For Love or Money

[Guest pyell]

And what about places like Australia (where I live) where prostitution is legal and licensed in most parts of the country? Does that change the equation so that what is excusable in the USA is inexcusable in Australia, or the Netherlands? Sounds a bit capricious to me.

[woodlawn]

>If we took a poll, I believe 90%+ of those on the message

>center would consider escorting to be illegal in the same

>sense that selling certain quantities of weed is illegal. The

>whole premise of the argument is flawed and further inflamed

>by repeated use of the word prostitute.

 

 

"In the same sense"? What is that supposed to mean? Selling grass is a crime. So is prostitution. Stating they are illegal "in a sense" implies that there is another "sense" in which they are not illegal. What "sense" would that be? And in what way is the premise of the argument "flawed"? The premise is that paying someone for sex or accepting money for sex is a crime. Do you dispute that? The use of the word "prostitute" seems quite appropriate when one is talking about prostitutes, no? Is there any reason NOT to use it?

 

 

>Does this mean that I can not trust my local grass supplier,

>don't

>think so.

 

Trust a drug dealer? Is that meant as a joke? I find it hard to believe anyone would make such a statement seriously.

 

This discussion is about prostitution, specifically about whether it makes sense for a client to be surprised or upset when a prostitute fails to show up for an appointment. Will says we should hold prostitutes to the same standard of behavior as people in other lines of work. I say he's overlooking some important distinctions. Prostitution is a crime, and people who are in that business have obviously made a decision that it's okay for them to ignore certain moral and legal rules in order to get what they want. Why is it important to you to pretend otherwise? Does acknowledging that the people you hire are committing crimes make you feel guilty? If not, what's your problem?

 

 

 

 

 

People are people, most clients can make their own

>judgements no matter how much you want to cite laws to further

>your argument.

>

>

[Jeff]

While I'm sympathetic to cougar's plight as stated here, we should keep two things in mind: (1) the escort may have a totally valid reason, including why he hasn't responded so far; (2) I have no reason to doubt cougar - but I don't know him either - and so I think it's important to keep in mind, as I don't think anyone has yet said this, that we are hearing only one side of the story -- maybe there's more to it from the escort's pov, who knows?

[woodlawn]

>Relax - it was just an expression.

 

Yeah, I know it's an expression. I asked you what the expression means.

 

> I suppose the

>"technically" I put there is mostly because personally, I

>don't see the problem with escorting (obviously), so that was

>the implication.

 

So "technically illegal" means something that is illegal but that you think should not be illegal? Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

>Most of the true escorts I met have been

>very nice and treated me well. That said, I think there are

>plenty of people who advertise as escorts with the sole intent

>of scamming people out of their money, but I feel that's a

>distinction that has to be made - these are scam artists, not

>true escorts.

 

In other words, it's fair to say that escorts behave honorably because any escort who does not is not a "true escort." Okay.

 

>Why the sarcasm?

 

There's no sarcasm. I'm trying to find out if you really believe that you are no more likely to be ripped off by paying in advance for services that are illegal than for other services.

 

>I think saying that risk is

>much more predominant with escorting is unfair. The lack of

>legal recourse I'm sure makes it much easier, but that's when

>the scam artists I mentioned above come in in my opinion.

 

So the risk of being ripped off by an escort is not greater because if an escort rips you off he's not a "true escort" but something else. Okay.

[woodlawn]

>But aren't WE also involved in that same crime but just in a

>different way? So what makes us anymore "Ethical" than them?

>Is it also silly for the Escort to profess to be astonished if

>the Client acts unethically?

 

Yes, clients are involved in the same crime, and yes, it is rather silly for an escort to opt for a life of crime and be astonished if he has to deal with people who act unethically.

 

 

>We the Clients, are no better or worse than those we hire.

 

I agree.

 

>Mutual respect for each other should be what is expected and

>given by BOTH.

 

I disagree. I think it's crazy to do business with people you know are involved in crime and expect that they are going to adhere to the same code of ethics as everyone else. That's not to say that everyone involved in crime has no ethical standards at all. But when you choose to do business with someone precisely because he is willing to ignore ethical rules, how can you complain if he then proceeds to ignore ethical rules?

