The exploitation of youth

[Flower]

>This is my first visit to the lounge, and I've noticed that

>there are many message posters who are concerned about the

>exploitation of youth. I haven't read all the threads -

>there are not enough hours in the day. But I'm not going to

>let that stop me from sticking my oar in. So if I have

>reiterated what has already been said, if my understanding

>of the subject is poor, my logic dodgy, my arguments flawed

>and my motives suspect; I am sure you will be unmerciful in

>your condemnation.

 

Obviously you didn't read thru the threads--looks like you didn't read through any of them, or if you did you grasped nothing from them, or were just bored.

 

 

My points on the other boards regarding the issue of exploiting a young, homeless and hungry boi, were not original thought but were condensed from a lot of reading and listening to lectures and hearing testimony on the very subject--reading both sides mind you. Flower likes young guys too, but not if they are doing it out of financial desperation as opposed to some thoughtful choices with options available to them.

 

However, almost without exception, the experts will tell you that exploitation--especially sexual exploitation is not about how much money or how old the victim, but a matter of power and an imbalance in the "negotiating" abilities brought on by many factors, the most obvious being poverty, hunger, youth, immaturity--emotional or chronological, just to name a few of the most obvious. I really hate to rehash this just because you were too lazy to read the thread, and probably should follow the example of most of the more intelligent folks here and not rise to the bait, but a few of your ridiculous, off the target remarks had to be commented on, and the rest, being totally irrelevant to this subject, will remain un-commented on -- at least by me.

 

>

>Besides, If 18 to 24 year-olds cannot be trusted to make

>decisions for themselves, should we allow them to vote and

>make decisions for other people?

 

Again, you miss the mark--it's not all about age--many 18+ kids can make such decisions and are not doing it out of desperation. But I am repeating myself because you were too lazy to do your reading. From what you wrote, however, you sound as if you like hearing yourself talk--but say very little. SEE BELOW AS AN EXAMPLE:

>Should they be allowed to

>have children? I don't think they would thank us for our

>concern. In fact they would probably see our intervention as

>an infringement of their rights. Would we have accepted the

>wise council of our elders at their age? And could we be

>trusted not to abuse our power when making decisions on

>their behalf? Was Lenin right when he said that democracy

>was a precious commodity, it ought to be rationed? (and on and on and on)

 

>In Britain, recently, a sixteen-year-old youth was shot in

>the back and killed while running away from a house he had

>attempted to burgle. The house owner, who shot him, was

>convicted. Public sympathy lay with the middle-aged man, not

>with the youth. A campaign was set in motion to quash the

>conviction. Yet if consenting sexual activity had taken

>place between the middle-aged man and the youth, whether

>By liberating youths from prostitution, we

>might be condemning them to a worse fate.

>

I can see that you really are a deep thinker with that kind of logic. But what can we expect from someone that cheers a man for shooting a 16 yo boy in the back as he is running away? The fact that he was running away indicates to thinking and civilized people that the shooter is out of danger and there is no need to kill--property is not worth a human life--at least by reasoned minds, of which mine is a prime example :-)

 

>I am also reminded of the film "The Baseball Diaries" in

>

 

For those of us who don't base our reasoning, understanding and philosophical arguments on fictional movies from Hollywood, forgive my failure to see any relevance this has to the subject--I'm sure it makes sense to you, or maybe it's an over the pond reference?

 

>American colonists showed great

>reluctance to pay for the protection of the colonies.

>However, British history books could be biased.

 

DUH!!!

 

>My aim was not to promulgate anti -American views, nor to

>give license to pedophiles. We should enable youths to make

>choices by putting more public money into health, education

>etc. Once the young reach the age of consent it is more

>costly to undo the damage.

 

This is about the only thing you have said that in anyway indicates you are not a complete duffass, with maybe some compassion.

 

>Life forces us to exploit/trade our

>talents whatever those talents may be.

 

There is a difference between trade and exploitation and I'm sure even British dictionaries have more than one meaning for the word, "exploitation." We were talking about taking sexual advantage of someone based on obvious and recognizable indicators that all reasonable men would recognize. Again, it's not all about age, how much money or most of the other irrelevant matters you have raised, (although getting shot in the back in an attenuated way, resembles the same kind of cowardice), it is about POWER and an unfair negotiating or bargaining positions of the parties.

