male4escort.com: I'm steaming mad!

[jasoncarter_dfw]

I just checked my email and notice and email announcing this new escort listing site...allegedly the "largest in the world." That is no big deal...we escorts get emails like that all the time. What blew me away though was, not only did they already have an ad for me on there, they had someone else's picture on it! I never propositioned this site to put an ad for me on there, and I am quite upset that they would be dishonest and fradulent enough to put a picture that was not of myself in the ad. I quickly have emailed the webmaster demanding that the ad be taken off. I just wanted to let the general public know of the situation. I do not want potential clients to think I am a dishonest character lacking in integrity...if you ask anyone that has seen me, they would testify to my morals in a heartbeat. Thanks guys!

 

- Jason Carter - Dallas, TX

- http://www.sexyjasoncarter.com

- jason@sexyjasoncarter.com

[Chuck50]

Which site should we stay away from?? HUGS Chuck

[Guest DevonSFescort]

I got one of those emails too. Luckily the email also includes a login and password so you can just log in and change the pic (or anything else about the ad) yourself. It looks like they cribbed the text from one of my Rentboy ads.

 

The site looks and handles okay; it seems to go a little faster than Rentboy. Funny that they call themselves male4escorts, and -- surprise! -- are going to run reviews (which they're asking us to solicit clients for). That other new review site is called Men4MenEscortReview. Nice to see them making an effort to distinguish themselves, huh? :+

[Guest fukamarine]

What blew me away though was, not only did they

>already have an ad for me on there, they had someone else's

>picture on it! I never propositioned this site to put an ad

>for me on there, and I am quite upset that they would be

>dishonest and fradulent enough to put a picture that was not

>of myself in the ad.

 

Was the "fradulent" picture better or worse looking than you? And why not just change the picture - don't get mad - just get some free advertising.

 

>I just wanted to let the general public know of the situation.

 

I doubt that the members of this (our) group would be classified as :general public"

 

>...if you ask anyone that has seen me, they would

>testify to my morals in a heartbeat.

 

Some would have attesting to the "morals" of anyone who earns a living as a prostitute. Am I sounding too "FFF"ish?

 

fukamarine

[jasoncarter_dfw]

Instead of providing fuel to a possible flame war, which I am not about..I'll just summarize my basic morals..

 

I don't lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those that do.

 

Being a Marine, I'm sure you understand. Thanks!

 

- Jason Carter - Dallas, TX

- http://www.sexyjasoncarter.com

- jason@sexyjasoncarter.com

 

>What blew me away though was, not only did they

>>already have an ad for me on there, they had someone else's

>>picture on it! I never propositioned this site to put an ad

>>for me on there, and I am quite upset that they would be

>>dishonest and fradulent enough to put a picture that was not

>>of myself in the ad.

>

>Was the "fradulent" picture better or worse looking than you?

>And why not just change the picture - don't get mad - just get

>some free advertising.

>

>>I just wanted to let the general public know of the

>situation.

>

>I doubt that the members of this (our) group would be

>classified as :general public"

>

>>...if you ask anyone that has seen me, they would

>>testify to my morals in a heartbeat.

>

>Some would have attesting to the "morals" of anyone who earns

>a living as a prostitute. Am I sounding too "FFF"ish?

>

>fukamarine

[Rick Munroe]

Thanks, Jason. I just checked the site and I saw that Derek and I both had ads. Mine seemed accurate but in Derek's case, they had transformed him into a 26 year old uncut black man (I'm not sure whose pic that was but I fixed it). Good thing I did...my mother would have been quite upset if she'd seen that (she thinks foreskins are icky...that's a female for you).

[axebahia]

Why are they changing the pics before posting? Has anyone asked?

[Guest Throat Poker]

>my mother would have been quite upset if she'd seen that (she thinks foreskins are icky...)

 

 

[u/] TV Listings [/u]

 

[b/] [i/] I Lick Lucy: [/i] [/b] A classic episode of the hit comedy, where Lucy the Escort discusses foreskins with her mother. Hilarious. (B/W)

 

 

:+

[guyinsf]

Yes, fukamarine, you are being too fff-ish.

