Predators and Prey (warning: long, pointless)

[Guest albinorat]

The 'Net is often no win and the various threads about 'hustler vs. escort' inevitably involve real and imagined personal conflicts between posters. Also, this is hardly the place to try and have an 'objective' discussion about prostitution (if that's even possible).

 

What is the point of name-calling? Deriding or condemning someone who is attracted to men who can be drafted and killed in a war but are well below middle age (say 18 - 25) is very odd on a message board and 'Net site used by "faggots", "sinners", "perverts", "criminals", "sickoes" -- and in reality all of the above.

 

Paying for sex is against the law in all 52 states; so everyone here who has done it, including the guy screaming "chicken hawk" is a criminal who as far as the laws go, should be prosecuted and put in jail. That's the law, enforced or not. Selling sex is likewise a criminal act.

 

Any male who seeks to have sex with another male of any age under any circumstances is also committing a crime in some states. That male is in addition, 'abnormal' a 'pervert' in the eyes of probably a majority of tax paying, law abiding, church going American citizens. Those are values that are a part of almost 2000 years of Christian teaching (the 'pervert' will burn in hell FOREVER and should be shunned), it is also a part of Jewish teaching going back to whenever Leviticus was first written (there are arguments about this but let's say 2400 years).

 

Condemning someone who likes younger men is splitting hairs to put it mildly. The patron of the extremely hairy and rapidly aging escort is as guilty as the patron of the younger hustler. All of us will burn in hell and are outcasts, all of us are criminals and perverts, by paying we make it worse, so Jesse Helms would argue.

 

The payer is the more guilty, preacher man, social worker would say. His money and willingness to pay (whether it's $40 or $400) has lured potentially moral, upstanding, law abiding young men (for no one starts selling in his forties, and very few if any start in their thirties) into a life of perversion and sin. Those young men would not be doing that (your local right winger might say) if you were not there to pay them -- whatever.

 

And then! To think of it, these great shining souls, who have been lured and falsely reassured by us devils into becoming 'escorts' PISS on people, FIST FUCK people, WHIP and BIND people, wear LURID and OBSCENE costumes with people ALL FOR MONEY! This is hell right here. Kill all the johns for they are luring our youth to perdition, even if 'our youth' is a very broad term that can apply to anyone who accepts pay.

 

Now, of course, in a pluralistic society, which has become better educated about 'alternative lifestyles' and is therefore somewhat less judgmental about them, not every citizen is going to feel the above strongly. Nor would every citizen adopt quite that vocabulary. Yet I think the contributors to this site would be very surprised at just how many people (including homosexual men and especially lesbians) are contemptuous and judgmental about the whole 'for hire' scene.

 

What point is to be made? Unless someone is hanging around school yards flashing dough or drugs he is not a 'chicken hawk' an old term that is the street equivalent to a pedophile. The age of sexual consent in most European countries is 15, in some, it is 13. But in our intensely sexualized culture an 18 year old is certainly in a position to seek out and consent to any sexual act (for pay or not) with either gender, and a great many do.

 

Pushing the 'chicken hawk' accusation is not only inflammatory but in fact it's a lie.

 

As to where a 'john' looks, that is going to depend on where he lives, how much money he has, his sex drive and his erotic impulses. There probably are all kinds of men who pay other men for sex, from those whose paying means dinner and a show and entree into an otherwise closed social circle, to those who pay cash on demand.

 

The fact that someone is an escort at all under any circumstances suggests to the main stream that his moral compass is skewered; he is a whore, a degrading term all over the world.

 

The high priced escorts who post here and their well to do patrons have something invested (even if only subconsciously) in protecting and defending their lifestyles, though as far as I can see no one has attacked them. They also write as though they have buried under their 'tudes a lot of shame, regret and conflict, certainly about sex for hire, and perhaps about homosexuality.

 

The rash generalizations made about the kind of lives men who sell sex lead seem altogether foolish to me. I have known 'street hustlers' who actually had minimum wage jobs, and apartments (usually shared) who wanted to augment their incomes and found 'hustling' an easy way to do it (it helped that often they could feel at ease with older less attractive men, some did not affiliate to 'gayness' so they did not have the body fascism that has come to dominate 'gay culture' over the past 20 years).

 

I have known high priced 'escorts' who spent all their money on drugs and even after charging sky high fees for years had nothing to show for it except a terrible addiction.

 

I have known 'neighborhood' guys, just out of high school, either in a local collage or trying to get into a working class profession who were available for discreet meetings. They lived at home, had a work ethic, were often friendly, and being broke themselves, had a healthy respect for the man who was paying them.

 

I have met 'world traveling' escorts who were vicious, unfeeling, exploitative, cruel and greedy, and who had learned how to get as much for as little in return as possible. They were filth, however well turned out and whether they really had a BA or MA or not.

 

Are there hard luck stories and victims? Sure. I know johns who have paid guys rather than paying the rent, the phone bill, and their taxes. No escort I've ever known of has ever offered that john even a bit of sympathy let alone a steep discount or a freebie in honor of all the money the john spent (and turns out not really to have had).

 

Of course some 'hustlers' are homeless or very marginal. But many escorts of all complexions have trouble with drugs, issues with intimacy and some problems finding and keeping standard jobs.

 

As to who is physically sick, and who isn't, well who can know? Neither escort nor john is going to 'come out' about his history of STD's (excepting a tiny majority).

 

Any social worker would tell you that any male who sells sex is demeaning himself and reinforcing serious emotional dislocation that will get worse with time -- and that's true in all price ranges. Any social worker or detective will tell you any john who pays is empowering and 'victimizing' people who need help for everything from psychiatric illnesses (which may not be evident in the hour you spend with a guy), to severe drug addictions, to a 'criminal' lifestyle which may go on to include breaking and entering, extortion and even murder.