 

Flower :*

[Guest quester]

This is my first visit to the lounge, and I've noticed that there are many message posters who are concerned about the exploitation of youth. I haven't read all the threads - there are not enough hours in the day. But I'm not going to let that stop me from sticking my oar in. So if I have reiterated what has already been said, if my understanding of the subject is poor, my logic dodgy, my arguments flawed and my motives suspect; I am sure you will be unmerciful in your condemnation.

 

What is meant by "the exploitation of youth"? Does it mean that clients are not paying the young what they are due? Maybe we should regulate the business and have one price for all. Imagine a world where a porn star, unable to trade on his fame, is worth no more than the lowliest hustler; where a man with 14 inches of endowment is unable to exploit the full bounty that nature has granted him; where the unprepossessing escort is unable to undercut rivals to make himself more desirable; and where those escorts in less affluent areas would be unable to match their rates to the incomes of the indigenous population. It would be a very inefficient market - very un-American. It just wouldn't be capitalism.

 

Surely the laws of supply and demand apply. If a hustler charges too much, a client might not wish to accept the risks associated with street hustlers, and so hire a reviewed escort instead. Thus the hustler will have priced himself out of the market. Moreover, the more desperate a hustler is, the more likely he is to sell himself short. A thief who steals to maintain his drug habit will sell the booty at a fraction of its street value. In the same way, a person who needs to make a quick sale on a house might accept a lower offer to expedite the process. Is this exploitation or business? Or are they the same thing?

 

Besides, If 18 to 24 year-olds cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves, should we allow them to vote and make decisions for other people? Should they be allowed to have children? I don't think they would thank us for our concern. In fact they would probably see our intervention as an infringement of their rights. Would we have accepted the wise council of our elders at their age? And could we be trusted not to abuse our power when making decisions on their behalf? Was Lenin right when he said that democracy was a precious commodity, it ought to be rationed?

 

Youth is also a precious commodity, which is becoming even more precious as the aged population increases. It can earn the possessor a fair income. Unfortunately it is perishable. I'm sure the woman who solicited me on a London street would testify to this. She must have been out early to avoid the younger competition, for her face was as lined as a carpenter's work bench. I wonder how much she earned per trick. Was my polite "no thank you " a kindness or an insult? I hope she didn't think I was being ageist, which I probably am.

 

Perhaps "the exploitation of youth " means that paid-for-sex corrupts, harms and demeans the young. But what if every client were to see the light and renounce sex ( at least with young men under the age of 25 - as suggested by some contributors). Would these young men go to college and become non-exploitative, model citizens such as lawyers, politicians and journalists (the irony was intended)? Or would some of these youths be forced to commit worse offences to survive?

 

In Britain, recently, a sixteen-year-old youth was shot in the back and killed while running away from a house he had attempted to burgle. The house owner, who shot him, was convicted. Public sympathy lay with the middle-aged man, not with the youth. A campaign was set in motion to quash the conviction. Yet if consenting sexual activity had taken place between the middle-aged man and the youth, whether paid or unpaid, the public out cry would have been against the middle-aged man (the age of consent for male homosexuals in Britain is 16). I doubt that in the USA, where the right to own a gun is paramount, public opinion would be any different. Property is more highly valued than someone else's life. By liberating youths from prostitution, we might be condemning them to a worse fate.

 

I am also reminded of the film "The Baseball Diaries" in which Leo Dicaprio plays a character who due to his drug addiction breaks into a store, repays a good samaritan by stealing from him, becomes a member of a gang which mugs an old woman, and allows a middle-aged man to to fellate him in a toilet cubicle. Clearly, the latter offence is the worst of his crimes because the camera moves dramatically to a close up of Dicaprio's face, which registers all the pent up humiliation and self-loathing that is engendered by this act. Yet this is the only crime where both participants entered into an agreement: The man pays to suck cock, and Dicaprio's character allows his cock to be sucked in order to obtain money for drugs. The old woman did not ask to be mugged, and the store owner did not ask to have his store broken into. Purely on the basis of expediency, I would prefer addicts to fund their habits by prostitution rathr than violent crime.