[guptasa1]

Just to clarify my point of view, you're right, I don't think escorting should be illegal. While I heartily admit there are risks to the business, especially for escorts but also to clients, I don't personally see any problem with it.

 

As far as true escorts, I do believe there's a big difference between a scam artist and an escort. I believe a scam artist will always try to take advantage of the client, doing as little of what was promised as possible and getting as much money as possible in as brief a period as possible. I believe escorts, however, unless of course the circumstances turn somehow unexpected, gladly fulfill their part of the agreement and really respect their clients (of course, only if the clients respect them too).

 

Escorting is probably very attractive to scam artists simply because they can scam people, and BECAUSE it's an illegal activity in the first place, they can generally get away with it too. But in my view, that means they never were real escorts in the first place - they just realized using the guise of escorting would protect them.

 

I'd imagine there are people who start out as escorts and maybe become scam artists at some point, but I'd also imagine (and no, to be honest I have no empirical evidence...this is just a hunch) that this is quite rare. I'd think initial intention has a lot to do with things. Motive for escorting comes into play in my mind - if they HATE what they're doing and just are doing it for the money because they feel they HAVE to, that's much different than if they want to or need to make some extra money but also enjoy making people happy too.

 

I'm a client, so as one, I would also be engaging in illegal activity. That said, I *do* respect the escorts I'm with, and I treat them as such. I do NOT think it's unreasonable or crazy to expect the same in return. I think it's important to realize that a willingness to break a particular law is NOT the same as a willingness to harm another person (financially or emotionally) - those are different lines to cross. Sometimes people break the law not because they get a rush from breaking the law, but because they disagree with it. Some people don't feel escorting (just like sodomy) should be illegal, which is why they do it. On the other hand, I would imagine MOST people wouldn't argue that robbing banks should be legal...or that random murder should be legal. A silly example, yes, but hopefully you see my point?

 

As I said, as far as advance payment, I do it on a case by case basis. With the right people, I think it's perfectly safe to do this (especially for a regular). And as anything else, with others, it's clearly not a good idea. To be perfectly honest, one reason I'm a bit fond of advance payment is that I feel it shows trust on my part...and it does test their ethics and motive (though it's an expensive mistake if I make a wrong judgment call). When the escort DOES show up after already being paid, frankly it makes me feel good that they're here to see ME when they could have skipped out instead of just coming to get their payment...and the awkward stuff is already out of the way so the experience can just be enjoyed. (Actually, come to think of it, the time I got scammed wasn't even an advance payment really...it was a payment up front upon meeting, and the guy left in the middle of the appointment [said he'd be right back and then disappeared], but that was a case where he did pretty much NOTHING anyways besides eat dinner with me - lol.)

 

At any rate, I don't think I'd feel much MORE comfortable with advance payment in any transaction, even legal business ones - it's always a calculated risk. *shrugs* Take eBay for example (not to compare escorts to goods) - people rely a lot on the feedback sellers have when they buy (a little like this site). Without that, you just take a risk. The only advantage there is, if you do get scammed, you MIGHT have legal recourse.

 

Again, just my two cents. I hope you find my arguments reasonable.

[woodlawn]

>And what about places like Australia (where I live) where

>prostitution is legal and licensed in most parts of the

>country? Does that change the equation so that what is

>excusable in the USA is inexcusable in Australia, or the

>Netherlands? Sounds a bit capricious to me.

 

Why "capricious"? Every nation makes laws that it thinks are appropriate for the public health, safety and welfare. In most American states, for example, it's quite easy to buy a handgun legally if one has no criminal record. In Japan it's extremely difficult for a private citizen to purchase a handgun. Are the Japanese being "capricious" about this? If we allow something that they forbid, does that mean they're wrong?

[woodlawn]

>Again, just my two cents. I hope you find my arguments

>reasonable.

 

In one respect I find them circular. If you take every escort who rips people off and classify him as not a "true escort," then of course it's accurate to say we should always expect escorts to be honorable -- because we simply redefine any who is not honorable as something other than an escort.

