while making sure that any rate reflects the time for an hour, evening, etc. As part of this, I usually want the feel of someone's personality, and finding out what they like to do socially is generally reflective of their personality. That said, it does not work for those quick in and out appointments.

From the client's side, it's easier to do this because if you utilize the forum u find out who's "done this sort of thing before" and have a little bit more ease. From the escort's point of view, that doesn't really help. That's why I fall back on my initial idea of a kiss and affection at the very first so that any sting is at least compromised somewhat. I am curious what others think in terms of this, cuz I sense a growing awareness or indeed need to do someone about online sites. Especially since 20/20 did the story on LAExotics a couple of weeks ago.

Finally, when I was 23, I told my father that anyone that was my age, a virgin and hadn't done drugs showed a remarkable lack of curiosity, and as southern, narrow (though educated) he was, he got it. So much for charges of pillheads.

[Justice]

1) I was channel surfing last night and came across the tail end of one of those news magazine programs. They were reporting on the activities of the New Orleans vice squad. (They were targeting woman street walkers in the French Quarter.) The interesting thing about this sting operation was that the undercover cop actually got naked! His colleagues didn't burst into the hotel room until after he dropped his briefs. Scary!

 

2) There were recent posts about sting operations in New York and San Diego. The post from San Diego included a link to an article that mentioned that the authorities were targeting prostitutes (both gay and straight) who advertised on the internet. The post about the New York sting mentioned that at least one of the the escorts (a guy) who got busted was contacted via the internet. Also, one of the participant's to Quinte's chat reported that there was an internet based sting operation in Las Vagas. The bottom line is that everyone needs to be careful.

[adriano46]

Justice,

 

As always you brought this thread back to where it began (and in a nick of time too before it was permanently hijacked by someone remaining anonymous).

 

I met one of the escorts caught in the L.V. sting, and know he is close friends with Stefan (or so he says) and this may have been part of the background to the initial inquiry.

 

Last January, while in Las Vegas, I was seeing an escort to his car when he received a very strange (and IMHO very suspicious) phone call on his cell phone (which, I assume is used more for his escorting business). He was being enticed to come to an address to pick up a prize he won - a new car no less.

 

Listening in on the conversation and on all the details the caller requested, my 6th sense was on overdrive that this was a set-up. I do not know how it all ended, but do know that some escorts in LV are very suspicious of 1st time clients. They ask to meet in innocuous public places first, etc...

 

I still think (and like) earlier advice: when you meet, cut to the quick with a nice kiss and grope before discussing anything else. Most cops I know would never go THAT far in a sting... except in their fantasies.

[Guest regulation]

<yawn>

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-01 AT 02:09AM (EST)[p]Three points:

 

I'm perfectly happy to let you discredit yourself, IMHO you've done a bang-up job in your latter contributions to this thread... not as a debater necessarily, but as a human being...

 

A reputation is hard thing to live down...

 

'Mendacious habit' is interesting terminology for you to invoke in light of your reputation...

[Guest Traveler]

>>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.

 

Have you noticed how much more effective my arguments are than yours? That's because I expose the stupidity in your comments, whereas you just resort to making up silly stories like my taking mind-altering chemicals. Since everybody has sex (yes, even priests, and probably even the Pope), the only way to avoid breaking the law in states with sodomy laws is to leave the state. Of course, everybody knows that doesn't happen in reality. Everybody but the densest of people.

 

>> 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"?

 

I never actually called you stupid. You see, when you argue effectively, though, the truth becomes obvious to even the densest of people.

 

> 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 "I know you are, but what am I" argument impresses only certain children during the pre-Kindergarten period. And it's only funny when PeeWee Herman says it. After Kindergarten, most people can think up their own put-downs.

 

>> 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.