 

Who is exploiting who? Could the client claim that he is addicted to young flesh, and that the hustler is taking advantage of this compulsion. Some message posters have cited the fact that hustlers don't really want to have sex as proof that hustlers are exploited. Conversely, are clients exploited because they don't really want to pay for sex? Are clients and hustlers exploiting each other? Or are they exploiting themselves?

 

Finally, it is very diheartening to see that most contributors to the message centre accept that raising money for education, drug rehabilitation etc, to ameliorate the situation, is just a pipe dream. But it is not surprising, for we British know to our own cost how difficult it is to get you Americans to pay taxes. We fought that battle a long time ago ... and lost. American colonists showed great reluctance to pay for the protection of the colonies. However, British history books could be biased. You would probably argue " no taxation without representation". Well, now you have representation, is anyone happy to be paying. (incidentally, Edmund Burke , the statesman, warned the British that they should make their money by trading with the colonies rather than taxing them. If we had listened to him, the USA might now be a part of the British commonwealth, instead of Britain being the 51st state of America. But who was going to take any notice of someone with a name like Burke?)

 

The USA is the richest country in the world, yet in the developed world its distribution of wealth is one of the most disproportionate. Feeling sorry for the poor is a wonderful luxury. Ideals, like hustlers, are cheap and expendable. In pre 1917 Russia, many idealists prayed for a revolution and a more egalitarian society. The moment the revolution came they ran west carrying as much of their valubles as they could manage. Slavery was not abolished by the espousal of lofty ideals alone. I suspect that poor white folk, who were afraid that the only way to compete with slavery was to starve or become slaves themselves, had something to do with it. Sometimes self-interest can be in everyone's interest.

 

My aim was not to promulgate anti -American views, nor to give license to pedophiles. We should enable youths to make choices by putting more public money into health, education etc. Once the young reach the age of consent it is more costly to undo the damage. And resorting to the cheap option of limiting their choices further, will not work. Sadly, we are not born equal. Life forces us to exploit/trade our talents whatever those talents may be.

[marc anthony]

Quester: Welcome. If you have read the threads on this subject, you know that I agree with most of what you have said. You put is well... but it is obviously a volatile issue, so don't be surprised if all hell breaks loose again! LOL

 

Some general lighthearted comments, though...

 

1) DiCaprio was in a movie called the "BASKETBALL diaries". Bigger ball... Terrible movie, by the way.

 

2) You are lucky to live in the UK. Prostitution is legal, and the 18 year old beauty Leon lives there (from choirboyz). He must do quite well... has all the clothes he wants, lives in a nice pad, flies to many different exotic places. I am fairly certain he does not feel exploited.

 

Finally, on a serious note, I don't want to resurrect the whole nasty business as I (and MANY others) have had our fill with the topic, but I really want to make one observation. There is little question that as a class, young people are more gullible and therefore easier targets for exploitation... they have less experience to ward it off. But that exploitation takes place daily in the mainstream as well. Younger, inexperienced people are paid less, swindled more, and gradually learn from experience. Young people who are desperate for money frequently accept jobs that are beneath their qualifications, and pay that is far less than what they might otherwise be able to learn. It is part of capitalism.

 

I know, I know... there will be moral indignation that I could compare the issues of prostitution to those of the mainstream. But therein lies what I see as the great irony of this board. I keep repeating... everyone, or most everyone, who comes to this board (I assume) comes because they sell or hire gay sex. Although illegal in our country, I cannot imagine that many find it immoral (or I would be curious as to why they persist in the practice and come to a website to study it more). If in fact we agree that prostitution is not inherently wrong, I just have a hard time understanding why legal adults who are allowed to make decisions about their own welfare in every other aspect of their lives, should somehow not be allowed to decide for what price they will sell sex.

 

I consider myself a decent person, and so I always try to treat the escorts I hire fairly and decently. But if they want to sell themselves to a client who has negotiated them down to a really low price because they really need that cash right then, that really is their business. And I don't hold either the stuggling escort or the opportunistic client in any more or less disdain than I do the shrewd customer and the floundering business selling goods and services at bargain prices. But that's because I don't see anything wrong with prostitution. If I did, then I could see having moral indignation at the whole thing... but then again, I also wouldn't be a member of this website.