 

>What blew me away though was, not only did they

>>already have an ad for me on there, they had someone else's

>>picture on it! I never propositioned this site to put an ad

>>for me on there, and I am quite upset that they would be

>>dishonest and fradulent enough to put a picture that was not

>>of myself in the ad.

>

>Was the "fradulent" picture better or worse looking than you?

>And why not just change the picture - don't get mad - just get

>some free advertising.

>

>>I just wanted to let the general public know of the

>situation.

>

>I doubt that the members of this (our) group would be

>classified as :general public"

>

>>...if you ask anyone that has seen me, they would

>>testify to my morals in a heartbeat.

>

>Some would have attesting to the "morals" of anyone who earns

>a living as a prostitute. Am I sounding too "FFF"ish?

>

>fukamarine

[Guest fukamarine]

>Yes, fukamarine, you are being too fff-ish.

 

Well - SOMEONE has to carry the banner until he returns!

 

fukamarine

[Flower]

>Instead of providing fuel to a possible flame war, which I am

>not about..I'll just summarize my basic morals..

>

>I don't lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those that do.

>

>Being a Marine, I'm sure you understand. Thanks!

[font color="green"

]

Hey, Jason--first mistake: never assume -- I've never read anyplace where fuckamarine actually WAS A MARINE--impression I had was that he just liked to fuck marines--I don't know one way or the other, however, but just an observation. ;-)

 

You sound like a sincere guy and certainly seem nice enough. Love your pics and nice web site. I don't think anyone thought negative of you for the web site advertising you didn't authorize, even b4 they had the explanation, so don't worry about it. Seems that with the ability to go in and change the pic, you ought to take advantage of it--maybe they just did it encourage you to post your pic quickly, if so, it seemed to have worked for a couple of escorts here}(

 

Anyway, people that care about what others think of them are way ahead of the ones that don't, so don't let a pissy response like from fuckamarine deter you--

"I don't lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those that do." are indeed commendable attributes, so be proud of yourself. I also noticed something else on your website--you said if anyone asked you to bareback, you'd refuse to meet with them. That really impressed me and I hope for your sake you stick to it. I've had a couple of emails to/from you (another SN) and have enjoyed your professionalism, so keep it up.

[Flower]

>Some would have attesting to the "morals" of anyone who earns

>a living as a prostitute. Am I sounding too "FFF"ish?

[font color="green"

]

First, the "thought" seems incomplete, but I think we all knew what you meant to say, as pathetic as it was.......and yes you ARE too FFFish, but you always chimed right in there with him and defended the indefensible, so no surprise here.

 

What is an anomaly, however, is that someone such as yourself, who can post some intelligent stuff sometimes, thinks that wearing a FFF badge is one of honor x(

 

But I have a serious question for you. I asked it of FFF, but he refused to answer--will you?

 

It pertains to your incomplete thought above. What is wrong or "IMMORAL" about earning a living as a prostitute? This is a serious question, and I'd be very interested in a serious answer. I'm speaking of an escort that enjoys what he does, is educated and has other options, so not a "poor street urchin" as one poster described last year, but someone with class, education, and options in life and who enjoys his work--where is the moral issue.

[Guest fukamarine]

>Hey, Jason--first mistake: never assume -- I've never read

>anyplace where fuckamarine actually WAS A MARINE--impression I

>had was that he just liked to fuck marines--I don't know one

>way or the other, however, but just an observation. ;-)

 

Flower - you're quite right - I'm not a marine - and as I am basiclly a bottom, "fucking a marine" might be fun to watch but I would much rather have a marine fuck me. I just chose that handle for the "ring" it had to it and for the images it conjurs up.

for a couple of escorts here}(

 

>Anyway, people that care about what others think of them are

>way ahead of the ones that don't, so don't let a pissy

>response like from fuckamarine deter you--

 

Was my response "pissy"? Well I guess that would depend on one's definition of "pissy". I sometimes think you only like to read "Mary Poppins" like responses!