 

The "through-the-looking-glass" phrase is a mixed metaphor. Unless, of course, you're talking about someone looking into one of your ears and seeing out the other. Most other people reading this thread have understood the point that just because an action is illegal doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. My grandfather committed capital crimes by helping Jews escape the Nazis during the Occupation. But there would have been plenty of people complaining if he had been caught/arrested/shot. And rightfully so. Not that vice cops are Nazis. Nevertheless, a lawbreaker isn't necessarily an evil person in need of punishment.

[BewareofNick]

Okay, maybe Jerry doesn't quite work here...

 

How about Dr. Phil from Oprah?

 

Take ownership of your pain!!!

[Guest regulation]

>Have you noticed how much more

>effective my arguments are than

>yours?

 

"Effective" to accomplish what? You haven't persuaded anyone who didn't already agree with you. Which means you have accomplished nothing.

 

 

That's because I

>expose the stupidity in your

>comments, whereas you just resort

>to making up silly stories

>like my taking mind-altering chemicals.

 

 

I merely refer to comments that you have made about your own activities in numerous posts. If you are ashamed of the behavior you describe, you should stop it, not lie about it.

 

 

> Since everybody has sex

>(yes, even priests, and probably

>even the Pope),

 

Assuming that everyone else in the world is exactly like you is bound to give you a distorted view of reality.

 

 

the only

>way to avoid breaking the

>law in states with sodomy

>laws is to leave the

>state. Of course, everybody

>knows that doesn't happen in

>reality. Everybody but the

>densest of people.

>

 

So you are saying that no one has ever left a state with such restrictive laws in order to live a different sort of life? The mind boggles at your ignorance.

 

>>> 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"?

>

>I never actually called you stupid.

> You see, when you

>argue effectively, though, the truth

>becomes obvious to even the

>densest of people.

>

 

The truth about you has long since become obvious -- you lack the emotional maturity to avoid descending to schoolyard insults when anyone disagrees with you.

 

 

>> 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 "I know you are, but

>what am I" argument impresses

>only certain children during the

>pre-Kindergarten period. And it's

>only funny when PeeWee Herman

>says it. After Kindergarten,

>most people can think up

>their own put-downs.

>

 

I'm sure your memory of kindergarten is much clearer and more recent than mine. The nonsense you spout would certainly indicate that.

 

 

>>> 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.

>

>The "through-the-looking-glass" phrase is a mixed

>metaphor.

 

It isn't a "metaphor" at all. You need to look up the definition of that word.

 

 

Unless, of course,

>you're talking about someone looking

>into one of your ears

>and seeing out the other.

 

 

What were you saying about kindergarten-type insults?

 

 

> Most other people reading

>this thread have understood the

>point that just because an

>action is illegal doesn't mean

>it shouldn't be done.

>My grandfather committed capital crimes

>by helping Jews escape the

>Nazis during the Occupation.

>But there would have been

>plenty of people complaining if

>he had been caught/arrested/shot.

>And rightfully so. Not

>that vice cops are Nazis.

> Nevertheless, a lawbreaker isn't

>necessarily an evil person in

>need of punishment.

 

I don't see any post on this thread that says anything about "evil." If you do, you really need to cut down on the ecstasy.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-01 AT 10:31AM (EST)[p]>

>The truth about you has long

>since become obvious -- you

>lack the emotional maturity to

>avoid descending to schoolyard insults

>when anyone disagrees with you.

>

 

Boy! the pot, the kettle... very very black here.

 

The one trait you have exhibited over the last year that continually impresses me no end (negatively) -- It couldn't have been put any better.

[Guest LG320126]

Poor Stef - he asks a legitimate, honest question and this is the childish responses he gets back. SAD!

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-01 AT 10:58AM (EST)[p][Larry,

 

Stef got his answer in spades... from all directions and in some instances delivered by the back of the hand. Yes, the thread has degenerated, not an unusual circumstance given some of the participants. The archives has several similar examples involving the same characters, myself included. :-(

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>>And who are you supposed to be, Abigail van Buren?<<

 

Hey, it's ok to poke fun at the likes of King and Rickles, but I have to draw the line at my Dear Abby. Don't even.