 

I think some escorts try to keep their engagements to the best of their ability. Others, like the one who ran out on you in the middle of the appointment after taking your money, do not. Even with the information provided on this site it is not possible to know, for any given escort, which group he belongs in. Clients who post here, including one who has posted in this thread, have reported some pretty terrible experiences even with escorts who have multiple positive reviews on this site.

 

Personally, I always try to keep in mind that any illegal business, whether it is drugs, prostitution, illegal gun sales or what have you, is going to attract people (on both sides of the transaction) who do not have a problem crossing legal and moral lines to get what they want. With such people it is advisable to have no expectations.

[guptasa1]

>>Again, just my two cents. I hope you find my arguments

>>reasonable.

>

>In one respect I find them circular. If you take every escort

>who rips people off and classify him as not a "true escort,"

>then of course it's accurate to say we should always expect

>escorts to be honorable -- because we simply redefine any who

>is not honorable as something other than an escort.

 

I both see and respect your point. In one sense, I suppose my arguments are a bit circular. But I also think the distinction is at least partially valid, if not moreso.

 

>I think some escorts try to keep their engagements to the best

>of their ability. Others, like the one who ran out on you in

>the middle of the appointment after taking your money, do not.

> Even with the information provided on this site it is not

>possible to know, for any given escort, which group he belongs

>in. Clients who post here, including one who has posted in

>this thread, have reported some pretty terrible experiences

>even with escorts who have multiple positive reviews on this

>site.

 

I agree that it's impossible to know, even with reviews, that an escort is going to be honorable, and that there's always a chance something might change. It is in my opinion, however, that these reviews provide a much better indicator to make an educated guess (same applies to the eBay example...there might be 499 good transactions and 1 bad one, but it still indicates a general trend). My bad experience is another good example - I took a chance on a guy with NO reviews at all because I was attracted to his profile and pictures, which I probably wouldn't do a second time.

 

While bad experiences happen with otherwise well-reputed escorts, I would argue, in the case of this thread (assuming you mean Cougar's experience), it's still unknown what happened - there may still be a very good reason. As someone else also pointed out, some of those bad experiences may be from the CLIENT side of things, not the escorts, as well (not making any implications here by the way...just acknowledging the possibility).

 

>Personally, I always try to keep in mind that any illegal

>business, whether it is drugs, prostitution, illegal gun sales

>or what have you, is going to attract people (on both sides of

>the transaction) who do not have a problem crossing legal and

>moral lines to get what they want. With such people it is

>advisable to have no expectations.

 

I guess this is the part I most strongly but respectfully disagree with you on (especially the moral line part), but at the same time, I think I see where you're coming from. It just seems kind of stoic to me NOT to make expectations. But caution is never a bad thing either. I choose to make expectations I suppose. At the same time, I try to keep things in perspective in case my expectations are let down. (For example, when I send payment ahead of time, I accept the fact that it IS possible...even if unlikely...I will lose out...I just hedge my bets in those situations.)

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

 

>We the Clients, are no better or worse than those we hire.

>Mutual respect for each other should be what is expected and

>given by BOTH.

>

 

Ditto KY.

 

Are escorts as a group more unscrupulous than those in other walks of life, say: attorneys, insurance and auto salesmen, to name a few? A conjecture that can be neither proved nor disproved. What is known by experience is that there are unscrupulous people in all walks of life. Personally, I think the person makes the escort, the escort doesn't make the person. That goes for clients too and also for the attorneys and salesmen. I hire titles for service but I deal with people -- the good, (unfortunately sometimes) the bad and the ugly. I treat everyone as I wish to be treated until I have reason to do otherwise. It has worked well most of the time. Overall, I have been very happy with my escorts, more so than with attorneys and salesmen. Other's mileage may vary.

[guptasa1]

RE: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

 

>Are escorts as a group more unscrupulous than those in other

>walks of life, say: attorneys, insurance and auto salesmen,

>to name a few? A conjecture that can be neither proved nor

>disproved. What is known by experience is that there are

>unscrupulous people in all walks of life. Personally, I think

>the person makes the escort, the escort doesn't make the

>person. That goes for clients too and also for the attorneys

>and salesmen. I hire titles for service but I deal with people

>-- the good, (unfortunately sometimes) the bad and the ugly.

