Prostitution ? What about cops ?

[Bilbo]

Well, this series of posts is quite interesting. Beware got more humor going than I have noticed in him before. The story of Traveler's grandfather alone make it worthwhile.

 

Reggie, this gives me a perfect opportunity to brag about my own forefathers. There were Scotsmen who at the end of the Bonnie Prince Charlie war had to sign the bloody oath to never fight against England again. They did leave the country of their birth and surely their beloved countrysides to go to the New World to avoid the temptation to fight the English. Then, there came the American Revolution. Many of these same men would still not go back on their word, so they moved to the Bahamas and other such places. I suspect that you would say that they were admirable for doing so. And I would agree with you. But would you also agree with me that it was not admirable to put them into a situation where they had to make that choice? And that it is even less admirable if without a war or any violence of any kind to provoke them into such actions, the majority of my fellow Texans, or at least their elected representatives would force similar actions upon me just because I am gay?

[Guest regulation]

>But would you

>also agree with me that

>it was not admirable to

>put them into a situation

>where they had to make

>that choice? And that it

>is even less admirable if

>without a war or any

>violence of any kind to

>provoke them into such actions,

>the majority of my fellow

>Texans, or at least their

>elected representatives would force similar

>actions upon me just because

>I am gay?

 

Truly, B, I don't think your analogy makes any sense at all. With regard to your ancestors, in every war there is a winner and a loser and it's not unreasonable for the winner to take some precautions to insure that the loser doesn't resume hostilities the moment his back is turned. With regard to your state, the fact is that we all have to live in a community with other people and that unless the community is extemely homogenous there are going to be issues on which the smaller number disagree with the larger number and will have to accept the resolution that the larger number prefer. You can say all you wish about "rights" that should not be subject to majority rule, but saying someone has a "right" to do something is a conclusion, not an argument. The fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution are themselves the result of a democratic process in which the majority supported the preservation of those rights in most -- but not all -- situations. I think the authors of the Constitution would tell you that if you find yourself in a community in which most of the people don't care for the way you want to live your life, you should move. That, in fact, is exactly how this country was founded -- by people who left the community they were in because the majority wouldn't let them live as they chose.

[Guest regulation]

>Have you had a chance to

>look for that book I

>suggested?

 

Sorry, I'm not in the least interested in reading such a book.

 

>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.

>

 

B, escorts are not therapists and are not qualified to prescribe or administer remedies for people with serious emotional problems. If that is what you would like to do, by all means go back to school and take a course of study that will give you the necessary knowledge and experience. And get certified as a therapist by the relevant state agency so that you can be held accountable if you do the wrong thing and end up hurting one of the people you are treating -- that is only fair, yes? But in the meantime, don't kid yourself or me into thinking that you or any other escort is on a mission to heal the sick. That's like saying heroin dealers are healers because some of their customers would get violent or act out in other ways if they couldn't use smack to anesthetize themselves.

[Bilbo]

Reggie,

What's wrong with the book? You don't like nonfiction?

My thoughts are much more New Age than yours. I believe strongly in Complimentary and Alternative Medicene (CAM) - Well, actually, I believe a lot in complementary medicene and not all that much in ignoring Western medicene and using CAM as actually an alternative where you only use the CAM. In order for more Western thinking minds to understand my therapies, (Reiki, for example, is called hands on healing, even though you really don't have to touch the client.) I have become an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. Do you believe in ministerial counceling?

Love, Reverand Bilbo

[Bilbo]

R, Sorry, but you haven't answered my question. Is it admirable to you for the majority to act in the way you have described? - B

[Guest regulation]

>Reggie,

>What's wrong with the book? You

>don't like nonfiction?

 

I don't define New Age psychobabble as "nonfiction."

 

 

>My thoughts are much more New

>Age than yours.

 

You can say that again.

