The exploitation of youth

[Rod Hagen]

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

 

>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.

 

Leon and Ryan come to mind immediately (I can't get the damn search function to work either...some engineer I am).

[Uncle Bill]

And --

 

Interesting, your bringing up antitrust laws. From your argument then, I take it that you consider the more youthful escorts to be unfair competition (even though they clearly do not constitute a monopoly). Are they using their pricing powers to run Rod, et al out of business? Ususally takes deep pockets for that, but at $40-80 per hour/trick, maybe they can at least get by long enough for the more mature escorts to cry uncle.

[Rod Hagen]

>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.

 

Yes, but just because a common transaction isn't governed or regulated, and doesn't necessarily feel imbalanced to you, doesn't, necessarily, mean that the transaction is fair.

 

It is legal for banks to push credit cards on cash-strapped, young and perhaps naive, college students. But must they do it so aggressively? One can argue, and it is a reasonable argument, that it is nothing but a fair and legal business exchange between an adult and a heartless (sorry, had to throw that in) corporation. Nevertheless, is it not also true that the debt the youngsters run up, impulsively, can cause them great ruin later on in life? Must the banks take such heavy advantage of their youth? Certainly they are allowed to.

 

The same can be said of those "Cash Now, Your next 10 paychecks later" stands in grocery stores. Poor people, young or old, have a hard time making ends meet, duh, or they wouldn't be poor. But is charging them 140% interest on a short term loan just so they can make the next utilities bill which is due before the next paycheck a reasonable thing to do? Personally, even though it's legal and they are two business partners, the balance of power is, to my mind, off and so I think it's wrong for the bank to take advantage of the customer's desperation.

 

So, either business is Laisez Faire, and that's good, or it is and that's NOT ALWAYS GOOD. Personally, I don't believe it's ethical to take advantage of others simply because they are young or poor. And as it relates to young escorts (not street hustlers) I don't feel they are aged enough to fully how who is fucking their rectums, now for cash, may affect them emotionally later on in life. They are very very young, legal yes, but very very young. Just as a college student may not fundamentally grasp how lapsed credit card payments NOW may affect his ability to buy a house at 29. But sure, it's legal, and some will probably defend it as fair-handed capitalism. Rubs me wrong though.

 

>for well over $1000 bucks. I fly them to the nicest hotels

>and feed them the best food.

 

As an aside (and this is not why I hate you) you know you're going to make every meal, coach seat, and hotel afterward seem stale to them, right? Now that's torture. I dread the days, post-escorting, when it's back to the fucking Hyatts for me.

[Guest andorrian]

>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,

 

I didn't tell you anything of the sort. You made the statement that there are no laws that govern what one business can charge another for its goods or services. I saw that clearly enough in your last post, and if you are having trouble seeing it clearly I can copy it and paste it in larger type for you. That statement is simply untrue. In addition to the federal antitrust laws, every state has laws prohibiting unfair competition as well as other laws that place limits on the ability of one business to set whatever price it wishes for the goods or services it sells to other businesses. In other words, there are a whole host of state and federal laws that do exactly what you said no laws do. I am sure you must have some kind of expertise, but in this area you simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

 

> 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.

 

I never suggested that prostitution is governed by any law. All I said is that the idea behind federal labor laws is the same idea that makes some of us feel that it is wrong to hire a homeless kid for sex for a cut-rate price. The idea is that taking advantage of the desperate situation of a worker to get him to work for much less than he would otherwise demand is wrong. Either you agree with this idea or you don't. You have made it clear that you don't. I see no need for you to repeat it over and over, but apparently you do.

 

 

>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).

 

You are again talking about a subject of which you know very litte. There are a whole host of state and federal laws that limit the pricing power of businesses, including businesses that deal with independent contractors. California, for example, is a state in which there are many actors and other artists who work as independent contractors, and the state has very strict laws governing the provisions of the contracts that they can enter into with businesses. If you keep insisting that there are no such laws, I will start citing specific statutes. I hope that won't be necessary.

 

>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.

 

I didn't ask you for any information about your own behavior and I am not interested in making this discussion about your personal habits or anyone else's. If that is what you want, find someone else to talk to.

[Guest andorrian]

>And --

>

>Interesting, your bringing up antitrust laws. From your

>argument then, I take it that you consider the more youthful

>escorts to be unfair competition (even though they clearly

>do not constitute a monopoly).

 

 

I think it makes communication on message boards like this one a lot easier if you simply pay attention to what the other person says instead of reading into his message things that aren't there. I mentioned the antitrust laws simply as an example of laws that control what businesses can charge other businesses for their goods and services, something that Marc Anthony said no laws do.

 

I can think of many more examples to refute what Marc Anthony said. For another example, California state law provides that a theatrical agency cannot charge its clients more than a certain percentage of the fees they earn in return for its services. This law, like many labor and employment laws, is based on the belief that it is wrong to take advantage of people who are poor or unsophisticated in economic matters.