 

Both social worker and detective will have a ton of statistics as well as innumerable case histories right to hand that prove their points.

 

So where does this leave US?

 

Back where we started sadly. I think most of US are nice people who deal only with consenting adults who make their willingness to 'work' clear and who will find someone else if you don't bite. I think many guys for hire, high, middle and low priced, mean well, try to deliver and are 'safe' so long as the employer is 'safe'. For us 'prostitution' wears a human face, and it is ours.

 

Attacking someone who wants a young smooth body, and has an eye out for the occasional bargain makes no more sense than attacking someone who wants a hairy fairy and doesn't care what that costs.

 

Fictionalizing OUR lives, escort, hustler, client and john serves no purpose unless you want to publish fiction. The guess that some 18 year old on a street corner known to attract 'trade' is a desperate, suffering, helpless soul is sentimental twaddle. Sure it may be true sometimes, but hairy escort of 37 pretending to be 27, may be a bi-polar or borderline, drug abusing, intimacy-dreading exploiter who will kill himself at 45.

 

I suspect there are men here who pay, and men who charge who are bad people. I can't know which ones. But I don't think I am one, and I don't think most posters (on whatever side of the equation) are.

 

Al

[Guest jizzdepapi]

freed at last!

 

you're a smart guy, albinorat. thanks.

[Rod Hagen]

RE: freed at last!

 

Ah shit. I have to leave in 2 minutes for the evening to go to San Jose, and I SO want to respond to this thread in full.

 

First, very well written Albinorat. Very logical and well-thought out, thank you for speaking so clearly. I wish I could resist the urge to throw "Mother Fucker" in here and there as you have so succesfully done.

 

After a quick glance, I think I largely agree with your logic about such discussions being pointless as we are all doing, or considering doing something ilegal. That is our common thread on this Website.

 

But I never said, or implied, that escorts can't be equally or even more fucked up than Street hustlers or anybody else for that matter. In fact, I did say that an escort who wastes his money on drugs and doesn't even have a comfortable life, is so silly as to be beyond pitty. I don't feel the same about Street Hustlers living day to day.

 

Why is it that because I DEFEND taking advantage of people I, perhaps arrogantly, feel sorry for, that means I'm saying I'm better? I'm not.

 

BYE!

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: freed at last!

 

smart? perhaps... although there are only 50 states in the US.

hmm... are you including DC & canada?

[Guest jizzdepapi]

yup!

 

smart!; go figure?!

[sdg]

RE: freed at last!

 

so glad your back DC!

[+ imagooddog]

Al -

That was a well-written and well thought out message that you have posted and shows a lot of intelligence on your part. AND, you

managed to do it without calling people some obscene names !!

HOORAY for you !!!:-) :-)

[marc anthony]

You were more effective than I

 

Albino: Obviously the thread you have labelled long and pointless got the point across better than mine. I have been questioning (in multiple threads, actually) the validity of passing judgement on people who hire 18-24 yo twinks when the whole concept of hiring prostitutes for gay sex is outside the scope of our society's norm.

 

Clearly, the vast majority of people who are on this board either hire or are hired for gay sex. Why anyone in that circle wants to break everything down into what is acceptable and what is not does not make any sense to me.

 

But you appear to have found some consensus from all fronts... and that is impressive. Not that it matters much to me, as I will continue doing what I am doing as I find it fun and fulfilling... and I do it with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. In fact, I feel pretty good about the way I treat the escort twinks that I meet. Just finished planning a trip to Chicago so I can meet that gorgeous boy Carter that was just reviewed today and is the coverboy. Young, cute, and delicious!}>

[Guest regulation]

>What is the point of name-calling?

 

Well, when you attacked Pickwick and TruthTeller last year with names like "shitsucker" and "anal wart" you said you were doing it because you enjoyed it. That answer your question? If you thought you were going to get away with chiding others for doing something that you yourself have done with so much relish in the past, you were mistaken.

 

>Any social worker would tell you that any male who sells sex

>is demeaning himself and reinforcing serious emotional

>dislocation that will get worse with time -- and that's true

>in all price ranges. Any social worker or detective will

>tell you any john who pays is empowering and 'victimizing'

>people who need help for everything from psychiatric

>illnesses (which may not be evident in the hour you spend

>with a guy), to severe drug addictions, to a 'criminal'

>lifestyle which may go on to include breaking and entering,

>extortion and even murder.

>

>Both social worker and detective will have a ton of

>statistics as well as innumerable case histories right to

>hand that prove their points.

>

>So where does this leave US?

>

>Back where we started sadly. I think most of US are nice

>people who deal only with consenting adults who make their

>willingness to 'work' clear and who will find someone else

>if you don't bite. I think many guys for hire, high, middle

>and low priced, mean well, try to deliver and are 'safe' so

>long as the employer is 'safe'. For us 'prostitution' wears

>a human face, and it is ours.

 

>I suspect there are men here who pay, and men who charge who

>are bad people. I can't know which ones. But I don't think I

>am one, and I don't think most posters (on whatever side of

>the equation) are.

 

"Where does this leave US?" indeed.

 

On the one hand you tell us that people who actually study prostitution believe it does harm those who are involved in it and that they have plenty of data to substantiate their belief.

 

On the other hand you tell us that most of us who use this website to facilitate our involvement in this harmful institution are nice people and not bad people.

 

Both those things can't be true. People who choose to involve themselves in things they know or should know are harmful to others for their own selfish reasons are not nice people. What is morality after all if not the putting aside of personal desires that lead or may lead to harm for our fellow human beings? We call people "immoral" when they refuse to put aside their desires in such situations.