 

I believe

>strongly in Complimentary and Alternative

>Medicene (CAM) - Well, actually,

>I believe a lot in

>complementary medicene and not all

>that much in ignoring Western

>medicene and using CAM as

>actually an alternative where you

>only use the CAM. In

>order for more Western thinking

>minds to understand my therapies,

>(Reiki, for example, is called

>hands on healing, even though

>you really don't have to

>touch the client.) I have

>become an ordained minister of

>the Universal Life Church. Do

>you believe in ministerial counceling?

>

>Love, Reverand Bilbo

 

I've already said what I believe -- that people who lack the training and experience to treat those with serious emotional problems shouldn't pass themselves off as capable of doing so. You said earlier that escorts help those who need some sort of validation of their sexual desires as gay men. But when it comes to a particular individual, how do you know that sex with another man is what he needs -- because he says so? Should a physician give a patient whatever drugs the patient requests? The fact is, you don't know what these guys need because you have no training in identifying and dealing with the kinds of problems they have. If you really want to provide services that are an adjunct to genuine therapy, get connected with a therapist who treats people who are struggling with their sexual identities and have sex only with those patients whom he tells you require that sort of validation.

[Guest regulation]

You're right, I didn't. My answer is that the behavior of your fellow Texans is neither admirable nor the reverse. If you believe, as I do, that the law should be an affirmation of the values of the people who actually live in a community, rather than a vehicle through which an elite instructs the people of the community in how to behave, then their behavior is understandable and appropriate. A democratic political system can't survive for very long if the wishes of the majority on issues of importance to them are consistently ignored. If most of the people in your community believe that gay sex is immoral, does it make sense to have laws that say gay sex is perfectly okay?

[Guest regulation]

>>>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.

 

Someone who resorts to insults as often as you do has no business using the word "offensive" in describing others. If it's okay for you, it's okay for others.

 

 

And what's your

>obsession with 'rules' and 'order'.

 

Why are you so disdainful of them? Rules are the only thing preventing the many, many people who hate homosexuals from chopping you into bite-size pieces. What a tragedy that would be!

 

 

>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.

>

 

You clearly have a rich fantasy life, as well as an extremely nasty one. Does that have something to do with being a lapsed Catholic?

 

>>>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'm no more a hypocrite than Dr. King was -- oh wait a second, you're the one who suggested that he may have been a male prostitute, right? King was smart enough to understand that you don't form a political coalition with others by making statements that threaten their world-view. It's an important point, but one that many leaders of the gay rights movement have never succeeded in grasping.

 

>>>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.

>

 

What were you saying about "schoolyard retorts?" Oh, I forgot -- you're the only one allowed to use them. If anyone else does, it's a sign of immaturity. Right.

 

 

>>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.

>

 

 

What you were doing was supporting the other poster in his attempts to say that it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. Are you two from Arkansas? Or near there?

 

 

>>>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.

 

Gosh, that's original! Can I use that sometime or do you have it copyrighted?

 

 

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.

 

Do you speak from personal experience?

 

 

>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.

 

I admit only that I never am and never will be the first to introduce insults into any conversation. I leave that to people like you.

 

>Regarding your respect, I don't expect

>any.

 

Then you won't be disappointed.

 

 

It was obvious before

>diving into this that you

>had none.

>

 

You can say that again.

 

 

>>>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.

 

A target for you? The image that comes to mind is being hit over the head with a banana.

 

 

I for one

>apologize if I've come off

>as abusive toward you.

 

 

Abusive? Just because you used words like "rude," "thoughtless," "quasi-intellectual," "bitter," "frustrated," "sexually repressed" and "fascist?" You're being much too hard on yourself!

 

 

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.

 

If the time ever comes when I feel in need of advice from you . . . I'll rush to the hospital for a CAT scan.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-01 AT 02:06AM (EST)[p]Sorry dear. Didn't mean to get your tits in a knot. I've obviously been outclassed by your superior breeding, "educational background", and clear-headed tolerance. Allow me to say uncle.

