Prostitution Stings and my arrest!

[Guest jeffOH]

>Jeff, I can't even begin to tell you how impressed and

>inspired I am by the sheer transparency with which you seem to

>live your life and conduct yourself on this board. That

>quality is not generally associated with our industry, and you

>really do us proud. Thank you for the stand you're making. I

>hope one day people will talk about what a pioneer that Jeff

>Jenkins fellow was.

 

That would be something, huh, the Rosa Parks of escorts...lol! Seriously though, Devon, your words mean alot to me, Thank You !:-)

 

I suppose I've discovered on my Life's Journey, that it's enough to just be "Me", warts and all and people will love me. I've recently seen several examples of this from my friends, family, clients and colleagues. My best friendships are those that continue to evolve and they've done so because of the level of honesty we share, "sheer transparency"--not being afraid to be vulnerable, not being afraid of being judged and having the love taken away--unconditional love!:-)

 

JEFF

[Guest jeffOH]

Thanks VaHawk! :-) I'll be sure to keep everyone posted.

 

JEFF

:-)

[KY_TOP]

Jeff, Thanks for sharing your ordeal with those of us here and most of all thanks for having the courage to take it into the open in the Media. I wish I could come up with some great words of encouragement or wisdom for you but I think many others have said it better than I could. You have the best wishes and respect of many here. Good Luck and be sure and let us all know how your battle there in Ohio goes. Good Luck.

[Luv2play]

Actually, laws against prostitution haven't been around nearly as long as prostitution itself. It is generally conceded that prostitution has been around since recorded history began, which is why it is called the world's oldest profession. And all the laws against it were put on the books in the 19th century, the Victorian age, when laws against homosexuality were also introduced.

 

Of course, the major driving force for this was that European societies were evolving into secular/democratic states from religious-based autocracies. The established churches were losing their moral sway over the newly liberated populations so the nation states moved in to fill the vacuum that that created.

 

Today, many of those European states have eased the restrictions of the Victorian age laws. Only the USA, which inherited the European laws and customs, seems to moving in the opposite direction of an increasingly religious-driven state, while maintaining most of the trappings of the Victorian age laws (sodomy being the major exception). And while the sodomy laws may have been stricken from the books, the mentality that went along with them is still very prevalent in main-stream American values.

[trilingual]

>Oh please, COPS SUCK, because they are doing their jobs? Or

>do they only suck when the performance of their duties

>conflict with a person’s “self-definition” of what laws are

>just and what activities should be illegal?

>

>Cops do not enact the laws. They are only charged with

>enforcing compliance to the laws.

 

Oh, please, yourself! You must think we're ALL idiots! Cops and prosecutors may not pass the laws they enforce, but they DO have discretion as to which offenses they will arrest people for and who they'll prosecute. It's precisely because of that discretion that victimless crimes are rarely prosecuted. But every so often the cops or the prosecutors go on a tear (sometimes, admittedly, pressured by the local mayor, or press, or bluestockings). But neither the police nor the prosecutors are automatons who have to enforce every single law whether they like it or not. What's worse is that VaHawk KNOWS that (because, after all, he knows EVERYTHING) and still spews his propaganda. . .

[VaHawk]

I NEVER posited that I KNOW EVERTHING, but I will stick to my opinions on cops enforcing the laws. Are YOU proposing that the police force is made up of only the "homocide squad" or can you admit the the force is also made up of the "vice squad", the "sexual victims squad", the "traffic squad", the "fraud squad", etc?

 

Really, I see no need for you to castigate aspersions and name calling slurs upon me, for merely expressing an opinion that God Forbid, disagrees with your opinion! Of course, I really should not refer to God, in my reply, as that brands me as Christian piece of shit in your eyes!

[Guest houseboy]

Well, that makes sense. There was of course no reason for woodlawn to get rude, but I guess that is just the way his posts are. In any case, I appreciate your input. I guess it is time for me to stop being so starry-eyed about everything. *sigh*

 

Sean Lespagnol

Chicago, IL

http://www.seanlespagnol.com

 

"Big and tasty - every day!"

[VaHawk]

I'm certainly not trying, in any way, to speak for anyone other than myself, but I have an inkling that my opinion is not unique. I can honestly state that MY feelings are that I AM SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of your anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-American bullshit!

 

It seems that anyone who expresses an opinion that you don't agree with is an anti-Semitic, racist asshole, and I KNOW that I'm not that way, and I doubt others who disagree with you are that way, despite your inferences otherwise. I wish that ad rian (who I respect 1000 times more than I do you) could post and call you on your bullshit, as he could do it so much better than me! :o

[woodlawn]

>>A few weeks ago

>>the NYT magazine did a story on a young man with a promising

>>career in the Army who was blinded in Iraq and now is back

>>home living with his folks and can't even get dressed by

>>himself. Let's try to keep some perspective on what is

>truly

>>serious and what is not.