 

Yes, prostitution does do harm to many on both sides of the transaction. And yes, the younger and less experienced the people involved in it, the more likely it is that harm will result. So while those who hire only prostitutes well past the age of consent are far from blameless, it is not absurd for them to point the finger at those who hire prostitutes at or below the age of consent.

[Guest albinorat]

>>What is the point of name-calling?

>

>Well, when you attacked Pickwick and TruthTeller last year

>with names like "shitsucker" and "anal wart" you said you

>were doing it because you enjoyed it. That answer your

>question? If you thought you were going to get away with

>chiding others for doing something that you yourself have

>done with so much relish in the past, you were mistaken.<

 

Yawn. Those things are not crimes, they are not against the law. Someone may be a shit sucker in my eyes but no one is going to investigate them because of that accusation. Calling someone a "chicken hawk" is accusing the indiviual of one of the few sex crimes taken seriously (currently) in this society (so long as the "victim" is male).

 

If someone is accused of being a "chicken hawk" irresponsibly and on no evidence and certainly, with reason, three things can happen:

 

1. that person could be investigated if this site is being monitored by anyone in law enforcement who is not selling or buying sex.

 

2. The site can be investigated on the grounds that "chicken hawks' might congregate here and the site could be a conduit for underaged male prostitutes.

 

3. Anyone logging in can be investigated for coming to a site where there may be sexual activities advertised by the underaged (they are called the "Rico" laws and are routinely used in sex cases).

 

>

>

>On the one hand you tell us that people who actually study

>prostitution believe it does harm those who are involved in

>it and that they have plenty of data to substantiate their

>belief.

>

>On the other hand you tell us that most of us who use this

>website to facilitate our involvement in this harmful

>institution are nice people and not bad people.

>

>Both those things can't be true.<

 

Hm, so the Bible that tells me that my having shrimp on the barbee then having sex with my menstruating wife justifies me being stoned to death?

 

After all God wrote the Bible.

 

But things ain't that simple. Social workers and detectives deal with people who are either in the criminal justice system already or are about to be (or in some cases, with therapists, those who have sought their help in need). Further, detectives are there to inforce the laws on the books. Those laws condemn prostituion everywhere and crime cannot be good, in some places those laws condemn 'sodomy' too.

 

But is prostituion always a criminal activity? How about in those countries where it's been legalized? Are they criminal societies? Are homosexuals always criminals? In Louisiana they are. But how about in Europe where homosexuality is legal and boys of 15 can consent to male/male sex? Are those criminal societies?

 

If I were a pyschiatrist in USA in the 40's, whose only homosexual clients were men who were deeply troubled and profoundly depressed by their sexuality, who were often subjecting themselves to blackmail, beatings and life destroying legal harrassment, many of whom were married with children and subjecting their families to terrible trauma, I would think all homosexuals were mentally ill.

 

The happy homos of that era didn't go into therapy. But who knew there were happy homos?

 

Now homosexuality is no longer acknowledged to be a mental illness, but I bet there are shrinks, social workers and detectives who think it is, know it is, or are sure it's a sick twisted thing to 'be' that leads inevitably to criminal behavior.

 

So they are right, regulation? You are a crazy criminal, a perverter of youth, totally miserable and in need of electro-shock treatment and/or a jail term? And if you've ever shared a joint with an escort let along anything heavier you are that much worse (time must be added on to your sentence)?

 

Forgetting my opinion in your case, I doubt most people here would agree that you were those things. Because they'd be those things if they did. That was my point. Those accusing anybody here of being something criminal and disgusting live in a glass house. I was long winded so you missed my point. But I stand by it.

 

To answer you, prostitution, homosexuality, paying for sex, can all be symptoms or causes in some cases of mental imbalance and criminal behavior. All can lead to illegal and potentially harmful use of substances.

 

But then so can being a movie star. Let's put Wynona and the thousand other show biz types who are abusers, sex fiends, gay, thieves and nuts in jail. And let's ban show biz because it leads to those things.

 

>Yes, prostitution does do harm to many on both sides of the

>transaction.<

 

So does cooking a lot of fat for someone and encouraging them to eat it. So does sharing your cigarettes. So does going bar hopping. So does helping someone cheat on their taxes. But in fact none of those things including prostitution INEVITABLY leads to anything but pleasure and profit with and for someone else.

 

> And yes, the younger and less experienced the

>people involved in it, the more likely it is that harm will

>result. So while those who hire only prostitutes well past

>the age of consent are far from blameless, it is not absurd

>for them to point the finger at those who hire prostitutes

>at or below the age of consent.<

 

How very foggy brained you are, or is it reading challenged? I did not endorse persuing anyone below the age of consent. That IS a crime. But persuing someone who IS the age of consent or just slightly older has the same value as persuing someone with a 9 inch dick, sucking someone off without their using a condom, someone who fist fucks, pisses on you.

 

There is taste (literally but here we're talking about morals) and judgement involved. Some or all of those things may not be to your taste. There is also risk: some doctors will tell you getting fucked often by big dicks or fists endangers your colon, while there is a real danger of getting an STD in your throat by sucking an unsheathed cock.

 

I might or might not personally indulge in some or any of those activites. But I am not so narrow and rigid and unselfaware that I want to internalize my distaste (if I have it) into a 'moral judgment' any more than I am so arrogant that I am going to postulate MY TASTE as the only defensible one. Because there is a Federal Law on the books against it, I am not going to advocate sending someone who gives a false weather report to jail and view them horrible and a criminal.

