Open forum for solutions

[Flower]

CHILD SUPPORT

 

>Is it possible for a child of a certain age (up to 18 or

>21?) to sue his parents for child support?

>I know that one parent can sue the other for child support,

>and it's the same child they would be supporting, etc.

>If not, perhaps a law opening up parents to this kind of a

>suit would be one partial solution to "the problems of the

>streets"?

 

Child Support is only possible up to the age of majority, which is 18 in almost every, if not all states. This is true despite the reality that many if not most 18-21 year olds are emotionally and intellectually imature and finacially challenged:) Above the age of majority, neither parent nor child may sue anyone for child support.

 

(disclaimer: This legal opinion is given without the intent that any reader rely on same and specifically with NO WARRANTIES whatsoever, either implied or expressed. If any reader relies on the above legal opinion to his detriment, by so reading he impliedly agrees that he may not sue Flower, or any of Flower's agents or employees, unless Flower has undertaken a formal written attorney-client relationship with said reader.::+ }>

 

Flower :*

[Rick Munroe]

>A father-son team??? Wow! I have never heard of that before.

 

I think it's common; I actually did a job with my mother once.

 

Well, what happened was...I was doing an in-call, and in the middle of "it", Mother called & on my answering machine, proceeded to tell me in detail the story of Aunt Phyllis' recent diabetes diagnosis.

 

I was going to go turn down the volume but my client's dick didn't seem to mind the intrusion (I guess Mom has a sexy voice) and we didn't miss a beat.

 

My life is very sitcom-ready.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

You have some interesting points to make ....

 

>Why don't some of you try volunteering a few nights a week

>for six months at shelters for runaways or inner city

>hospitals. But then that would cut into your $300 tricks,

>and $2000 overnights.

>

 

My rate is not $300 and neither is Rod Hagen's.

 

Some of your points are actually quite valid but would be better presented if you stuck to just a factual presentation.

 

As you did not, and you found it necessary to level personal attacks, you should at least be more specific in your comments or name the person(s) you choose to attack.

 

The economics of prostitution are not at issue here. I have seen reviews for escorts younger than 25 who are charging $400 an hour. There is an escort charging that sum who is 22, at least according to his review. Age is also really not the issue here. Nor is science fiction. You really should not read more into any posts than the words that are there. All of these comments defeat what I believe was the attempt of the original post: lets offer some solutions instead of just more criticism, anger and personal attacks.

 

Finally, this is a message center on a site about male escorts. Not female escorts. Nor about prostitution generally.

[marc anthony]

Just curious, Reg. If you don't hire prostitutes, and you are suggesting that we all shouldn't also, why do you spend time on a message board on a site that reviews male prostitutes?

[Guest regulation]

>Just curious, Reg. If you don't hire prostitutes, and you

>are suggesting that we all shouldn't also, why do you spend

>time on a message board on a site that reviews male

>prostitutes?

 

Marc, we both know you didn't start this thread in order to have a serious discussion of this issue. You started it because you don't like being criticized for hiring young kids, some of whom may be taking your money (and your dick) out of desperation. You thought you would be able to show that no one has a practical solution for the problem of street kids, thereby deflecting any further criticism of the sort you've heard from Rod, phage, Flower and a few others. If you wanted to have a serious discussion of this issue you'd answer a couple of the questions I asked about it instead of dodging them.

 

I'm sorry it didn't work out as you hoped. In spite of that, would you at least try to show enough respect for the intelligence of the other people on this board to avoid the stale, tired gambit of saying "I'm curious about . . . " when what you really want is to take a potshot at someone?

 

I have never seen a post by you on this message board that was not in some manner self-serving, so the following may be hard for you to understand. I have not in previous discussions of this issue and will not in the future exempt myself from any criticism that applies. I happen to agree with Albinorat's post in his thread on this subject that people who study prostitution believe it does do a good deal of harm to those involved in it, and that they have plenty of data to back up that belief. He said that. I agree with it. As I said in a post addressed to Al in that same thread, to the extent that I still hire, I'm part of that problem. So is he. So are you. Phage said the same about himself in another thread. He also said that the inability to recognize one's own problems and faults is a sign of a weak mind. I've never suffered from such an inability. What about you?