 

LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-01 AT 09:31 PM (EST)

 

I'm sorry, but upon rereading your last post (I must admit to being long-since dismissive of your posts, so didn't really read it the first time), I feel the need to clarify something before saying uncle. When you state the following:

"Rules are the only thing preventing the many, many people who hate homosexuals from chopping you into bite-size pieces. What a tragedy that would be!", are you actually wishing me dead, or just saying you'd be happy if I were to be chopped into pieces? In either case, you should be more careful of the words you choose. If I lived in the same state of myopia that you apparently do, I might misconstrue that statement as a death threat. Or a wish by you that all homosexuals were dead. Or something equally vile. Fortunately, I don't live in your state.

 

>What you were doing was supporting the other poster... Are you two from Arkansas? Or near there?<

 

Good guess! Yes, we're both from Arkansas. Siamese twins in fact, joined at the head, seperated at birth, with only a single brain between us, we roam the countryside in search of kindred halfbrained souls. And we both found you! Another amazing twin story.

[Guest regulation]

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-01

>AT 02:06 AM (EST)

>

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-01

>AT 09:31 PM (EST)

>

>I'm sorry, but upon rereading your

>last post (I must admit

>to being long-since dismissive of

>your posts, so didn't really

>read it the first time),

>I feel the need to

>clarify something before saying uncle.

>When you state the following:

>

>"Rules are the only thing preventing

>the many, many people who

>hate homosexuals from chopping you

>into bite-size pieces. What a

>tragedy that would be!", are

>you actually wishing me dead,

>or just saying you'd be

>happy if I were to

>be chopped into pieces?

 

My post doesn't say either of those things. This is just another instance in which you make up something about one of my posts that isn't actually there, then bash me for having "said" what you made up. The alternative interpretations you propose tell more about what's in your head than about what's in mine. It's a bit like watching someone else take a Rohrshach test.

 

>In

>either case, you should be

>more careful of the words

>you choose. If I lived

>in the same state of

>myopia that you apparently do,

>I might misconstrue that statement

>as a death threat.

Or

>a wish by you that

>all homosexuals were dead. Or

>something equally vile.

 

I should be careful of the words I choose only if I care how you react to them. But I don't.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>My post doesn't say either of those things<

 

You're a hoot, and it's been fun, but I formally wash my hands and my feet of you. JC

[Guest regulation]

>

>You're a hoot, and it's been

>fun, but I formally wash

>my hands and my feet

>of you. JC

>

 

You, on the other hand, are a crashing bore. Don't hurry back.

[Bilbo]

My computer was down for a week and a half. I hadn't really meant to ignore you, it just happened that way. Please forgive me.

You are condemning sight unseen as psychobabble a book by two PhDs based on demographic studies they have helped to reasearch over the space of at least two decades. Just because I like the book doesn't mean that it isn't real science. Looking at the preface, I just now noticed that you could, if you so chose, find out more about their scientific theory without either reading the book or trusting me.

http://www.culturalcreatives.org

What a pity the world is not as simple as we might like for it to be. Which is older, psycotherapy or Reiki? Reiki by about fifty years. Which has worked near miracles for a great many people? Both of them. Why can't there be more than one true path? Your turn with the answers.

Actually, this thread is getting really, really long. Please either send me a private message or lets start a new thread.

[Bilbo]

> If you believe, as

>I do, that the law

>should be an affirmation of

>the values of the people

>who actually live in a

>community, rather than a vehicle

>through which an elite instructs

>the people of the community

>in how to behave, then

>their behavior is understandable and

>appropriate.

 

This is a very well reasoned argument. So much so that for the first time, I am repeating another's words, using up bandwidth, by using the reply with quotes alternative. I believe that all men are born with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, I cannot see it as appropriate for the majority to take away those rights from what a minority person does in private. So, perhaps there needs to be some way to make sure that the laws affirm the values of all the people who live in the community. I also believe that a good code of laws should be simple and minimal. It should therefore follow that the law only attempts to affirm the simplest possible denominator, only those things which are in the belief system of all of the governed, while protecting if it has to the rights of its people to disagree with each other peaceably on all the other points.