 

fukamarine

[digicamman]

>Was my response "pissy"? Well I guess that would depend on

>one's definition of "pissy". I sometimes think you only like

>to read "Mary Poppins" like responses!

>

>fukamarine

 

[font color ="green"

] YES, fukamarine, it WAS pissy.

 

I have never read Marry Poppins but have heard the reference enough to think I understand what you meant--and don't believe it's my criteria for a good post. I can tell you for certain what I consider a bad post, however.

 

I dislike -- make it distain -- posts that are hypocritcal, two-faced, arrogant, moralistic and preachy(hmmm---well, on second thought preachy might be OK:+

 

I distain a poster that obviously hooks up with escorts but then acts and speaks as if they are inferior to himself simply because they let him pay for sex--AS IF he were somehow better for being the buyer rather than the seller.

 

I distain posts like you and FFF write that make baseless, perjorative statements and moral judgements about people based on their status as oppossed to their individual attributes--LIKE WHY CAN'T AN ESCORT (you use the word prostitute) HAVE SOMEONE ELSE ATTEST TO HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER? That's not a rhetorical question fuckamarine, btw, if you care to address it.

 

Those are just some of the posts I don't like. Glad you brought it up:+

[Flower]

[font color = "green"

] DUDE what's with the GREEN font? You are infringing on a copywrite!!! See below:

(green font © by Flower

 

But that being said................nicely said :7

[woodlawn]

>>Some would have attesting to the "morals" of anyone who

>earns

>>a living as a prostitute. Am I sounding too "FFF"ish?

 

>But I have a serious question for you. I asked it of FFF, but

>he refused to answer--will you?

 

>It pertains to your incomplete thought above. What is wrong

>or "IMMORAL" about earning a living as a prostitute? This is

>a serious question, and I'd be very interested in a serious

>answer.

 

 

I don't think fuk or FFF has ever said being a prostitute is immoral. They have both made a different point. Prostitution is considered illegal and immoral in almost every community in this country. Prostitutes (and johns) here are by definition people who have decided to ignore the legal and moral prohibition because it interferes with the gratification of their personal desires. There is a certain irony, therefore, when one of them criticizes someone else for making a decision to ignore some other legal and moral stricture for the same reason, as the thread author did. If each of us is entitled to ignore any legal or moral stricture he finds inconvenient, then which of us can complain when others do the same?

 

What I would say to the thread author is that he's made a decision to get involved in crime, and that means dealing with a lot of people who feel free to ignore any rules they find inconvenient. If he's going to get "steaming mad" every time that happens, he's in for a very rough time.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm speaking of an escort that enjoys what he does,

>is educated and has other options, so not a "poor street

>urchin" as one poster described last year, but someone with

>class, education, and options in life and who enjoys his

>work--where is the moral issue.

>

>

[Flower]

[font color="green"

] Well, Woodland, I understand what you are saying, but before you paint all "crime" with the same brush, consider this.

 

It is a "crime" i.e., against the law not to feed a parking meter on the city street during certain hours. Depending on where I am, I may find it more convenient and cheaper to put my quarter in and leave for several hours and pay the $5 fine for the ticket I will surely get rather than paying $12 for parking -- is that a crime that rises to the level of "immorality?" I don't think so.

 

The law recognizes that there are laws that make things illegal for heath and welfare reasons and laws that make things illegal just because the law says it's illegal. There is nothing per se immoral about my parking in a safe location on the street out of traffic and not boxing another car in, etc., but the law has made that illegal under some circumstances. On the other hand, parking in front of a fire hydrant in a red zone, does have moral implications--but the moral issues would be there with or with out the red pain on the curb. In other words, by blocking off access to the water source to extinguish a fire, you can be endangering peoples' lives and property--there is a distinction. Same thing with parking in a handicapped space when you are not handicapped. Those laws are all parking laws, but some have moral implications and some don't.