 

>>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?<<

 

Whether or not I agree or disagree with you is beside the point. I just think you're posts are offensively blunt and insensitive. And what's your obsession with 'rules' and 'order'. Makes me think: you call yourself "Regulation", you're queer for rules, you're rude and thoughtless, uptight and humorless, quasi-intellectual, fascist and new racey, and hold all law-breakers (which includes every client and escort on these boards) in utter disdain....... You're either a bitter and closeted cop, a frustrated prison warden counting the days until his retirement, or a sexually repressed Catholic boys school principle (those poor children). I suspect the latter, based on your schoolyard retorts.

 

>>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?<<

 

No. I'm saying the simpler ideal of freedom is.

 

>>If his secondary platform had been freedom for people of every race to do what they choose with their bodies (regardless of their reasons and including gay sex), would that have diminished the impact of his primary civil rights agenda?<<

>Yes, it certainly would<

 

So you're a hypocrite as well. Nice.

 

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

 

No, I used the word I was looking for. I used "concise" because it precisely illustrated your ridiculous point. Now I'm looking for another word....... pinhead springs to mind.

 

>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."<<

 

That's the problem with logicians, they just don't get it. I was merely reiterating your own angry queries from an earlier post. You know, satire. It's what anyone with a sense of humour calls "holding up for ridicule." See, I just did it again.

 

>>People who shower me with insults for no other reason than that they disagree with my position on an issue don't deserve and won't get my respect<<

 

Wow, you are fuckin' paranoid. In my first response to your ramblings, the closest I came to insulting you was likening you to Don Rickles, a very funny and personable man. Then I offered alternate viewpoints to your own. I closed by paraphrasing you. Far from a shower of insults. More like a sarcastic spritz. Then you got ugly. Sorry, uglier. It wasn't until this very post that it began to rain for me, but it seems as if a deluge has already begun from other posters. You must admit you've asked for it.

Regarding your respect, I don't expect any. It was obvious before diving into this that you had none.

 

>>No matter how much you might like me to, I'm not going to be a complacent target for abuse<<

 

No, don't ever be complacent. But as long as you keep spouting off, you'll certainly remain a target. I for one apologize if I've come off as abusive toward you. I don't believe I had been, at least not until I referred to you as being a fascist (which you're probably not), and then again when I inferred you were a pinhead (which, well whatever). And I wouldn't necessarily like you to do anything, other than lighten up.

[Guest Stephan-Lacoste]

I guess we just need to get used to.

I just gave it a try.

Well one good thing is , some people out there are having fun

 

Stephan Lacoste

http://www.stephanlacoste.com

http://www.eboysvideo.com

[Guest Stephan-Lacoste]

"When I first read the initial threads, I was amused because Stephen claims to 1) no longer be escorting and 2) still escorting 3) only escorting with existing clients or 4) only having a lover who escorts. I also thought that the thread got off to a funny start owing to Stephen's sensitivity to the above: people wanted to know and he's not telling.

Perhaps that's the reason that the questions posed were contained less information on how to avoid a bust for an admittedly illegal situation, and why some posters seemed derisive in their comments. And even though these posts did not seem particularly helpful, in view of the overall tone of the posts, I thought they fit right in. I mean, Stephen's posts were for the most part offensive and silly, a winning combination"

 

Hey 7Zach, I'm glad you were amused; But I do have pity for you. Guess you are not as smart as some others who really don't care and don't give a D>>>>.

First of all, In my first letter I have told everyone I will stop escorting and stop to make new appoitnement. That i will only keep in touch with clients I have already met.

I have never made such remarks. People like you had judge by themself such stupidity.

Yes I do still see people , and escort them, and yes I do have a lover who also escort ( oh my god people like you ) and this is the main reason I have post that subject. Because I do worreid for him. He does everything by himself without any help from me. What does that mean ? Just nothing else that my remark on subject. GOT IT ?