>I treat everyone as I wish to be treated until I have reason

>to do otherwise. It has worked well most of the time. Overall,

>I have been very happy with my escorts, more so than with

>attorneys and salesmen. Other's mileage may vary.

 

That sums up how I feel much more succinctly than I put it.

[woodlawn]

>Clients who post here, including one who has posted in

>>this thread, have reported some pretty terrible experiences

>>even with escorts who have multiple positive reviews on this

>>site.

 

>While bad experiences happen with otherwise well-reputed

>escorts, I would argue, in the case of this thread (assuming

>you mean Cougar's experience), it's still unknown what

>happened - there may still be a very good reason.

 

No, I am not referring to Cougar's experience. I am referring to an experience recounted on this board months ago by another one of the posters in this thread. He accused an escort who has positive reviews here of several actions that any client would consider unacceptable if not atrocious. The escort responded on this board and admitted to some, though not all, of the actions in question.

[woodlawn]

>However, a deal is a deal, right? I did call him three days

>before the trip to make sure he did have the flight info and

>knew the times etc. I wasn't too concerned when I didn't get a

>response from him, because I knew he had never let me down in

>the past, and I am not accustomed to being let down in ways

>like this by people who I consider my friends.

 

 

A couple of things. First, if you hired the same escort 19 times and had a good experience each and every time, you have a better record than a lot of those who post here, including me. You should consider yourself lucky.

 

Second, whatever explanation this guy ultimately gives you, unless there is some independent way of verifying it (i.e., he says he is in the hospital and you go to visit him there), you will always wonder whether you have been told the truth. Rather than put yourself through that, my advice is to congratulate yourself on a long and successful run with this escort and move on.

[AdamSmith]

>I guess this is the part I most strongly but respectfully

>disagree with you on (especially the moral line part), but at

>the same time, I think I see where you're coming from.

 

Trust your first instincts. Your phrase "technically illegal," which was mocked, gets at a crucial point: the moral authority of the law.

 

Of course when you go beyond the law, you go beyond its protections. But what would be "circular" would be to automatically equate morality and ethical behavior with the current state of law at any given time.

 

That begs the question. Arguments that lawbreaking is not always and inevitably a violation of the social contract have been made from several serious viewpoints, civil disobedience and civil libertarianism among them.

[woodlawn]

>Trust your first instincts. Your phrase "technically illegal,"

>which was mocked, gets at a crucial point: the moral authority

>of the law.

 

No, there was no mockery. To say that something is illegal "technically" implies that there is some sense in which it is NOT illegal. That's why I think the use of that term is inappropriate here.

 

>Of course when you go beyond the law, you go beyond its

>protections. But what would be "circular" would be to

>automatically equate morality and ethical behavior with the

>current state of law at any given time.

 

Nothing circular about it. Our legislative system at both the state and federal levels is designed so as to make it quite difficult to enact laws on which there is not a broad consensus of opinion in society. The system only fails to operate in situations in which, as was the case with racial segregation, the population most affected by a given law is effectively excluded from participating in the political process. That isn't the case with the laws we're discussing.

[+ Charlie]

Do you mean that you are admitting that no one should expect moral or ethical behavior from you, since you engage in the illegal behavior of hiring escorts?

[woodlawn]

>Do you mean that you are admitting that no one should expect

>moral or ethical behavior from you, since you engage in the

>illegal behavior of hiring escorts?

 

I'm saying that when you know you are dealing with people involved in crime, a group that includes both of us, it's rather silly to be surprised if people in that group don't uphold the highest ethical standards. You disagree with that statement?

[guptasa1]

Thanks, AdamSmith - I think you read it the way I meant it. I also think the idea you bring up about a social contract is intriguing - I guess I tend to base my ideas more on that than on the law in this particular case. I try to base everything on the idea of mutual respect between two human beings.

 

Woodlawn, sorry for the mixup - I didn't realize the post you were referring to. Still, and though I have no empirical proof of this (I don't think one could have that), I would imagine that's the exception and not the rule. Generally, I think it's safe to say the good escorts are by-and-large good and the bad ones (or scammers) are by-and-large bad. I doubt there's a lot of crossover except in fairly rare cases. Every once and a while, you do find mixed reviews for people, but most are either almost all good or all bad.