[marc anthony]

Well, Reg. I got you to do in one post many of the things you have criticized everybody about. You have always been caustic, manipulative, and argumentative. But usually you are also fairly intelligent. You don't have that going for you on this one.

 

Some recent "REG"isms:

 

1) When you can't win arguments, you call names.

2) Whores lie, cheat, and steal? What a surprise?

3) Why don't you do your part not to contribute to the problem?

 

Your response to me:

 

1) Losing the argument. No answer to my questions. Call me names.

2) Suddenly altruistic and concerned about the plight of people you have repeatedly scorned as a group. And you suggest that we ask them all to divulge their degree of desperation before hiring them (I have heard you complain that they aren't even honest about dick size).

3) Admit that you are part of the problem after you highhandedly chided me for not helping to solve it.

 

Reg... it is true that I hire college age boys, and that I talk about it on a M4M escort review board. If that offends you, I suggest you take your attention to a place where people don't condone male prostitution. As for me, I feel no guilt. I treat the boys well. I pay them well. They get what they wanted, and I get what I wanted. Well over 90% of the boys that I hire are attending college or some vocational school, and use the money for tuition or living expenses. And because I treat every one of them well, some develop... although not perhaps not a sexual attraction... a affection for me that I may feel for them. Several have invited me to their graduations. Others have retired from escorting, but still keep me as part of their lives for advice and friendship.

 

If all of this sounds self-serving, Reg, it is. For what other reason do people hire prosititutes for sex other than a self-serving one? But I don't suppose you'll answer that question either.

[Guest regulation]

>Some recent "REG"isms:

>

>1) When you can't win arguments, you call names.

 

That's a lie. You cannot find in any of my posts in this thread that I have called you a name. You can find that I made a remark about your posts. According to the message center rules, we are to comment on the posts of others, but avoid commenting on them. With regard to you that's exactly what I've done. You have no legitimate complaint.

 

>2) Whores lie, cheat, and steal? What a surprise?

 

Show me the post in which I said that. You can't, since there is none.

 

>3) Why don't you do your part not to contribute to the

>problem?

 

And what is it about that sentence that you find offensive?

 

>Your response to me:

>

>1) Losing the argument. No answer to my questions. Call me

>names.

 

That is a lie. As I said above, you cannot find a post in which I called you a name. I defy you to do so. It is also a lie to say that I did not answer your questions. I did. It is you who failed to answer mine.

 

 

>2) Suddenly altruistic and concerned about the plight of

>people you have repeatedly scorned as a group.

 

That is false. I have never stated that my position on this issue has anything to do with altruism.

 

>And you

>suggest that we ask them all to divulge their degree of

>desperation before hiring them

 

I asked whether you consider that too much trouble. You didn't answer.

 

(I have heard you complain

>that they aren't even honest about dick size).

 

That is a lie. I have made no such complaint. I have referred in another post to a similar statement that was made not by me but by another poster. I defy you to find any post of mine in which I made such a complaint.

 

 

>3) Admit that you are part of the problem after you

>highhandedly chided me for not helping to solve it.

 

"Admit" seems to me the wrong word. I think it's obvious that as clients we are both part of the problem. You are the one who seems eager to deny that, not me. I stated it in an earlier post in another thread on this subject and have stated it again here.

 

 

>Reg... it is true that I hire college age boys, and that I

>talk about it on a M4M escort review board. If that offends

>you, I suggest you take your attention to a place where

>people don't condone male prostitution.

 

 

It is your attitude, not your actions, that offends me. I note that several others, whom I named in my previous post, have expressed the same sentiment I have expressed.

 

As for me, I feel

>no guilt. I treat the boys well. I pay them well. They

>get what they wanted, and I get what I wanted. Well over

>90% of the boys that I hire are attending college or some

>vocational school, and use the money for tuition or living

>expenses. And because I treat every one of them well, some

>develop... although not perhaps not a sexual attraction... a

>affection for me that I may feel for them. Several have

>invited me to their graduations. Others have retired from

>escorting, but still keep me as part of their lives for

>advice and friendship.