 

A democratic political

>system can't survive for very

>long if the wishes of

>the majority on issues of

>importance to them are consistently

>ignored.

 

And a peace, or any other kind of contract, will not long endure if it is not based as much as possible on a win win situation for everyone involved.

 

If most of

>the people in your community

>believe that gay sex is

>immoral, does it make sense

>to have laws that say

>gay sex is perfectly okay?

>

Yes, becaue it protects a more basic right than the right of people to tell other people how to live. Or the majority becomes the elite you referred to earlier.

[Guest regulation]

>My computer was down for a

>week and a half. I

>hadn't really meant to ignore

>you, it just happened that

>way. Please forgive me.

 

Don't worry about it.

 

>You are condemning sight unseen as

>psychobabble a book by two

>PhDs based on demographic studies

>they have helped to reasearch

>over the space of at

>least two decades. Just because

>I like the book doesn't

>mean that it isn't real

>science.

 

 

No, but you have to admit it's a good indication. :-) Actually, I checked out a few reviews of the book you mentioned before concluding that it's a bunch of nonsense.

 

 

Looking at the preface,

>I just now noticed that

>you could, if you so

>chose, find out more about

>their scientific theory without either

>reading the book or trusting

>me.

>http://www.culturalcreatives.org

 

 

Thanks anyway.

 

 

>What a pity the world is

>not as simple as we

>might like for it to

>be.

 

What gave you the idea that it isn't? Being dissatisfied with the status quo is one thing. Dealing with one's dissatisfaction by indulging in fantasies about oneself and others -- that escorts and masseurs are solving people's emotional problems, for example -- is something else.

 

 

Which is older, psycotherapy

>or Reiki? Reiki by about

>fifty years.

 

Witchcraft is older than both. The next time you or a loved one has a serious illness, try going to a witch instead of a physician. Let us know what happens. If you can.

 

 

Which has worked

>near miracles for a great

>many people? Both of them.

>Why can't there be more

>than one true path? Your

>turn with the answers.

 

 

I have nothing against any type of therapy that has been thoroughly vetted by and is regulated by people with plenty of training and experience in psychology and medicine. I think that no one should be allowed to represent himself to the public as capable of helping those with serious psychological problems unless he has that sort of background, unless he has agreed to abide by standards of treatment endorsed by people with that background, and unless he is part of a regulatory structure that allows him to be held accountable if he departs from those standards and causes harm to someone.

 

There are people who want to think of themselves as therapists and who want to be compensated for providing therapy, but who don't want to do the work involved in actually becoming therapists. They don't want to go through the process of training and supervision that is necessary to validate what they do and to protect the public from any mistakes they might make. I think those people have the potential to do a lot of harm and I think the public needs to be protected from them.

[Guest Merlin]

Some agencies inform you on the phone after you have arranged the meeting that the fee is not to be discussed again until after the service has been performed. The phone deal by itself will probably not support a prosecution because there is no proof that the one who answers the door was the one on the phone.

The policeman will not be willing to go through the entire service scene, so there is no proof of an agreement to pay for sex. Thus, if you specifiy, in arranging the meeting that there will be no further discussion of fee until it is over, and if you stick to it you are protected. But if he shows up and wants to discuss fee or commit you again to the phone arrangement, you must be prepared to say there has been a mistake and send him away.

[ready4boi]

Give it a rest PLEEEEEZE! Stop comparing private consensual oral and anal sex to prostitution. In most states it is not a crime to have sex with whoever you want and however you want as long as it's consensual and done privately. BUT prostitution is still VERY ILLEGAL and very much a crime in all states. If you are a prostitute and a cop does decide to arrest you it is not something you want on your record. Believe me I have talked to prostitutes who have been arrested. What's worse is that when it does go on your record it can prevent you from getting a legitimate job. That's why I think escorts are incredibly brave because it can be so risky.

[Justice]

>That's why I think escorts

>are incredibly brave because it

>can be so risky.

 

I couldn't agree with you more!