 

Obviously, when you get to assaults, great bodily injuries and murder, these things are IMMORAL in and of themselves and need no law to identify them as a crime against society. The law is established hopefully to deter the crime, not to identify it. Not so (IMHO) with prostitution. It is the classic "victimless" crime and in my opinion not a moral issue in and of itself. The bigger moral issue may be with the person that meets with a prostitute -- is he breaking vows, promises or commitments -- but that's his decision and not up to the state nor the sex worker to enforce.

 

Legality and morality are not necessarily concurrent. for example, many people would think it immoral to allow a business to manufacture a substance for human consumption that is proven deadly, toxic and harmful to human life and health, as well as stinky and annoyingly distasteful, but it is not illegal to manufacture cigarettes x(

 

I'm sure that the morality issues with prostitution are biblical in origin, but then apparently so are the taboos of masturbation and Religious Right Outrage at gay sex or same sex couples or adoption, etc., but while that may be sufficient justification for many, not being very religious, it is of no justification to me.

 

So then, Woodland and fuckamarine (since you never answered the challenge yourself), if I don't pay the parking meter, does that mean I can't criticize a web site for making a misrepresentation or stealing my image or using my name without permission? If you are an escort or choose to meet with escorts, are you telling us that you thereby give up your rights to demand ethical conduct of others? To demand fair and respectable conduct by others toward you? To expect that others will not steal or hurt or cheat you and when they do, do you give up your right to complain or prosecute? :-(

 

I think not. :+

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>It is a "crime" i.e., against the law not to feed a parking

>meter on the city street during certain hours.

 

Or let's talk about when you're actually driving. One of the most banal examples of ignoring the law for the sake of convenience is speeding. On many roads you're not even keeping up with the flow of traffic if you're not speeding. So if you've chosen a lifestyle that takes you down one of these roads on a daily basis, why, you're surrounding yourself with people who ignore the laws that inconvenience them, and if you're speeding yourself, you're one of those people too. In which case, in some people's moral universe, apparently, you have no right to criticize drunk drivers, or people who commit carjackings.

 

Or -- keeping to the vehicular theme -- consider Rosa Parks, who, inconvenienced by the segregationist laws that required her to go all the way to the back of the bus to sit, instead sat in the "Whites Only" section, offending the moral sensibilities of many. Of course, she was clearly violating an unjust law, but so are gay men who have sex in states or countries with sodomy laws, and so are prostitutes and their clients. People who speed in traffic, many of whom, no doubt, support laws against prostitution, can't even cite that in their defense, not least since driving is a privilege, but I still support their right to expect fair and ethical conduct from others.

 

All that said, in the case that prompted this thread, I'm inclined to give the site the benefit of the doubt and think that it was an error, since they do give escorts a way to fix the ads themselves on the spot. It's also hard to see how it benefits a new escort advertising and review site to deliberately run one escort's photo with another's profile (complete with actual contact info). But if they had, Jason would have every right to be angry.

[Guest fukamarine]

Here I am - replying to my own post - because it is easier and faster than replying to several other posts who replied to mine - if you get my drift.

 

Let me state that I personally do not find escorting, prostituion, or for that matter, any kind of sex between consenting adults to be immoral. (I'm not from Texas and my name ain't Bush)

 

What I was trying to point out - and obviously failed to accomplish - is the lunacy of an escort claiming he was just wanting to warn the "General Public" and then declaring himself to be a very moral person. Given his occupation I very much doubt if the "General Public" would find him to be overly "Moral"

 

I also think it is somewhat questionable to declare one's self to be moral when writing for an audience. It's almost as if you were giving yourself a compliment - which is usually better saved for coming from others.

 

However that's just my opinion and may not be viewed that way by others.

 

>>I just wanted to let the general public know of the

>situation.

>

>I doubt that the members of this (our) group would be

>classified as :general public"

>

>>...if you ask anyone that has seen me, they would

>>testify to my morals in a heartbeat.

>

>Some would have attesting to the "morals" of anyone who earns

>a living as a prostitute.

 

And to answer Flower's comments about the above incomplete sentence, he is quite correct - I did omit the word "difficulty" before "attesting". This is what happens when your head is thinking faster than you are typing as often happens to me when I am writing at 2 o'clock in the morning, too tired to keep my eyes open.