 

For the careful reader above, I used 52 states meaning me (I am so large, I qualify for statehood and am now applying for Federal monies on that basis) and DC (well, no, but you gave me the out. I was just being stupid).

 

Al

[Guest regulation]

>Yawn. Those things are not crimes, they are not against the

>law. Someone may be a shit sucker in my eyes but no one is

>going to investigate them because of that accusation.

 

That is not what you asked. You asked, "What is the point of name calling?" Those were your words. When you do it, according to your posts of last year, the point is that you enjoy it. One of the most inconvenient features of message boards, as I'm sure you will agree, is the fact that when one posts something a record is created that makes it a bit difficult to deny one's words later.

 

>Calling someone a "chicken hawk" is accusing the indiviual

>of one of the few sex crimes taken seriously (currently) in

>this society (so long as the "victim" is male).

 

That is false. "Chicken hawk" is not a legal term, and is not found in any criminal statute. As the posts from various people on this topic show, it may or may not refer to sexual activity with persons who are actually under the age of consent, depending upon who is using it.

 

>If someone is accused of being a "chicken hawk"

>irresponsibly and on no evidence and certainly, with reason,

>three things can happen:

>

 

Your "three things" are nonsense. The fact is that almost all of the reviews published on this site describe illegal transactions, some of them in great (and incriminating) detail. In light of that fact, it is quite absurd to complain that someone who uses the word "chicken hawk" is thereby creating a legal hazard to participants here. It is rather like telling someone who has been put into the gas chamber that he shouldn't smoke.

[Guest regulation]

>>On the one hand you tell us that people who actually study

>>prostitution believe it does harm those who are involved in

>>it and that they have plenty of data to substantiate their

>>belief.

>>

>>On the other hand you tell us that most of us who use this

>>website to facilitate our involvement in this harmful

>>institution are nice people and not bad people.

>>

>>Both those things can't be true.<

>

>Hm, so the Bible that tells me that my having shrimp on the

>barbee then having sex with my menstruating wife justifies

>me being stoned to death?

>

>After all God wrote the Bible.

 

Please try to distinguish between the conversation you're having with me and the one you are having with the voices in your head. I said nothing about the Bible.

 

>But things ain't that simple. Social workers and detectives

>deal with people who are either in the criminal justice

>system already or are about to be (or in some cases, with

>therapists, those who have sought their help in need).

 

If things aren't that simple then you shouldn't have said that they are. You did say earlier that these professionals believe that prostitutes are harmed by prostitution and that they have plenty of data to support their position. You may regret having said that now that I've pointed out its implications, but I'm afraid you can't take it back. Again, it's one of the disadvantages of using a message board that you create a record that can't be denied later. We don't have "mulligans" here.

 

>Forgetting my opinion in your case, I doubt most people here

>would agree that you were those things. Because they'd be

>those things if they did. That was my point. Those accusing

>anybody here of being something criminal and disgusting live

>in a glass house. I was long winded so you missed my point.

>But I stand by it.

 

I don't know about your point, but I certainly didn't miss the statements you made. You stated that people in certain professions who study and observe prostitution have good reason to think that prostitutes are being harmed by it. Whatever you may have intended to say, that is in fact what you said.

 

I concur that most people here wouldn't agree with your earlier statement about the harm that prostitution does, and wouldn't agree that we clients perpetuate that harm, which is something else that you said in your previous post. I concur that the reason they wouldn't agree is that they don't want to admit that they are doing something that is wrong. But the fact that they don't want to admit it hardly means that it isn't true. It just means they're dishonest.

[Guest regulation]

>How very foggy brained you are, or is it reading challenged?

>I did not endorse persuing anyone below the age of consent.

 

You are the one who has a problem reading. I never accused you of endorsing sexual activity with those below the age of consent. You cannot find any post of mine that says such a thing, since there is none.

 

>I might or might not personally indulge in some or any of

>those activites. But I am not so narrow and rigid and

>unselfaware that I want to internalize my distaste (if I

>have it) into a 'moral judgment' any more than I am so

>arrogant that I am going to postulate MY TASTE as the only

>defensible one. Because there is a Federal Law on the books

>against it, I am not going to advocate sending someone who

>gives a false weather report to jail and view them horrible

>and a criminal.

 

Of several pretty incoherent paragraphs, the above is the one that comes closest to coherence, so I will deal with it. Nothing in it (or in any of the other paragraphs) alters the implications of what you said earlier. If, as you said, prostitution harms those involved in it, it's logical to conclude that the greatest likelihood of harm is to the youngest and least knowledgeable participants. Whether hiring them is legal or illegal -- and whatever the age, hiring a prostitute is illegal in all FIFTY states -- doesn't change the harm or likelihood thereof. So it doesn't change the moral responsibility of clients. That includes me. And you. Most people here may, as you suggest, be too dishonest to admit what they are doing. You may be as well. I'm not.

 

>

>For the careful reader above, I used 52 states

 

Considering the fact that you don't even know how many states there are in the Union, you're hardly in a position to call me or anyone else "foggy brained" or "reading challenged." You once told this board that you have taught college-level courses. I don't recall whether you mentioned the subject of those courses, but it obviously wasn't English. Or history. Or logic.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Considering the fact that you don't even know how many

>states there are in the Union, you're hardly in a position

>to call me or anyone else "foggy brained" or "reading

>challenged." You once told this board that you have taught

>college-level courses. I don't recall whether you mentioned

>the subject of those courses, but it obviously wasn't

>English. Or history. Or logic.

 

Don't think it was Geography either. Hmmmmm now could it have been Law? Nah - I doubt it!