 

I think that a good analogy to the street kids we are talking about is the Mexican or other Latin American day laborers who can be seen congregating on streetcorners in certain parts of Los Angeles and other cities in border states almost every weekday morning. These people are hired by construction contractors and others on a daily basis. They are not full-time employees, their legal status is closer to that of independent contractors. But contrary to what Marc Anthony keeps telling us, the terms of their employment are governed by state and federal law and not just by market forces, although the people who hire them do not always obey these laws. The law is difficult to enforce when it comes to these people for a number of reasons, and so in reality they have almost as little legal protection as the street kids who are hired for sex. What happens to them often depends on whether the people who hire them agree with the idea that is the basis for our labor laws. I agree with that idea. Obviously some others here do not.

[marc anthony]

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

 

>>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.

>

>Leon and Ryan come to mind immediately (I can't get the damn

>search function to work either...some engineer I am).

 

Honestly, I can't speak for Leon since I haven't hired him yet, but I do find him very cute. I really don't think he looks 13 though, he really does look college age to me. Ryan is 20, has a great body, has a real job, carries himself well, and could never pass for less than 18. I haven't ever met you, Rod, but I would still venture to guess that you wouldn't throw Ryan out of your bed... he is quite an attractive young man. And everyone who has ever hired him seems to agree with me (except the ones he no-showed during his flaky period, that is. hehe)

[marc anthony]

Reg, I mean andorrian, you are getting too worked up again.

[marc anthony]

>

>So, either business is Laisez Faire, and that's good, or it

>is and that's NOT ALWAYS GOOD. Personally, I don't believe

>it's ethical to take advantage of others simply because they

>are young or poor. And as it relates to young escorts (not

>street hustlers) I don't feel they are aged enough to fully

>how who is fucking their rectums, now for cash, may affect

>them emotionally later on in life. They are very very

>young, legal yes, but very very young. Just as a college

>student may not fundamentally grasp how lapsed credit card

>payments NOW may affect his ability to buy a house at 29.

>But sure, it's legal, and some will probably defend it as

>fair-handed capitalism. Rubs me wrong though.

>

>>for well over $1000 bucks. I fly them to the nicest hotels

>>and feed them the best food.

>

>As an aside (and this is not why I hate you) you know you're

>going to make every meal, coach seat, and hotel afterward

>seem stale to them, right? Now that's torture. I dread the

>days, post-escorting, when it's back to the fucking Hyatts

>for me.

 

Just a few questions for you, Rod... and these are serious questions, no sarcasm at all intended. If you hold it against me that I hire college age escorts because they are too young to fully understand the emotional ramifications of getting fucked for money, how do you reconcile your own acts of giving discounts to the same age group for hiring you? Secondly, are you really against treating people well because at some future date they may not have access to the same luxuries and will miss them? And by the way... yes, I am in favor of Laissez-faire business practices. That is how I have obtained the lifestyle that allows me to hire these boys in the manner I do. I believe in them, and I vote for legislators who fight for them. Perhaps therein lies the philosophical difference that will never make us see eye to eye.

 

As for "the reason that you hate me," I am all ears. We have never met, I treat all escorts well, I have never had sex with an underage person, and we seem to enjoy having sex with the same age group (at least I hire them and you give them discounts). There are quite a lot of people I have dealt with over the years that I have hated, or as you put it in another post, hold "vendettas" for. But I have to admit, it is hard for me to generate such emotion on a message board about recreational sex for hire. You need some real enemies, Rod!:7

[Guest andorrian]

I realize that when some posters run out of arguments they start accusing the person on the other side of the discussion of being someone else or bring up some other personal attack, but I haven't been the target of this too often so it is kind of new to me. It's a little sad to see grown men behaving with such a lack of self control.

[Guest regulation]

Andorian, you should be pleased. People here usually start accusing other posters of being me -- some of the more recent recipients of such accusations include Albinorat and TruthTeller -- only when they have been backed into a rhetorical corner and can think of nothing else to say. To put it another way, it means you won this round. Kudos.

 

Rod, I had better translate for you Marc's comment about his belief in "laissez faire." It's something people say when they are talking about any laws or regulations that might interfere with something they want to do. But of course they don't mean it literally. Not even the most conservative businessman wants the company that makes the prescription drugs he takes to be unregulated, for example, or wants to fly on an airline that doesn't obey FAA safety regulations, or wants the restaurants where he eats to serve meat that hasn't been inspected by USDA. It's only the regulations that constrain HIS business practices that he's disparaging, not the rest of them. Glad I could clear that up for you. If you need to me translate again, you know where to find me. :-)

[Guest andorrian]

Thank you, but there is nothing to 'win' here. What you have here is people who are insisting that they never take advantage of homeless kids but who for some reason create dozens of posts defending the right of others to take advantage of homeless kids. They are so eager to defend this that they engage in juvenile personal attacks against anyone who says this is wrong. But of course they never do this themselves and the reason they get so upset and defensive when they talk about it is . . . well I don't know what it is. Maybe it is their devotion to the principles of the free market which makes them so emotional.