Now you said "Stephen's posts were for the most part offensive and silly".

Well you know what, this is the way I am, I don't lie and won't hide you what I do think. People posting or responding to a question with a totally different subject ( like you) really pissed me off. And I will only tell what I want to say. IT is just coming from my heart. SO if it seems silly and offensive, Good for you, you just realize what I really do think of people of your type

 

Stephan Lacoste

http://www.stephanlacoste.com

http://www.eboysvideo.com

[BewareofNick]

1-800-GO -RICKI

[Guest Traveler]

>

>That's because I

>>expose the stupidity in your

>>comments, whereas you just resort

>>to making up silly stories

>>like my taking mind-altering chemicals.

>

>

>I merely refer to comments that

>you have made about your

>own activities in numerous posts.

> If you are ashamed

>of the behavior you describe,

>you should stop it, not

>lie about it.

 

Hmmm. I've never used mind-altering chemicals nor claimed that I did. Look who's hallucinating.

[Guest regulation]

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-01

>AT 10:58 AM (EST)

>

>[Larry,

>

>Stef got his answer in spades...

>from all directions and in

>some instances delivered by the

>back of the hand. Yes,

>the thread has degenerated, not

>an unusual circumstance given some

>of the participants. The archives

>has several similar examples involving

>the same characters, myself included.

> :-(

 

Exactly what helpful answers did YOU add to this thread?

 

Truly, what answer can anyone give to the question Stephan posed? Can a police officer arrest someone for prostitution in his own home? Yes. Is there any way to engage in prostitution and be certain you will avoid arrest? No. Among other reasons, the clever strategems other posters suggested for exposing undercover cops take no account of the fact that the police are able to use the services of people who are NOT police officers in setting up a bust. Civilians who act as police "agents" in such situations are subject to the same constitutional restrictions as police are when it comes to gathering evidence. But they may not have the same reluctance as police officers do to being kissed and groped in order to make a bust. One would think that they would be selected with that issue in mind.

 

The only realistic answer is the one I gave -- and for which I was roundly vilified. The only way to be certain you will avoid arrest for this or any crime is not to do the crime. None of my posts in this thread say anything about the morality of prostitution or prostitutes, but I have been treated as if I posted a whole jeremiad on the subject. That is really just other posters projecting their fear and guilt onto me. What else is new?

[Guest LG320126]

Now that posting by you was finally worth reading - informative, both concise and precise. Thank you for the input.

[Bilbo]

Dear Reggie, Sorry I took so long to get back to you but I just returned from a business trip that had me doing three shows a day for three days in a row for bilingual kids whose grasp of English needed help. Big time for many of them. Which is one reason we were hired. However, since this version of Snow White is very audience participatory, with my character talking the audience through several physical exercises (Alrighty now, let's all round over and become eggs. Juevos. Ah, forget it.)

Have you had a chance to look for that book I suggested?

In a way, this experience parallels my work as an escort. Many closeted people need a way out of their closets. They need to know that they are not alone, that they can communicate with someone who already talks gay, and walks gay. And they need it not only for themselves but also for the safety of us all because there is no more dangerous foe to the gay people than a closet case who has gone bad. His self fear, and sometimes hatred, can turn outward in some awfully ugly ways. A caring escort can help him past his pain.

Now you might say that a sexual surrogate would be better, but there never have been enough of them to go around, and would this kind of person necessarily react well to the idea that he needs professional help? Nah, many of them need it disguised as pure-t-fun.

Have I ever told you that I once had a vision that my purpose in life is to teach, mainly by showing, that one can be gay and happy at the same time. It came to me as I as being attuned to being a Reiki Master. And I consider Reiki to be a nondenominational religion, or perhaps it would be better to say a spiritual tool?

So, perhaps I didn't start out doing escorting for absolutely pure motives, but I was guided in the proper direction by Someone working in mysterious ways.