>

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest albinorat]

>

>Considering the fact that you don't even know how many

>states there are in the Union, you're hardly in a position

>to call me or anyone else "foggy brained" or "reading

>challenged." You once told this board that you have taught

>college-level courses. I don't recall whether you mentioned

>the subject of those courses, but it obviously wasn't

>English. Or history. Or logic.

>

 

How very hurt I am. And how driven I am to post endlessly disagreeing with a stranger who seems unbalanced on an anonymous message board -- NOT.

 

You are certainly pathetic; my little post cost you a lot of time. I'm glad it gave you something to do on one of what must be many lonely evenings. And yes I am so insecure that I really give a rat's ass what you think of a post by me here.

 

Shrug.

 

Al

[Guest regulation]

>How very hurt I am. And how driven I am to post endlessly

>disagreeing with a stranger who seems unbalanced on an

>anonymous message board -- NOT.

 

That's as good an excuse as any to run away from the field. It ranks right up there with another one we often hear on these boards: "I could easily destroy all the arguments you've made, but I just don't feel like doing so right now." Uh huh.

 

>You are certainly pathetic;

 

So I guess this means we won't be hearing you ask "What's the point of name calling?" in the near future. You seem to have rediscovered the point, if indeed you ever forgot it. The point, in your case, is to lash out at people who have the temerity to suggest that you may not be doing the right thing by hiring young kids for sex.

 

 

my little post cost you a lot of

>time.

 

Actually it took me about seven minutes. Is that a lot of time?

 

>I'm glad it gave you something to do on one of what

>must be many lonely evenings. And yes I am so insecure that

>I really give a rat's ass what you think of a post by me

>here.

>

>Shrug.

 

Once again, you're belittling me because I had the nerve to disagree with you. It's something you do quite frequently on these boards. It's common for you to suggest that people who disagree with you must be failures in their personal and professional lives. When you had your argument with Pickwick and TruthTeller, for example, you said that one (or maybe it was both) of them must be a janitor pecking out his posts in some basement room.

 

I don't know whether you are a failure in your professional or personal life, although I do recall a post by you in which you seemed to be saying that almost everyone you have dealt with in both areas has been a terrible disappointment to you EXCEPT for escorts. That doesn't sound as though your life has been a great success. Perhaps what you are really doing here is trying to portray the rest of us as similar to you. Wouldn't it be easier if you just went out and made some real friends? It really isn't that hard. All you have to do is learn enough self-control to avoid hurling childish epithets at anyone who doesn't agree with every word you say.

[Rod Hagen]

>Of several pretty incoherent paragraphs, the above is the

>one that comes closest to coherence, so I will deal with it.

> Nothing in it (or in any of the other paragraphs) alters

>the implications of what you said earlier. If, as you said,

>prostitution harms those involved in it, it's logical to

>conclude that the greatest likelihood of harm is to the

>youngest and least knowledgeable participants. Whether

>hiring them is legal or illegal -- and whatever the age,

>hiring a prostitute is illegal in all FIFTY states --

>doesn't change the harm or likelihood thereof. So it

>doesn't change the moral responsibility of clients. That

>includes me. And you. Most people here may, as you

>suggest, be too dishonest to admit what they are doing. You

>may be as well. I'm not.

 

Miss me? I'm back. Gosh is San Jose dead.

 

Now that I've had time to fully read Albinorat's thread, I've changed my mind. It's not clean. To suggest that individuals guilty of something that is illegal, or perhaps wrong, cannot criticize other rule-breakers is, of course, absurd and flawed Regulation has revealed this faulty logic better than I could.

 

Nobodoy's offered a good argument as to why hiring street urchins is not exploitive, opting instead to point out the (false) irony of a prostitute making an upper Middle class income pitying the circumstances of subsitence level prostitutes. So what, exactly, is even handed about cheating the young and desperate?

[guyinsf]

I won't argue the moral issue.

 

I will argue the economic issue. There is a range of income in many (most?) professions. A CEO of a private company will likely make far more than his/her counterpart in a non-profit or government agency. Conversely, a clerical worker is likely to make more working for the government than in the private sector. Some doctors and dentists are on HMO plans, which impacts their incomes; others only see clients who will pay out of pocket for the cost above and beyond their insurance company's reimbursement. Some people work at fast food restaurants earning minimum wage; others at middle scale restaurants where they get a better wage and tips; and still others at upscale restaurants where their evening's tips far exeed the daily income of a counter person at a fast food restaurant. There is no set rate for accountants or lawyers in private practice.

 

Is it wrong or "exploitative" for us to patronize establishments or hire professionals who charge lower fees? Some would argue yes but most people probably don't give it much thought. In some cases (supermarkets are a good example) the majority of people likely shop at a big chain instead of patronizing "mom and pop" shops where the prices are almost always higher.

 

So I think the economic argument is whether $40 is an acceptable "minimum wage" for someone getting paid to have sex. Obviously, since this is an illegal activity, there is no way to enforce a minimum wage even if we could agree on what's the "fair" bottom price range. I would argue, however, that most escorts are overpriced, particularly when it comes to longer bookings. Still, the prices are what they are because the market will bear it. There are obviously clients who are willing to pay $300 for an hour or $1,500-$2,000 for an overnighter. There are others who would never hire an escort if everyone charged that much, and probably some others who would still hire them even though it was getting them into deeper and deeper debt. In those cases perhaps it is the escort exploiting the client. I recall reading at least one thread here when a client "fell in love" with an escort and ended up maxing out his credit cards for cash advances so he could continue to hire the guy. Perhaps in this case the escort had no idea what was going on, but if he did I would say he was the predator.

 

Then again, tobacco companies prey on their customers, taking their money and making them sicker with each purchase -- and that's a legal business!