[Guest andorrian]

I think your post contains a lot of observations that have nothing much to do with this subject, such as the one about whether Americans are really willing to pay taxes to have government deal with social ills. I have spent some time in Britain and I did not notice that people there are any happier about paying taxes than people in America are. During the Thatcher years there were actually some demonstrations against local taxes that became violent if I remember right.

 

I don't think it is necessary to write a whole page in order to get to the heart of this issue. A lot of us feel that hiring people who are poor and desperate to do various kinds of work is exploitation if you take advantage of their circumstances to pay them a much lower price than other people would demand for the same work. The belief that this behavior is exploitative is behind the insistence of labor unions and others that trade treaties signed by the U.S. with poor countries should include some minimum standards for how U.S. employers treat workers in those countries. When I read a post from a client who says that hiring a homeless kid to have sex with him is like buying a cheaper pair of shoes at a discount store I recognize that as exploitation.

 

There is another issue and that is whether a client is exploiting someone when he hires a very young kid for sex regardless of price. The age of consent is arbitrary. Different countries do not have different ages because people in some countries become intellectually and emotionally mature at an earlier age than in other countries, but because it is an arbitrary decision. I think is fair to say that kids a year or two on either side of 18 may be physically mature but are seldom emotionally and intellectually mature. It is doubtful that they understand all the possible consequences of being prostitutes. So those who have a problem with hiring such young kids have a reasonable argument to make about this.

 

People who hire prostitutes are doing something that is morally questionable for a lot of reasons. The fact that they do it anyway does not take away their right to think about these moral issues and to draw some boundaries for their own behavior that they believe will reduce their chances of doing harm to others. This seems to make some people angry but in my opinion this anger just shows they feel some guilt about what they are doing. It is the same reason people sometimes get angry when it is pointed out to them that the low prices they are paying for clothing are on account of the fact that the clothing is being made by desperately poor people who are working in terrible conditions. They are really angry at themselves but are taking it out on others.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

I would have thought that everything that could be said about this subject, has been said.

 

Why would a person like Quester, sign on as a new member, and start the thread all over again, even admitting that he had not bothered to read the previous threads?

 

Unless.......... he's only a new member under that name and in fact has said buckets about the subject previously under other log-in names?

 

Just wondering...........

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Merlin]

I must disagree with the assumption that Americans do not put enough money into education. We pay more tax money for education than other industrial nations. While our income tax rates appear lower than some others, we also have large taxes at the state level, the municipal level and at other local levels. The bulk of school expenses are paid by school discticts which impose property taxes. In most states, those school district taxes are the largest taxes most people pay. Politicians and others often say that more money for education will solve problems, because it sounds simple, but money is not the problem. Too much of the money goes to an ever growing bureaucracy to administer the funds. We don't even try to hire the best teachers available--we hire by "affirmative action" giving a preference to minorities without regard to relative merit. Then the schools emphasize "political correctness" as the primary subjects: environmental activism in the place of science; multiculuralism in place of history, etc.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

I finally read this entire thread (after two unsuccessful attempts) and found it so dense, convoluted and serpentine in its arguments that my mind would wander off and I would find myself thinking about Oliver wandering the streets of old London asking every grizzled old man he passed for "more" - and them giving him it - HARD.

 

Let me help those of you who are really concerned about life's inequities by sharing with you a universal truth:

 

Life sucks and then you die.

 

Optimistically yours,

 

FFF

[Rod Hagen]

>I finally read this entire thread (after two unsuccessful

>attempts) and found it so dense, convoluted and serpentine

>in its arguments that my mind would wander off and I would

>find myself thinking about Oliver wandering the streets of

>old London asking every grizzled old man he passed for

>"more" - and them giving him it - HARD.

 

This has the potential to be a broadway hit (unlike TopDogUnderdog, which I just saw and thought was way too obvious. Pulitzer? Politics anyone?)

 

I can see it now, HeadMaster Marc Anthony leading the spotty young man by the shoulder through the streets of Hollywood screeching "BOY! BOY FOR SALE!"

 

And let's not forget the 8-minute number that begins "Who will buy, this innocent bunghole? I'm so High, I swear I could fly"

[marc anthony]

>This has the potential to be a broadway hit (unlike

>TopDogUnderdog, which I just saw and thought was way too

>obvious. Pulitzer? Politics anyone?)