 

>So, in woodlawn logic, nothing else that happens in the world

>matters because soldiers are dying and getting maimed in Iraq.

> Of course, what is happening in Iraq is horrific, but it

>doesn't negate everyone else's life experiences.

 

Doesn't negate anyone else's experiences, just makes 'em sound pretty trivial in comparison.

 

 

>A blinded

>soldier has nothing to do with an arrested escort; you can't

>compare the two.

 

I can compare anything I want, Rick. I can compare middle-aged men who freak out over a prostitution bust with young kids who have to make life-and-death decisions (their own life, their own death) in a theater of war every day. This country sure does produce some interesting contrasts.

[Guest laboheme]

>>A blinded

>>soldier has nothing to do with an arrested escort; you can't

>>compare the two.

>

>I can compare anything I want, Rick. I can compare

>middle-aged men who freak out over a prostitution bust with

>young kids who have to make life-and-death decisions (their

>own life, their own death) in a theater of war every day.

>This country sure does produce some interesting contrasts.

 

The escort made a choice of professions. Most of the soldiers who are fighting and dying probably just wanted a chance at college and decent health care, and never dreamed they would be fighting for a foreign power. It would make more sense to leave the sting operations on escorts until after we restore democratic government in America. Let's get the priorities straight. Way to go Jeff! Keep up the good work.

[Guest laboheme]

Focussing on the cops is too easy a target. Hawk is right. They are enforcing the laws and community standards defined by elected officials. If those elected officials were unhappy, the cops would be doing something else. Pretending otherwise is, at best, naive, and at worst, counter-productive.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I can compare anything I want, Rick. I can compare

>middle-aged men who freak out over a prostitution bust with

>young kids who have to make life-and-death decisions (their

>own life, their own death) in a theater of war every day.

 

I'm sure it would bring those young kids no end of comfort to know that you're invoking their suffering to make a point about a totally unrelated subject on the message board of the prostitution web site you religiously visit.

[Rick Munroe]

>I'm sure it would bring those young kids no end of comfort to

>know that you're invoking their suffering to make a point

>about a totally unrelated subject on the message board of the

>prostitution web site you religiously visit.

 

I wish we had a "high-five" smiley on this board.

[Doug69]

>It seems that anyone who expresses an opinion that you don't

>agree with is an anti-Semitic, racist asshole, and I KNOW that

>I'm not that way, and I doubt others who disagree with you are

>that way, despite your inferences otherwise.

 

People who come out and say things like "COPS SUCK" are just simple bigots. They don't realize that it's the same thing as yelling "BLACKS SUCK!" after you get mugged by a black guy, or yelling "FAGGOTS ARE SICK!" after reading about one gay individual who, say, molests a child. They think that because some cops behave poorly, it's fine to say disparaging things about cops generally.

 

People such as the poster who wrote "COPS SUCK!" and Trilingual (by the way, can you imagine how pathetic it is to pick a name here that has no purpose other than to say: "LOOK AT ME! I SPEAK 3 LANGUAGES!") have convinced themselves that they are so good and pure that they can arrogate unto themselves the right to express bigoted sentiments, because they think that the groups they hate (Christians, cops, conservatives, etc.) are deserving of bigotry. They think bigotry is bad only when directed towards their favorite groups. The hypocrisy and smallness is so putrid it's genuinely difficult not to vomit when encountering it.

 

It is often the case that people who say such bigoted, hateful things about police officers do so due to some serious mental problems. Police officers risk their lives every day in order to keep public order and to enforce the rule of law, i.e., they do what is necessary to ensure that we can have a working society at all. Hating police officers as a group is seriously deranged.

 

The people who hate police officers typically do so for one of three reasons: (1) they hate our society and culture, and so they hate anyone who works to maintain it (that DEFINITELY applies to Trilingual); (2) the police officer represents the masculine authority figure, and they hate masculine authority figures because they think that their daddies never loved them or (3) they are 15 years old and hate everything that restrains them.

 

Whatever it is, the very sentiment COPS SUCK is so bigoted and ill that it ought to be vigorously condemend whenever it is spewed. Some police officers certainly engage in bad acts; most don't. There are police officers who risk their lives every day in order to protect strangers and others who can't protect themselves. To have contempt for such a group of people is truly sickening, and it moves beyond being merely sickening - into the realm of true mental illness - to see the sentiment expressed by people who worship at the feet of escorts and who think that being a prostitute is the world's highest calling.

[Doug69]

>I'm sure it would bring those young kids no end of comfort to

>know that you're invoking their suffering to make a point

>about a totally unrelated subject on the message board of the

>prostitution web site you religiously visit.