>

>If all of this sounds self-serving, Reg, it is. For what

>other reason do people hire prosititutes for sex other than

>a self-serving one? But I don't suppose you'll answer that

>question either.

 

Please don't lie. I have answered the questions you raised, you failed to answer the ones I raised.

 

With all due respect, with the possible exception of those who "invited you to their graduations," you know nothing about the lives of the people you hire other than what they choose to tell you. Given your attitude, I think it is not beyond the realm of possibility that at least some of them are telling you whatever it is they imagine you want to hear. Whenever you hire someone in this age group, you take the risk that you are engaging in exactly the sort of exploitation that Rod, Flower and others have condemned. It seems clear you don't want to face that. If you want to retreat into a world of self-affirming fantasies in order to avoid the issue, you can do so. You could also deal with it in therapy. And there are several other options. But taking out your frustrations on me is not one of your options, because I won't put up with it. You'll have to find another way.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>It is your attitude, not your actions, that offends me. I

>note that several others, whom I named in my previous post,

>have expressed the same sentiment I have expressed.

 

Here we fall back on the old "strength in numbers" approach.

 

>If you want to

>retreat into a world of self-affirming fantasies in order to

>avoid the issue, you can do so. You could also deal with it

>in therapy. And there are several other options. But

>taking out your frustrations on me is not one of your

>options, because I won't put up with it. You'll have to

>find another way.

 

Quick - somebody pass me the handi-wipes. There's shit all over my screen again ;-(

>

 

Thunderbuns

[marc anthony]

Reg: Please... don't lie. I don't like your attitude. And you really should stop lying. You live in a fantasy world. Maybe you should see a therapist. Moreover, I won't put up with your lying. I just won't.

 

See how easy it is to argue in the same manner that you do?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>See how easy it is to argue in the same manner that you do?

 

Della doesn't argue - he just spouts - and spouts - and spouts....................................................................................................................... and spouts

 

Thunderbuns

[marc anthony]

By the way, Reg... I am not going to spend all my time looking through all the past threads where you may have insulted escorts. But I remember one recent one (Kip O'Brien thread) very clearly where you said,

 

"What strikes me is not the idea that prostitutes sometimes steal, which is hardly a

shocking or remarkable notion. "

 

You quickly back-peddled when taken to task, posting subsequently, that it is like saying football players sometimes get injured, which obviously happens. You ask me not to insult people's intelligence. I ask the same. They are not the same thing. What you said is the same as saying, "Lawyers sometimes lie, which is hardly a shocking or remarkable notion." It is far from complimentary, and based on the disdain you showed Kip O'Brien, and how he "should have studied English instead of smoking weed," one can only conclude that is wasn't meant to be complimentary.

 

What I can address is your semantic manipulation of what you do, and what you criticize others for doing. In your response to me, you challenge me to prove that you called me names. Well, in my book, name-calling is synonymous with insulting. Certainly referring to me as weak-minded, in need of therapy, and self-serving was intended to be insulting, and taken as such. I feel the same about you, but I have called you those things in a few words instead of a few paragraphs. It really is the same thing, no matter how you dice it with your manipulations of the English language.

 

Anyway, I know that you don't tire of having these long drawn out battles with various posters, but unfortunately, I do. So respond away... have the last word. It is your trademark.

[Guest regulation]

>Reg: Please... don't lie. I don't like your attitude. And

>you really should stop lying. You live in a fantasy world.

>Maybe you should see a therapist. Moreover, I won't put up

>with your lying. I just won't.

>

>See how easy it is to argue in the same manner that you do?

 

The statements you've made above are not arguments, and I find it hard to believe that even someone like you is unable to understand that. You can't point to any lie I have told. I have pointed to lies you have told. I didn't say that you live in a fantasy world and I didn't urge you to see a therapist. I did say that those are options you have for dealing with your obvious anger and frustration on this issue. Is your command of English inadequate to let you tell the difference, or are you lying again?