>

>I can see it now, HeadMaster Marc Anthony leading the spotty

>young man by the shoulder through the streets of Hollywood

>screeching "BOY! BOY FOR SALE!"

>

>And let's not forget the 8-minute number that begins "Who

>will buy, this innocent bunghole? I'm so High, I swear I

>could fly"

 

Sorry, Rod... you got it all wrong. In that play, I live in a dirty flat above a tavern with 15 urchins, all 18-21. I call them things like "dearie" and "my sweetest." They sell themselves out in the street for profit, and at the end of each day give a cut of their profits, and piece of their ass to their dear old Fag.

[Uncle Bill]

Can I be "Uncle Bill" Sikes? A kinder and gentler version, of course. Having Nancy at my side plus access to your boys would pretty much outdo any fantasy I've ever had :-)

[+ deej]

I think Rod is auditioning for the role of Miss Hannigan. :9

[marc anthony]

>

>Let me help those of you who are really concerned about

>life's inequities by sharing with you a universal truth:

>

>Life sucks and then you die.

>

>Optimistically yours,

>

>FFF

 

Thank you, F3. Finally a slogan I can rally behind!

 

Life is UNFAIR! This whole business has made me conjure up images of large corporations refusing to buy products at reduced prices from small wholesalers because the small business is about to go under. Or the drug buyers not wanting to purchase stuff cheap on the street because the pusher is trying to unload quickly to pay off his supplier. Both legal and illegal business transactions are so fraught with power dynamics that I can't imagine anyone living in America could suggest that a business transaction could take place on level power footing.

[Guest andorrian]

There has for generations been an influential school of thought in America which holds that society should act to reduce the inequities in bargaining power between employers and workers. This school of thought is responsible for the federal labor legislation of the 1930s and 1940s that codified the right of workers to organize labor unions and bargain collectively and that penalized employers who try to interfere with the exercize of that right. The same school of thought is behind the movement to include fair labor standards in U.S. trade treaties which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

All of these measures are based on the simple idea that taking advantage of people with few resources to get them to work under conditions they would not otherwise accept is wrong. Either you agree with that idea or you don't.

 

If you don't, you would see no real need for laws that require employers to adhere to certain minimum standards for hours, pay and safety in the way they deal with workers. And you would have no problem hiring a homeless kid to have sex with you because his situation allows you to get his services for a lower price.

 

If you do agree with that idea, you would understand why our country has enacted labor laws we have and you would understand the problem some of us have with exploiting street kids for sex.

[marc anthony]

The big difference between your example (of labor laws) and the young, poor prostitute is that the prostitute isn't the employee or the "labor". He is the owner of the business that is negotiating with you for a contract to deliver sex for a price. There are no laws which regulate how much two separate businesses can agree to compensate each other for goods and services exchanged.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>If you do agree with that idea, you would understand why our

>country has enacted labor laws we have and you would

>understand the problem some of us have with exploiting

>street kids for sex.

 

So you're advocating that escorts and hookers should form a union?

 

Now let me see..... the shop steward would be??????????

 

Thunderbuns

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

As long as I get the corner concession ....

 

.... on Sponge Pants Bob versus the Power Puff Girls -- while secretly still selling those racist and exploitive A&F tees, I am all for it. Nathan Lane plays Marc Anthony and whomever is coming up in Ron Pearlmen's School for Pop Stardom will play the street urchins. Rod Hagen plays himself, of course, and does the narrative.

[marc anthony]

RE: As long as I get the corner concession ....

 

Hey, hey!!! Watch it! I am WAY hotter than Nathan Lane! LOL!

 

But the twink ho's can be cast as 4 of the boys! yummmmm

[Rod Hagen]

RE: As long as I get the corner concession ....

 

>Hey, hey!!! Watch it! I am WAY hotter than Nathan Lane!

>LOL!

 

 

THIS remains to be seen.

[marc anthony]

RE: As long as I get the corner concession ....

 

>>Hey, hey!!! Watch it! I am WAY hotter than Nathan Lane!

>>LOL!

>

>

>THIS remains to be seen.

 

Well, Rod... as we all know, "hotness" is in the eyes of the beholder. I've been told that it's the younger set that finds me particularly attractive... you know, the ones between 18 and 23.