[Guest Thunderbuns]

Interesting perspective and quite well reasoned.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest albinorat]

>Now that I've had time to fully read Albinorat's thread,

>I've changed my mind. It's not clean. To suggest that

>individuals guilty of something that is illegal, or perhaps

>wrong, cannot criticize other rule-breakers is, of course,

>absurd and flawed Regulation has revealed this faulty logic

>better than I could.<

 

Well, Rod, I feel this way: there is a matter of taste, on which you are not 'clean' to use your own odd word, because you are 'the high priced spread'. I don't suggest you can't think clearly but I think you have something invested in the high prices charged by many escorts including a good many not as honorable and capable as you.

 

You and other escorts may think a high price guarantees something and is 'fair' but some johns may wonder if an hour with a guy is really worth $300, more or less, as a basic fee, and I have paid enough high priced antiques to know there is no guarantee.

 

On that basis you are making a false equation, that is that the prices you place on having sex with ugly men are 'god given', moral in an almost biblical sense. That those men who look like me are being honored by the high fee types, and that the price tags are divinely ordained, "fair", "non-exploitative'. At least for the escort -- but what about the john who barely gets off or picks up a nasty 'tude and is out $250 plus? It's fine to exploit him.

 

Another false equation goes to your term "exploiter". (That is that johns who look to pay less, prowl the streets are exploiting the truly helpless and that is not true of those who use the 'Net or Ads and pay much more).

 

I know at least 3 twenty-seven year old plus escorts who have major drug habits. All three get 250+ a trick. MOST of that goes to buying drugs that will kill them eventually. I know at least one who offers to get fucked barebacked; all will get involved in 'dangerous' scenes with men they don't know.

 

They are troubled yet older and consenting, but aren't the johns for whom $300 is less than a drop in the bucket 'exploiting' them? Aren't the steady johns who are good for frequent 'overnights' at $2000+ guilty of buying these men killer drugs, wooing them into dangerous sex? It's a lot of money to me, not to their johns. All three escorts need interventions and quick, I doubt any will get one, and all will probably die young after suffering a lot (as did a porn star I knew from the late 70's, big money for that time, celebrity on the circuit, homeless and very sick at 35, dead at 37).

 

I have certainly met young men (and older ones) who thought $50 for an hour of mutually pleasurable sex was fair.

 

Were they homeless urchins, falling through the cracks? Well, in my case some were young construction men, some were going to one of the City Colleges, others were 'journeymen workers' working part time and taking class part time to get into a union. They lived at home, had three squares and had an appreciation of money. Those that lined up say six johns a week as regulars and charged $40 - 60$ were making a minimum of 240 non taxable dollars weekly which they did not have to report to the IRS or worse, to mom. That meant a lot to them. Their view was that they were making infinitely more for far less time than they could at the part time jobs they were likely to find (20 hours at $5 equals $100, 6 hours with the johns, $240-$300) and that the johns were fun and usually not too demanding. Their sense of the cost of things was not yours.

 

I had the same experience when I lived in Philly. These guys did not view themselves as 'professionals' whose largest or only source of income was older, less attractive gay men. They were not part of a 'gay scene' and did not have those values. They had a good time and made some meaningful money (for them) having it. They did not judge the guys who paid for not being able to get it free (an undertone I pick up sometimes from escorts). They were glad we were there and didn't think about it any further.

 

>So what, exactly, is even handed about

>cheating the young and desperate?<

 

Again you are using loaded terms that are from your fictionalizing of ALL sexual encounters rather from the reality that many johns and hustlers know who are not part of the semi-institutionalized escort/gay/circuit/party drug scene of the 'Net.

 

You are saying: "I am worth a lot more than this guy is paying and he'd be cheating me if he tried to pay me less" so he's a cheat. Just as I've seen on this board escorts equate themselves with lawyers and accountants and doctors, who have high fees. The guys I knew did not equate having sex (which came naturally to them, for which they did not go to school and accumulate high student loans) with a high priced specialty (and if some guy was into something they didn't want to do, they said no. Simple).

 

My long and worthless post's basic point which some seem to have missed is this:

 

Value words like chicken hawk carry with them a judgment with legal implications, not a taste value. I am surprised at someone who doesn't think a federal agent or vice detective wouldn't know what a 'chicken hawk' was (a 'pedophile') and wouldn't be sensitive to its use.

 

The huge bust of "project candyman" on Yahoo began with an agent who made the connection based on the uncle or neighbor who gives a kid candy in exchange for sex or posing in sexually explicit positions. ONE THOUSAND people are now in jail because of that connection and one has committed suicide.

 

A net site called "Project Lolita" was joined by several vice agents who got that Lolita (from the Nabakov novel) was a 'child' under USA law, and anyone hitting such a site was looking for underage girls to meet, or for explicit pictures. That too has landed a lot of men in ruinous trouble.

 

It's amusing to read the arrogant but naive assumption that every vice detective isn't more up on street slang (sex, drugs, crimes, scams) than anyone here.

 

Chicken Hawk means pedophile means an especially easy case to be made against the accused, the site and anyone coming to the site -- and it can mean that vice ditectives join just to see -- what none of us would want them to see.

 

Prostitution is a crime but it is far less often prosecuted, it's hard to get convictions, and no one gets promoted and praised in the press for 'breaking' prostitutes. Those who are scourges of 'chicken hawks' like our attorney general can build careers on busting pedophiles.