 

>I'm saying that when you know you are dealing with people

>involved in crime, a group that includes both of us, it's

>rather silly to be surprised if people in that group don't

>uphold the highest ethical standards. You disagree with that

>statement?

 

I disagree - to me, it's not silly at all to expect to be treated ethically as long as you're doing the same. I don't think a person's law-abidingness NECESSARILY reflects their moral standards. I do think there CAN be a correlation - I just don't think it's there with every crime. The nature of the crime has a lot to do with it in my opinion, and escorting just isn't one of those things that by its nature, apart from risk, harms people. Because of that, I think you can separate the law from morals in this case. Simply put, the morals of the escort and client don't respect THAT law. That doesn't mean those same morals don't respect THE law.

 

I also disagree with your example. Even though the groups affected in racial discrimination couldn't vote and such, it still didn't make it right for the members of society who COULD vote to stand by and allow it. In that case, I think it's safe to say both the law and the morals behind it were wrong, though I think the two reinforced each other. It took people who stood up and BROKE the law because their morals were stronger in order to effect significant change.

 

Not to keep bringing it up, but I notice you haven't mentioned what you think about people who broke the sodomy law when it was still in effect. Would you say people who broke that law were more likely to participate in other illegal behavior (assuming you yourself don't see sodomy as morally wrong)?

 

Morals will always drive people even more than law. People tend to do what they believe in and what they believe to be right above all else.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

>

>>Mutual respect for each other should be what is expected and

>>given by BOTH.

>

>I disagree. I think it's crazy to do business with people you

>know are involved in crime and expect that they are going to

>adhere to the same code of ethics as everyone else. That's

>not to say that everyone involved in crime has no ethical

>standards at all. But when you choose to do business with

>someone precisely because he is willing to ignore ethical

>rules, how can you complain if he then proceeds to ignore

>ethical rules?

 

 

Bullshit again, Axe.

 

Let me start by saying by B.A. is in Philosophy and since college I have continued to read and learn about the subject. It particular, ethics.

 

A criminal act and an ethical act are not the same thing. Jaywalking is a criminal offense, but not an ethical one. It might be unethical to cheat at cards with your friends, but it is not a criminal act.

 

Law and Ethics do overlap, but they are NOT the same thing.

 

It is possible for the same criminal act to be committed for totally different ethical reasons, from the most selfish and self-centered (motives I am sure you are familar with, Axe) to a reason based on concern for the highest human good.

 

I suggest you find a book on law and ethics before you write anything further about this subject. It would help if you actually KNEW what you were talking about.

 

Oh, and did you ever read LES MISERABLES by Victor Hugo? There is a message there.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

>

>Bullshit again, Axe.

 

 

I should have written "Woodlawn". Sometimes I just cannot tell you two idiots apart in your ranting and raving.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

>

>I'm saying that when you know you are dealing with people

>involved in crime, a group that includes both of us, it's

>rather silly to be surprised if people in that group don't

>uphold the highest ethical standards. You disagree with that

>statement?

 

 

I do, because it is false.

 

The fact you think to do so is "rather silly" says a great deal about your ethical nature.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>Oh, and did you ever read LES MISERABLES by Victor Hugo?

>There is a message there.

 

 

... and only Hugo could have buried it so deeply! :+

[Guest]

RE: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

 

>Are escorts as a group more unscrupulous than those in other

>walks of life, say: attorneys, insurance and auto salesmen,

>to name a few? A conjecture that can be neither proved nor

>disproved. What is known by experience is that there are

>unscrupulous people in all walks of life. Personally, I think

>the person makes the escort, the escort doesn't make the

>person. That goes for clients too and also for the attorneys

>and salesmen. I hire titles for service but I deal with people

>-- the good, (unfortunately sometimes) the bad and the ugly.

>I treat everyone as I wish to be treated until I have reason

>to do otherwise. It has worked well most of the time. Overall,

>I have been very happy with my escorts, more so than with

>attorneys and salesmen. Other's mileage may vary.