 

Sigh... what's a guy to do?

[Guest andorrian]

>The big difference between your example (of labor laws) and

>the young, poor prostitute is that the prostitute isn't the

>employee or the "labor". He is the owner of the business

>that is negotiating with you for a contract to deliver sex

>for a price.

 

Anyone who can feel better about exploiting a homeless kid by indulging in the fantasy that he is the 'owner of a business' is free to do so. It doesn't change the facts.

 

>There are no laws which regulate how much two

>separate businesses can agree to compensate each other for

>goods and services exchanged.

 

Of course there are. They are called the antitrust laws. It amazes me that anyone can live in this country without having heard of these laws, especially given the publicity they received during the Microsoft case.

[Rod Hagen]

RE: As long as I get the corner concession ....

 

> I've been told that it's the younger set that

>finds me particularly attractive... you know, the ones

>between 18 and 23.

 

I suppose it's because the pups' eyes haven't opened yet.

[marc anthony]

RE: As long as I get the corner concession ....

 

Rod: I just find it so interesting that I drive you so crazy. Since you have never met me in person, since I have never (and probably never will hire street kids), since I have never mistreated or exploited an escort, and since I have had never had sex with an underage person, I can only assume that your disdain for me is because I like to hire college age boys between 18-23.

 

That's really fascinating considering you also like sex with that age group, as you give discounts to college age kids who want to hire you as an escort. Now if anyone was predisposed to moral indignation (which I am not) about having sex with boys in that age group, I am not sure which they would consider the greater evil: hiring a college age boy who is already in the business of hiring himself out, or encouraging a college age boy to hire for gay sex by giving him discounts to make it affordable.

 

Just something else for you to think about besides how much you dislike me.

 

Marc (who wonders if it worse to buy drugs from a 19 year old pusher, or to sell drugs to a 19 year old at a discounted rate)

[Rod Hagen]

RE: As long as I get the corner concession ....

 

>have had never had sex with an underage person, I can only

>assume that your disdain for me is because I like to hire

>college age boys between 18-23.

 

...who market themselves as looking closer to 13 years old.

[marc anthony]

>Of course there are. They are called the antitrust laws.

>It amazes me that anyone can live in this country without

>having heard of these laws, especially given the publicity

>they received during the Microsoft case.

 

Andorrian: Please don't tell me that you believe that laws that govern the creation and action of monopolies apply to prostitution or your example. I think that your moral outrage isn't allowing you to see clearly, but the transaction between a prositute and a john is a simple negotiation between a customer and an independent contractor (i.e. a small business). It is not governed by labor laws, antitrust laws, or any law other than the fact that the whole thing is against the law.

 

If you are in favor of allowing people to break this law (which I am sure the vast majority of people who come to this board are in favor of doing), then it is difficult for me to understand why it is so distasteful for you to allow two adults to allow market forces to determine the price of the transaction. Market forces drive the price in every other transaction between individual buyers and independent contractors in this country, and all are influenced by power dynamics (and none are influenced by labor laws or antitrust laws).

 

Finally, Andorrian, we all must live by our own conscience. Personally, I don't hire street kids, I never mistreat an escort, I never underpay them. Virtually every hire I make is an overnight or longer with a college attending boy (although some are college age and not college attending) for well over $1000 bucks. I fly them to the nicest hotels and feed them the best food. That's how I like to treat my escorts... and I am lucky I can afford it. I just don't judge or hold it against those clients who can't afford that to look for a good bargain, and hire a boy who is WILLING to sell for less because he needs the money "now." They are both adults, and they are both getting what they want and/or need.

[marc anthony]

RE: As long as I get the corner concession ....

 

Rod: These are the boys I have reviewed and have been with...

 

Court Logan LA, Brad LA, Drew Peters SF, Jacob NO, Bryan Young SA, Ryan LV, Richard LV, Justin #2 NYC, Zander NYC, William NYC, Billy NYC, Andrew NYC, John Chicago, Joey Adams Hawaii and many others...

 

Which of these handsome young men look 13 to you? Or have you found another one of my reviews where the boy looks 13 (please point it out to me... I review under the handle mark15)? I would list them all, but I can't remember every review I wrote, and I can't find the search function anymore for the escort reviews.