 

fukamarine

[woodlawn]

> Well, Woodland,

 

What's new, Flobber?

 

 

>I understand what you are saying, but before

>you paint all "crime" with the same brush, consider this.

 

>The law recognizes that there are laws that make things

>illegal for heath and welfare reasons and laws that make

>things illegal just because the law says it's illegal. There

>is nothing per se immoral about my parking in a safe location

 

You're referring to the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum, though your description leaves a little to be desired. The term malum in se refers to pretty much what the Latin words say, an act that is prohibited because it is traditionallly considered evil in and of itself. Malum prohibitum refers to an act that, while not considered evil, is prohibited as part of some regulatory scheme -- overtime parking is not a bad example. But prostitution is an offense that our legal system considers malum in se, and so are fraud and theft, which are what the thread author was complaining about. So it's perfectly valid to point to the irony of hearing a person who perpetrates one such offense complaining about someone who perpetrates another.

 

People here are fond of saying that prostitution isn't like other crimes because it's "victimless," but of course that isn't true. The reason you keep reading about hotel stings set up by the cops to catch escorts is that hotel managers keep asking the cops to do that. They go to the cops when they see that prostitutes are using their property to do business or get complaints from guests to that effect. So obviously there are people who consider themselves victimized by even the relatively discreet form of prostitution that is the primary subject of discussion here. You can consider it a "victimless" crime only by creating a special definition of "victim" that excludes anyone who complains about this particular crime.

 

So yes, I think there is some irony in hearing a complaint about the fraudulent use of one's working name and image from someone who, just like the person he's complaining about, has decided it's okay for him to do something that is traditionally considered immoral and illegal for his own personal benefit.

[+ Lucky]

RE: I'm steaming !

 

Whoa woody! It just hit me that you might be a law professor!! I mean, malum per se and malum prohibitum? That would explain a lot. Is it the case?

[woodlawn]

RE: I'm steaming !

 

>Whoa woody! It just hit me that you might be a law

>professor!! I mean, malum per se and malum prohibitum? That

>would explain a lot. Is it the case?

 

Lucky, please don't waste your time asking me for any personal information. I'm not going to give you any because I don't trust you. You know, the same reason we all post here under fake names? Remember that?

 

Malum in se and malum prohibitum are very basic legal concepts that anyone who has been to law school would know, just as anyone who has been to med school knows what the occipital area is.

 

Let's face it, those of us who frequent this board treat the morality of the society in which we live like a cafeteria. We take what we want and leave what we don't. That makes it rather difficult for us to complain when others do the same. Either the law is for everyone or it is for no one.

[+ Lucky]

RE: I'm steaming !

 

"Let's face it, those of us who frequent this board treat the morality of the society in which we live like a cafeteria. We take what we want and leave what we don't. That makes it rather difficult for us to complain when others do the same. Either the law is for everyone or it is for no one."

Well, professor, I can't disagree. That is how we are!

[Flower]

>

>> Well, Woodland,

>

>What's new, Flobber?

[font color="green"

] ooops:+ [font color="blue"

]

 

>You're referring to the difference between malum in se and

>malum prohibitum, though your description leaves a little to

>be desired. The term malum in se refers to pretty much what

>the Latin words say, an act that is prohibited because it is

>traditionally considered evil in and of itself. Malum

>prohibitum refers to an act that, while not considered evil,

>is prohibited as part of some regulatory scheme -- overtime

>parking is not a bad example.

[font color="green"

]

Well actually, since I wasn't trying to impress anyone or teach law school, I thought my examples were right on, and still do. Anyone who reads your correct definitions and then my practical application should agree:+

 

But tell me this--in Nevada or on Native American Reservations where gambling is legal, is it immoral? Obviously some would say yes and some no, but the fact that it is illegal has NOTHING to do with MORALITY. Many of the same problems associated with prostitution occur due to it's criminalization, so your arguments really dont' fly. Furthermore, there are a few examples where breaking a law can be Moral whereas obeying it would be immoral--can you think of any?