[Guest regulation]

>But I remember one recent one (Kip

>O'Brien thread) very clearly where you said,

>

>"What strikes me is not the idea that prostitutes sometimes

>steal, which is hardly a

> shocking or remarkable notion. "

>

>You quickly back-peddled when taken to task, posting

>subsequently, that it is like saying football players

>sometimes get injured, which obviously happens. You ask me

>not to insult people's intelligence. I ask the same. They

>are not the same thing. What you said is the same as

>saying, "Lawyers sometimes lie, which is hardly a shocking

>or remarkable notion." It is far from complimentary, and

>based on the disdain you showed Kip O'Brien, and how he

>"should have studied English instead of smoking weed," one

>can only conclude that is wasn't meant to be complimentary.

 

 

Of course it wasn't meant to be complimentary. But it is a far cry from your accusation, in your post in this thread, that I said "escorts lie, cheat and steal." That's why what you said is a blatant lie. You have now "back-peddled" from that and are simply saying that my remarks were not "meant to be complimentary." You're finally coming closer to the truth.

 

As for my "disdain" for Kip O'Brien, you aren't being very truthful there. I will remind you that while others were calling him names like "psycho," and telling you that you must be out of your mind to say that you would hire him, I pointed out that what he is supposed to have done is really no different than what several of the most popular escorts on this board have admitted doing to their clients, and yet no one calls them such names. Why did you leave that part out? The truth is, I was one of his few defenders on this board. The version you present is a highly edited and highly inaccurate version of what was said.

 

>What I can address is your semantic manipulation of what you

>do, and what you criticize others for doing. In your

>response to me, you challenge me to prove that you called me

>names. Well, in my book, name-calling is synonymous with

>insulting. Certainly referring to me as weak-minded, in

>need of therapy, and self-serving was intended to be

>insulting, and taken as such. I feel the same about you,

>but I have called you those things in a few words instead of

>a few paragraphs. It really is the same thing, no matter

>how you dice it with your manipulations of the English

>language.

 

You seem never to have read, or never to have understood, the rules that are posted for this message center. Those rules call on participants to address the posts created by others rather than attacking the people who created them. That's what I've done here. I did say that your posts are self-serving. You cannot find a post in which I said that about you. That is the distinction that we are all asked to observe. If it is "manipulation," then it is one that you agreed to employ when you signed up here.

 

Nor did I say you are weak-minded or in need of therapy. That is a distortion of my remarks. You have resorted to it because you want to turn this discussion away from the original subject and talk about how bad I am and how put-upon you are. It isn't going to work.

 

Many posters who find it hard to defend their position on an issue try to change the subject of the discussion, and that is what you've been doing in your last few posts. As I said above, you don't want to have a serious discussion about the issue that is the subject of this thread, so instead of talking about that you want to talk about what a dreadful person I am and how offended you are. But this isn't about you or me. It's about what we and others in our position can do to ameliorate the problem of desperate kids being used as a sort of prostitution "bargain bin." I made a suggestion, as you requested, and instead of discussing it seriously all you want to do is yammer about how insulted you are. What that tells me is that if you were to discuss the idea seriously, you might be forced to reach a conclusion that you don't like.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>It's about what we and others in our position

>can do to ameliorate the problem of desperate kids being

>used as a sort of prostitution "bargain bin."

 

Oh! Now I get it. Upon the death of Mother Teresa, someone appointed our very own Della to take her place. Of course - now everything makes sense.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest andorrian]

I don't know if the thread author really wants to talk about this issue or just be sarcastic. Putting a clown face on the post is not exactly a sign or seriousness. There are some other posts from people who just seem like they want attention or are trying to see how big a fool they can make of themselves.

 

The only sensible thing I see in this thread is that each of us can decide not to do any harm. In another thread there is a poster who compares picking up street kids who are willing to have sex for a few bucks to buying a cheaper pair of shoes at Payless. If we all decide we are not going to do that and shun people who have that attitude that would be a good first step.