 

However since 19 is legal for sex, calling the patron of a 19 year old a chicken hawk (pedophile)is not only a lie but it's the kettle calling the pot black. The 19 yr old gets paid and therefore is a whore, so are you = criminal. The 19 year old's john is breaking the law in all states (aren't there 52?) and so are your johns = criminals. In some states male/male sex is a crime, so added to pandering and solicitation is sodomy = crimes. If you insist on judging men who pay consenting adults for sex (but pay less than you would accept, though the hustler accepts the fee) and calling them criminals (or implying that), then you are just as guilty as anyone else, only more so because your fees are so high, and the only difference with your johns is they have more money.

 

One poster above kept getting lost between laws that are on the books (including a serious one against giving false weather reports) and 'morality'.

 

From one point of view (God's in the Bible, Christian teaching, USA legal codes) we are ALL criminals. From one point of view (those who deal with criminals who have records for 'solicitation', social workers who get involved with them) there is no such thing as an escort, just young men who PERVERTS have EXPLOITED (even if the criminal is 40, the assumption is he started selling sex earlier and that led to his ruin).

 

Because these are laws on the books, and professionals (some honorable) have opinions based on them, one poster seemed to be averring confusedly that we ARE ALL CROOKS, really.

 

We are all crooks under the law, but each of us has to find his way to justifying this behavior.

 

Male/male sex actually occurs in nature, it is not unnatural in any sense, it is not a crime ever (unless rape is involved and that's not even remotely related), and there are many countries where it is entirely legal and has been since Napoleon. Prostitution is a trickier issue: BUT where there is mutual consent (and 18 is not too young die fighting a war having been drafted legally, let alone to consent to sex) the issue is between the two involved. And there are countries where it is legal. It is not the state's business or a self-important poster's to tell me or anyone else what is MORAL for me.

 

You and your defenders are not only making untenable legal claims (you are as guilty as anyone) but in my opinion untenable moral ones. You are on a slippery slope -- sex prosecutions always start with the most blatant 'crimes', which no one of sense would debate (abusing 9 year olds of either sex) -- but eventually they escalate to the state monitoring all activities -- from looking at pictures someone else thinks you mustn't look at to making sexual arrangements someone else despises (male/male; "public'or backroom; for a fee).

 

I think the bargain hunters here are entitled to look for their bargains without your judgment. Since we all hire or accept hire, are all gay (I assume), we all like something someone would consider porn (such as the majority of 'coverboy' photos), we are ALL subject to moral condemnation, more logical and purer of motive than yours.

 

And if you've gotten this far, you're a better man than me (and you see like all queens into b/d I like to tie people up so they can't run away while I hold forth!).

 

Al

[Guest regulation]

>Well, Rod, I feel this way: there is a matter of taste, on

>which you are not 'clean' to use your own odd word, because

>you are 'the high priced spread'. I don't suggest you can't

>think clearly but I think you have something invested in the

>high prices charged by many escorts including a good many

>not as honorable and capable as you.

 

Rod has expressed on several occasions that he feels he and other escorts in his price range are overpaid for what they actually do. To suggest that his qualms about the hiring of young kids are based on his desire to avoid being undersold by them is therefore quite absurd.

 

>You and other escorts may think a high price guarantees

>something and is 'fair'

 

Again, Rod has already stated that he does NOT think the prices he and others get are always fair. Nor has he ever said that such prices guarantee anything -- except perhaps that the escort who gets such prices is able to afford things like a place to live and health insurance.

 

>On that basis you are making a false equation, that is that

>the prices you place on having sex with ugly men are 'god

>given', moral in an almost biblical sense. That those men

>who look like me are being honored by the high fee types,

>and that the price tags are divinely ordained, "fair",

>"non-exploitative'.

 

Although you really went off on TruthTeller the last time you encountered him, the fact is that you and he have something important in common. You both have the habit of making up things, attributing them to other posters, and criticizing those posters for having "said" those things. You are doing that to Rod in the paragraph immediately above. He never said any of the things you attribute to him in that paragraph. But it's easier for you to pretend he did than to deal with what he really said. Or perhaps you are simply "reading challenged."

 

Or perhaps what we are seeing in your complaints about prices is simply a manifestation of the resentment of someone who has to pay a substantial amount of money to get another person to be intimate with him. You've told us you've been doing this for more than twenty years. Haven't you gotten used to it yet?

 

>Value words like chicken hawk carry with them a judgment

>with legal implications, not a taste value. I am surprised

>at someone who doesn't think a federal agent or vice

>detective wouldn't know what a 'chicken hawk' was (a

>'pedophile') and wouldn't be sensitive to its use.

 

If you are surprised, it's only because you can't get past the fact that not everyone defines that word in the same way you do. You are now doing something that you did previously in the thread on the educational backgrounds of escorts. You are taking your own experiences and generalizing from them. In your experience, the term you use refers to pedophiles. But others have already stated that their experience is not the same. And their experience is just as valid as yours. You are only one person, after all.

 

>Chicken Hawk means pedophile means an especially easy case

>to be made against the accused, the site and anyone coming

>to the site -- and it can mean that vice ditectives join

>just to see -- what none of us would want them to see.

 

You are living in a dream world if you imagine that DOJ as well as a number of state law enforcement agencies are not already aware of the existence of this site. They are.

 

>Prostitution is a crime but it is far less often prosecuted,

>it's hard to get convictions, and no one gets promoted and

>praised in the press for 'breaking' prostitutes.

 

None of the three statements following the first clause of that sentence is true. Prostitution is frequently prosecuted, prostitutes arrested are almost always convicted -- the vast majority plead guilty -- and politicians who organize prostitution "sweeps" or busts always do it in expectation of favorable publicity.

 

>We are all crooks under the law, but each of us has to find

>his way to justifying this behavior.

 

We "have to" justify it? Why? We have to justify it only if we are unwilling to admit to ourselves what we are actually doing. Sadly, some are indeed unwilling.