 

Hotels complain based on lack of orderliness, decorum or dress, not that fact that the sex therein is paid for or not--and I'm not about to let Mr. Hilton determine what's moral or immoral for me, thank you. Does your statement mean that you approve of consensual unpaid for sex in a hotel but not paid for sex? [font color="red"

] PLEASE TELL US ALL, WHY PAID FOR SEX IS IMMORAL[font color="green"

] --without going into the secondary problems brought on by it's criminalization.

 

That's a challenge btw :+

 

Prostitution, in and of itself IS victimless, and just because people complain does not make them a victim. Some people complain cause their neighbor down the hall is unmarried but having sex -- does that mean she is immoral? Others complain cause their neighbor's light shines in their window--a victim? A moral issue? I don't think so on either count.[font color="blue"

]

 

>But prostitution is an offense

>that our legal system considers malum in se, and so are fraud

>and theft, which are what the thread author was complaining

>about. So it's perfectly valid to point to the irony of

>hearing a person who perpetrates one such offense complaining

>about someone who perpetrates another.

[font color="green"

]

Again, don't paint fraud and theft with the same brush as prostitution--they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!. The law makes NO judgment as to whether prostitution is malum in se or prohibitum -- it just makes it illegal and most commentators would say it is malum prohibitum. Tell me this, where is the moral issue if the prostitute lives out in the county somewhere without neighbors and no one is there to complain, and he or she does it cause he likes to and is educated and has options in life and far from desperate? It hurts no one!

 

[font color="blue"

]

>So yes, I think there is some irony in hearing a complaint

>about the fraudulent use of one's working name and image from

>someone who, just like the person he's complaining about, has

>decided it's okay for him to do something that is

>traditionally considered immoral and illegal for his own

>personal benefit.

[font color="green"

]

Dude--you just don't get it;( Fraud and theft is an act inherently wrong and hurts the person it's directed against--that's why they are called the victim! To say that an escort can't complain about being the victim of identity theft or fraud just because he is an escort, is the height of duplicity and such an unfair, unthinking and intellectually vacant argument, I'm surprised that you'd advance it even behind the annonymous mask you wear hear.

 

Lucky, in answer to your question, he ain't no law professor--I guarantee it. He may have looked some definitions up in Blacks, but the reasoning power ain't there. :+

[Guest jeffOH]

Thought I'd share this, it's written by Joseph Sommer, an attorney who works for the state. He's also very involved with the Humanist Society and the ACLU.

 

Legalize Prostitution

 

In many communities throughout the U.S., the police periodically focus their attention on arresting persons involved in prostitution. A careful examination of this practice shows that it reduces the quality of life in society.

 

By forcing prostitution out of places where it would more naturally be found, such as in brothels or near motels, the police drive that activity into the streets of neighborhoods where it otherwise would not exist. The result is that residents of the neighborhoods are exposed to the activity against their will.

 

Also because of prostitution being forced into the streets, the dangers to many prostitutes greatly increase. Prostitutes whose jobs involve working at night and getting into cars with complete strangers can be, and often have been, easy pickings for serial killers and other sociopaths. James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University, reports that prostitutes are the most frequent targets for serial killers.

 

A sensible solution to these problems would be to follow the example of some European cities, where prostitution and soliciting are allowed in certain designated areas. People who are interested in those activities go to the places where it is permitted, and they leave alone the neighborhoods that don't wish to be associated with it. And the prostitutes can work in environments where they are much safer.

 

Another problem with prostitution arrests is that they cause long-term increases in crime and drug abuse in society. Margo St. James, a former social worker and a leading advocate of legalizing prostitution, writes: "When a woman is charged for a sex crime, it's a stigma that lasts her lifetime, and it makes her unemployable."

 

St. James identifies that stigma as a major reason that a large percentage of women who are in jail were first arrested for prostitution. The arrest record forecloses normal employment possibilities, keeps the women working as prostitutes longer than they otherwise would, and sets them up for a lifetime of involvement with drugs and serious crime.