>

 

You have just named the professions most known for their dishonesty. In fact, attorneys almost have to be dishonest in order to do their profession competently (trial attorneys, that is). An attorney's primary responsibility is to represent his client, not to the truth. Scott Peterson's lawyer's job is to save his client from the syringe of death. He'll make up a story if he has to, even if he knows damned well Peterson offed his wife and kid for some broad. Likewise, the successful car or insurance salesman presents a biased view of his product and usually tries to confuse his customers by playing numbers games.

What is potentially even more dangerous with escorts, however, is that they are in a profession which requires no investment, commitment, or education. It's simply an easy way at a quick buck for someone with a nice body, dick, or face (2 out of 3 usually needed). This doesn't mean there aren't honest escorts. There certainly are. It just means you have to be careful.

[+ Charlie]

Actually, woody, I do disagree, for the reasons stated by several other writers here. All "criminal behaviors" do not have equal moral valence. It might even be unethical or immoral to obey certain laws; I would consider it at least cowardly to refrain from sodomy solely because it is against the law (and considered immoral by a large portion of American society). Finally, one cannot generalize about the ethical standards of an individual based on his response to a single law, which is why I don't assume that because a person breaks one law or moral taboo, he can't be expected to maintain moral or ethical standards in any activity of his life.

[woodlawn]

>Woodlawn, sorry for the mixup - I didn't realize the post you

>were referring to. Still, and though I have no empirical

>proof of this (I don't think one could have that), I would

>imagine that's the exception and not the rule.

 

You put it very well. That is something you imagine, and you can have no idea whether or not it is true.

 

>The nature of

>the crime has a lot to do with it in my opinion, and escorting

>just isn't one of those things that by its nature, apart from

>risk, harms people. Because of that, I think you can separate

>the law from morals in this case.

 

It's not very surprising to hear an opinion like that from people who want to hire escorts or be hired as escorts. On this message board, such self-serving and self-justifying statements are the rule -- just look at the responses from Charlie and Yog-Sothoth, for example. It's unusual to run across someone like you who can discuss these issues without disparaging people who disagree with him, however. Charlie and Yog-Sothoth clearly lack the maturity to do that, as you can see.

 

What is even more unusual here is to find someone who is actually capable of considering these issues from any point of view other than his own selfish interests. But I keep looking.

 

 

>I also disagree with your example. Even though the groups

>affected in racial discrimination couldn't vote and such, it

>still didn't make it right for the members of society who

>COULD vote to stand by and allow it.

 

I think you are reading into my post a hell of a lot of things that I never wrote, which is also pretty common on this board.

 

The point I made is a very simple one. Our system of passing laws is designed so that it's very difficult to pass a given law if even a significant minority of citizens don't agree with that law. The fact that virtually every jurisdiction in this country outlaws prostitution shows that there is not a lot of disagreement about whether it should be permitted. Occasionally some laws get on the books that don't reflect a moral consensus in our society, but the laws on prostitution are not in that category.

 

That system only breaks down when there is a significant minority who disagree with the law but who are excluded from the political process, as blacks were for much of the past two centuries. I didn't say anything about the morality of the Jim Crow laws, so your comments about that have nothing to do with my post.

 

>Not to keep bringing it up, but I notice you haven't mentioned

>what you think about people who broke the sodomy law when it

>was still in effect. Would you say people who broke that law

>were more likely to participate in other illegal behavior

>(assuming you yourself don't see sodomy as morally wrong)?

 

I'm not sure one can say that about the sodomy laws because they are so obscure that I'd wager most of the people affected by them don't even know they exist. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, there were 13 states that still had sodomy laws on the books. If you were to take a poll of the people who live in those states I suspect the vast majority wouldn't be able to tell you whether their state has such a law and what its provisions are. Can you answer that question about your state?

 

I don't think one can draw any conclusions about a person's attitude toward the law when he doesn't even realize that something he's doing is the subject of a law.

 

>Morals will always drive people even more than law. People

>tend to do what they believe in and what they believe to be

>right above all else.

 

No, I think people tend to do what they perceive as in their own interest above all else. If that were not so our prisons would be empty, not filled to overflowing as they are.