 

 

>You and your defenders are not only making untenable legal

>claims (you are as guilty as anyone)

 

There is nothing legally "untenable" about pointing out that someone who hires a prostitute is committing a criminal offense. That's true even if the person doing the pointing has committed the same offense. Virtually all organized crime prosecutions are based on the testimony of witnesses who have themselves been involved in organized crime activities -- that's why they are useful witnesses.

 

 

>I think the bargain hunters here are entitled to look for

>their bargains without your judgment. Since we all hire or

>accept hire, are all gay (I assume), we all like something

>someone would consider porn (such as the majority of

>'coverboy' photos), we are ALL subject to moral

>condemnation, more logical and purer of motive than yours.

 

I'm afraid that, as usual, there is no logic in your argument. There's no logical reason why someone who makes a living committing one sort of crime should not point out the wrongdoing of others -- if we all felt that this should not be done, John Gotti would still be at liberty rather than serving a life sentence, since it was the testimony of his LCN colleague Gravano that resulted in his conviction.

 

Rod isn't claiming to be blameless, either morally or legally. His only point, and it's a perfectly valid one, is that whatever harm is done by prostitution, the likelihood of harm is greater when the prostitutes in question are younger, less experienced and have fewer resources. That likelihood should be easily apparent to anyone who picks up a street kid. The only point you've made with your long-winded, rambling posts is that people who buy or sell sex shouldn't criticize those who buy it in a manner that is exceedingly exploitative of vulnerable young people. I've demonstrated -- more than once -- why that argument doesn't hold water.

[Guest regulation]

>Is it wrong or "exploitative" for us to patronize

>establishments or hire professionals who charge lower fees?

>Some would argue yes but most people probably don't give it

>much thought. In some cases (supermarkets are a good

>example) the majority of people likely shop at a big chain

>instead of patronizing "mom and pop" shops where the prices

>are almost always higher.

>

>So I think the economic argument is whether $40 is an

>acceptable "minimum wage" for someone getting paid to have

>sex. Obviously, since this is an illegal activity, there is

>no way to enforce a minimum wage even if we could agree on

>what's the "fair" bottom price range.

 

You are talking around the issue without ever reaching it. Whether it is exploitative to purchase the services of someone who sells them cheaply depends on WHY he is selling them so cheaply. If the reason is that he is in desperate need and has no alternative but to sell for a price lower than he could otherwise do, the answer is "Yes, it's exploitative."

 

It is equally easy to answer the question whether a given amount of money is an acceptable wage. A wage is acceptable if it is sufficient to allow the person receiving it to purchase the necessities of life, including food, clothing and shelter. Those who insist that $40 for an hour of sexual activity is a fine wage for a young escort conveniently overlook the fact that few or no escorts work a 40-hour week. I would estimate that in most major metropolitan areas an escort who charges that rate would have to turn at least thirteen tricks per week in order to afford all of the basics. Rod, am I being too stingy?

[guyinsf]

Most families are still below the poverty level when the head of the household works for minimum wage.

 

When I moved to San Francisco 16 years ago, my hourly wage was about $6.50. Multiplied by 8 hours that equals slightly more than this escort made (before tip) for an hour of his labor. I sank deep into debt because, as most of you know, San Francisco is a very expensive city and my rent ate up around half of my take home pay. I quickly moved to another job, and kept moving up in salary, but was I being "exploited" by my first employer because I accepted a job paying only $13K per year? Perhaps I was stupid because I accepted such a low offer, but I did have a choice. Yes, the cost of living has gone up over the past 16 years; so this escort can work 2 hours per day (without tips) and make enough to exist. It will take work on his part to better his situation.

 

A 19-year-old selling sex on the street has choices: He could charge more. He could save a little of his money, get listed on the internet, get a pager, and make 500% more. He could get a legal job that pays the going wage. If he has substance abuse, housing, and/or psychological issues, there are free treatment programs available. Some people here act like we are talking about "minors" who are so young they cannot even get a legal job and would be sent back to their parents if they came forward for help.

 

I am AGAINST exploitation of MINORS. A 19 year old is young but he is an adult, able to drive, vote, sign contracts, and in some states drink alcohol. Someone who is 19 may have had a shitty life so far, leading him to have a number of problems, but this happens to many people and they either get help or remain stuck in miserable situations. Do you actually think anyone wants to make a "career" of cleaning toilets or putting Big Mac's into paper bags?

Perhaps there have been so many emotional (rather than logical) responses in this thread because sex is involved. I'd love to hear the same call for compassion and help for everyone living a marginal existence.

[Guest DCeBOY]

so, al, what happened to the 51st & 52nd states?

[Guest albinorat]

>so, al, what happened to the 51st & 52nd states?<

 

Well, D&C as I mentioned above, I was counting DC as it happens and ME. I am big enough to be a state and have a petition ready (like to sign it?). I could use that Federal money! Being a cock-eyed optimist, I am sure I will be declared a state (as well as a state of emergency) very soon. Don't worry, prostitution will be legal in me but it will be possible to prosecute severely those who accuse others of serious crimes, such as being 'chicken hawks' with no proof. I will also have health workers on this site so those in severe need of tranquilizers and lives get them. The state of Albinorat will be known for its mercy!

 

(Oh, by the way, for the reading challenged, I am making jokes, and have admitted making a mistake. I am not as narcissistic as some; searching for perfection on a casual message board and suffering such grandiosity that I must parse every phrase of every post and even do research on past posts so I can feel special. But then I am not perfect. Several of my close readers are perfect. Only their mothers made mistakes in not aborting them.)

 

Al