 

Keeping prostitution illegal also contributes to crime because many criminals view prostitutes and their customers as attractive targets for robbery, fraud, rape or other criminal acts. The criminals know that such people are unlikely to report the crimes to police, because the victims would have to admit they were involved in the illegal activity of prostitution when the attacks took place.

 

If prostitution were legal, these victims would be less reluctant to report to police any criminal acts that occurred while they were involved in it. This would significantly improve the probability of catching the criminals and preventing them from victimizing others. In many cases, it could deter them from committing the crimes in the first place.

 

Additionally, laws against prostitution violate Americans' fundamental rights of individual liberty and personal privacy. Thomas Jefferson and other founders of the U.S. envisioned a society where people can live without interference from government, provided they don't harm others.

 

As Jefferson said in his First Inaugural Address: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement." Or as Arthur Hoppe said about consensual acts in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1992: "The function of government is to protect me from others. It's up to me, thank you, to protect me from me."

 

Similar to issues such as birth control, this issue involves people's fundamental rights to control their own bodies and decide the best way to live their lives. Alan Soble noted, "The freedom to choose one's reasons for engaging in sex is an important part of sexual freedom."

 

In a free society, it makes no sense for the government to be telling persons - particularly the poor - they cannot charge a fee for harmless services they otherwise are at liberty to give away. Many people work in the sex industry because they see it as their only means of alleviating serious financial problems.

 

Likewise for the customers, there is no reason their freedom should not include the right to purchase the companionship and affection they may want but, for whatever reason, do not find in other aspects of their lives.

 

For example, one disabled man told researchers he was lonely and visited prostitutes because "I'm ugly, no women will go out with me. . . . It's because of my disability. So prostitutes are a sexual outlet for me." Another man reported that he did the same for a number of years due to being "anorexic and very reclusive. There was no chance of forming a relationship." A physically unattractive man added, "I pay for sex because that is the only way I can get sex."

 

Can anyone, other than the ignorant or cruel, say that such persons should not have this outlet and that sex workers should not be permitted to provide it for them?

 

Further, numerous legal commentators point out that using law enforcement resources against prostitution reduces substantially the resources available to fight serious crimes committed against persons or property. This nation desperately needs more efforts applied to solving these crimes, because arrests are being made in connection with less than 20% of them.

 

And according to the Multinational Monitor, massive amounts of white-collar crime are not being prosecuted. The magazine also reports that the damage inflicted on society by corporate crime and violence far exceeds the harm caused by all the street crime combined. The victims of the Enron and WorldCom scandals - many of whom lost their life savings - would probably support that claim.

 

Some researchers assert that a reason for the inordinate amount of police attention to prostitution is that certain officers prefer duties enabling them to be with attractive women in hotel rooms or massage parlors. The duties are more pleasant, far less dangerous, and less complex than assignments requiring them to be among violent criminals who may be carrying weapons.

 

In fact, in 1999 at least one of the vice squad officers in Columbus, Ohio, was regularly having sexual intercourse with prostitutes before arresting them. After receiving negative publicity about that practice, the police division issued new guidelines that limited officers to getting completely naked with prostitutes, being masturbated briefly, and "momentarily" having sex "in spite of all reasonable efforts of the officer to stop."

 

Despite the revised guidelines, in 2003 the Columbus Dispatch quoted one court clerk as describing the officers' arrest reports as sometimes being so steamy that she "should have a cigarette after reading it." The head of the vice squad acknowledged to the newspaper that "it appears officers are engaging in sexual contact." This nonsense goes on at the same time that Columbus has over 300 unsolved murders since 1990, including several prostitutes brutally murdered by a possible serial killer.

 

In regard to white-collar crime, the police undoubtedly know that their jobs and careers are safer by making prostitution arrests than by investigating criminals who cause serious harm but either wield political power or have strong connections to those who do. And when the corruption involves others in the police force, the notorious "Blue Wall of Silence" leads all too many officers to ignore and protect the wrongdoing of badge-wearing criminals, too.

 

Our society would be better served if the police directed their efforts away from the activities of consenting adults and toward preventing and solving real crimes involving clear victims and injustices.

 

JEFF

jeff4men@hotmail.com