 

I think what they'd appreciate a lot less is having to hear some 40 year-old guy whining about having been charged with something less than a misdemeanor and paying a $250 fine as though it's the most harrowing nightmere ever, and watching others affirm the unique horror of this melodramatic fainting spell while scoffing at the fact that 18 year-olds are risking their lives for the sake of our country renders - or at least ought to render - this severe whining sort of silly and pitiful.

 

I don't think Jeff should have been arrested, and I'm sure what he went through wasn't fun, but the rhetoric used to describe the ordeal by him and others really is quite excessive, self-pitying, and self-absorbed.

[bostonman]

Jeff - I too applaud your actions - you have incredible guts, and I wish more people had your willingness to speak out. I know you're also aware of the possible consequences, and I hope you're able to keep yourself together through all of this.

 

For those arguing the relative meaning of it all in a world view - is there really a point to that? Tragedy can and does happen on many levels at once. We all have personal demons that may mean much more to us than any world problem, simply because our own demons are real and immediate to us, and global situations may not only not involve us directly, but we may feel we have less stake in their outcome. Yes, the plight of the Iraq war is an awful thing, and I am personally offended that it's all become so much of a mess after our war-monger of a president promised us it was all for the good. (And does anyone else share the cynical viewpoint that this latest "surrounding" of this #2 Al-Quaeda guy is really just so much hype to make us think that something is *actually happening* in the supposed "war on terror?" Isn't it a coincidence this happened just after the Spain and Iraq hotel bombings? Or am I being too cynical?? )

 

Anyway - my point being - whay can't we support Jeff in a rather dark hour in his life AND keep in mind what else is going on in the world at the same time? Perspective is one thing - belittling someone's personal trials is another thing altogether. I don't consider getting arrested a trivial thing, especially in a case like this.

 

Just my perhaps-too-innocent view on the whole thing. Take it or leave it.

 

My prayers are with you, Jeff.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I think what they'd appreciate a lot less is having to hear

>some 40 year-old guy whining about having been charged with

>something less than a misdemeanor and paying a $250 fine as

>though it's the most harrowing nightmere ever, and watching

>others affirm the unique horror of this melodramatic fainting

>spell while scoffing at the fact that 18 year-olds are risking

>their lives for the sake of our country renders - or at least

>ought to render - this severe whining sort of silly and

>pitiful.

 

Jeff's posts on this thread have been exactly the opposite of whining. To the contrary, from the very beginning of this thread up through his most recent post, he has taken responsibility for his choices and has taken pains, in a truthful, straightforward way, to put his own emotional state into context (again taking full responsibility for his choices about his medication, etc.) -- in a way, I might add, that has rather more bearing, sheds a lot more light, and is more honest than woodlawn's "comparison." Furthermore, he has chosen to exercise his rights as a conscientious citizen with a legitimate objection to laws that he wants to see repealed. He is willing to take risks to do so, and has not abused the legal system in the process of doing so. And to the extent that anyone's praise of him may have been overheated, or the warnings too melodramatic, HE has stepped in to try and "tone them down," so to speak.

 

By the way, no one here is scoffing at the fact that 18-year-olds are risking their lives, unless it's the guy who decided to drag them into this conversation in the first place. He certainly wasn't showing them any respect by doing so.

 

>I don't think Jeff should have been arrested, and I'm sure

>what he went through wasn't fun, but the rhetoric used to

>describe the ordeal by him and others really is quite

>excessive, self-pitying, and self-absorbed.

 

Interestingly, you don't produce a single quote to back up this assessment. I certainly can't find any in any of Jeff's posts to match that caricature.

[woodlawn]

>>I'm sure it would bring those young kids no end of comfort

>to

>>know that you're invoking their suffering to make a point

>>about a totally unrelated subject on the message board of

>the

>>prostitution web site you religiously visit.

 

Actually, I suspect their first reaction to the content of this board would be to suggest that men who hire male hookers and the male hookers they hire should be used by the military for target practice. To each his own, as they say.

 

>I think what they'd appreciate a lot less is having to hear

>some 40 year-old guy whining about having been charged with

>something less than a misdemeanor and paying a $250 fine as

>though it's the most harrowing nightmere ever, and watching

>others affirm the unique horror of this melodramatic fainting

>spell while scoffing at the fact that 18 year-olds are risking

>their lives for the sake of our country renders - or at least

>ought to render - this severe whining sort of silly and

>pitiful.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth. Cut that out!

[woodlawn]

>Actually, laws against prostitution haven't been around

>nearly as long as prostitution itself. It is generally

>conceded that prostitution has been around since recorded

>history began, which is why it is called the world's oldest

>profession. And all the laws against it were put on the books

>in the 19th century, the Victorian age, when laws against

>homosexuality were also introduced.

 

I don't think any of the above is true. It certainly is untrue to state that no society prohibited prostitution prior to the reign of Victoria, since English jurisprudence contains laws prohibiting prostitution going back centuries before that. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

 

>Today, many of those European states have eased the

>restrictions of the Victorian age laws. Only the USA, which

>inherited the European laws and customs, seems to moving in

>the opposite direction of an increasingly religious-driven

>state, while maintaining most of the trappings of the

>Victorian age laws (sodomy being the major exception). And

>while the sodomy laws may have been stricken from the books,

>the mentality that went along with them is still very

>prevalent in main-stream American values.

 

If you ever decide to be honest about this, you'll have to admit that plenty of people on the left side of the political spectrum in this country believe that prostitution should be banned because it has long been associated with the exploitation of women and children and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, rather than because they have a puritanical attitude toward sex.

 

You'll also have to admit that the legalization and regulation of prostitution would leave out a significant number of people who currently work in that occupation and who wouldn't be willing or able to fit into a regulatory scheme that requires licensing by the state, the payment of sales taxes collected from clients, and regular medical exams to prevent people working if they have STDs. What do you imagine those people would do?

[Doug69]

>The escort made a choice of professions. Most of the soldiers

>who are fighting and dying probably just wanted a chance at

>college and decent health care, and never dreamed they would

>be fighting for a foreign power.

 

The military is an all-VOLUNTEER force. There is not a single person in the military who did not join voluntarily. I really doubt that there is a single person who volunteered who, when doing so, failed to understand that there was a significant chance that they would "be fighting a foreign power." That's sort of what the military is for.

 

It would make more sense to

>leave the sting operations on escorts until after we restore

>democratic government in America. Let's get the priorities

>straight.

 

It would be the opposite of "democratic" for the Police Department to simply decide on its own that laws which were enacted DEMOCRATICALLY are not good laws and therefore won't be enforced. It's humorous to see people here, on the one hand, criticizing the Police, but on the other hand, insisting that the Police should have the power to decide which laws they will enforce and which ones they won't.

 

As for the nonsense about the need to "restore democratic government in America," I can't help but laugh that people like you are convinced that whenever politicians whom you don't like are ELECTED, you confuse this result with a lack of democracy.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Actually, I suspect their first reaction to the content of

>this board would be to suggest that men who hire male hookers

>and the male hookers they hire should be used by the military

>for target practice.

 

Well, I know a lot of men who serve in the military, and none of them would suggest any such thing. Nor do I think they'd appreciate your attributing such murderous, hate-filled sentiments (projections of your own feelings, no doubt) to the young men and women who are serving in Iraq.

[jackhammer91406]

The usual suspects

 

Jeff,

Thanks for bringing us up to date on what happened and where you have been. I have always enjoyed reading your "take" on things and hope that you will be posting here again regularly.

 

Despite what others may label as fawning, I want to say that it took a lot of guts to post this and to make your personal travails public here. The reason it took guts has become painfully obvious as the thread has now been taken over by the usual pontificates of all knowledge and judgment. so be it.

 

Thankfully, you have wisely decided to stay uninvolved with the bitch slap fest that this thread has become.

 

I admire you for taking a stand over something you believe in strongly as it relates to personal freedoms. The fact that you have engaged in an illegal activity affects this opinion not one iota, since laws impinging personal freedoms are often struck down after long battles by brave souls. The "knowledge police" will no doubt come slinging at me over applauding a "prostitute" (geesh, what a disparaging term), but between you and me, I don't care. Every one of them ran out of new material long ago. Go do what you feel is right on this issue as you see it and I am for you.

[Rick Munroe]

>Well, I know a lot of men who serve in the military, and none

>of them would suggest any such thing. Nor do I think they'd

>appreciate your attributing such murderous, hate-filled

>sentiments (projections of your own feelings, no doubt) to the

>young men and women who are serving in Iraq.

 

Silly Devon, don't you know that every soldier in the armed forces is heterosexual and virulently homophobic? If woodlawn says so, it must be true!

[Rick Munroe]

>Jeff's posts on this thread have been exactly the opposite of

>whining. To the contrary, from the very beginning of this

>thread up through his most recent post, he has taken

>responsibility for his choices and has taken pains, in a

>truthful, straightforward way, to put his own emotional state

>into context (again taking full responsibility for his choices

>about his medication, etc.)

 

Exactly. Jeff's posts have been something rarely seen here: honest, factual, and not melodramatic or whiny in the least. He gets my respect for that alone.

[Rick Munroe]

>For those arguing the relative meaning of it all in a world

>view - is there really a point to that?

 

There's really no point, other than a desire to always be contrary and negative. Good post, by the way.