The Rentboy Raid—Two Years Later

[+ saminseattle]

We have just passed the two-year mark since the raid against Rentboy.com, so while many people have referenced this event in other threads and other contexts, perhaps now would be a good time to reflect on how we might try to prevent or respond to similar raids in the future. I will also note that I just posted a question in the “Ask an Escort” forum that is more focused on practical steps rather than political fights. I hope people will read and respond to that post as well: https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/practical-tips-for-a-new-era.127777/

 

As regular readers will know, the CEO was recently sentenced to six months in prison. One of the things that I find interesting is that the prohibitionist story line about protecting women and children really fell apart in this case. In terms of the criminal charges ultimately filed and that he pleaded guilty to, it all stemmed from what you might call “simple” prostitution. There were no criminal charged related to minors, human trafficking, drugs, or tax evasion (the money laundering charge was strictly derivative since he was depositing money from an “illegal activity” into a bank). As a result, there was probably more backlash and resistance to this prosecution than the government is used to facing in these kinds of cases. In the end, I don’t know if that made any difference to the outcome, though he was sentenced to a far shorter period than he was initially facing or even that the State ultimately suggested would be appropriate. His statement after sentencing was:

 

“I believe that consensual sex work between adults should be decriminalized and destigmatized. But that hasn’t happened yet. My business was ultimately illegal, but it shouldn’t have been. We must fearlessly fight for the rights to allow consensual adults to choose what they do with their bodies.”

 

I hope that as we head into the future, people are increasingly willing to “fearlessly fight” the criminalization of sex based on misguided moralism.

[Bertster]

Obviously the goal would be to have it legalised completely across the board, so that all this ridiculous nuanced fudging with wording and jumping through hoops doesn't need to be done. Probably not much chance of that though while the bulk of federal and state legislators are worried about what an old man in the clouds thinks about the matter.

[+ José Soplanucas]

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/images/sexuality/Legalizing_Prostitution.jpg

[adannyboy]

Obviously the goal would be to have it legalised completely across the board, so that all this ridiculous nuanced fudging with wording and jumping through hoops doesn't need to be done. Probably not much chance of that though while the bulk of federal and state legislators are worried about what an old man in the clouds thinks about the matter.

 

DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED

DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED

 

it makes me crazy when folks toss out the word "legalized".

 

You know what "legalizing" weed did? Made a lot of white men a shit ton of money while black and Latino men sit in prison in those very same states for non violent weed offenses.

 

REMOVE THE CRIMINAL PENALTY AND GIVE SEX WORKERS THE SAME RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO OTHER PEOPLE

[+ quoththeraven]

DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED

DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED

 

it makes me crazy when folks toss out the word "legalized".

 

You know what "legalizing" weed did? Made a lot of white men a shit ton of money while black and Latino men sit in prison in those very same states for non violent weed offenses.

 

REMOVE THE CRIMINAL PENALTY AND GIVE SEX WORKERS THE SAME RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO OTHER PEOPLE

Also legalization means state regulation and control as well as greater opportunities for private exploitation. They're not the same thing.

[marylander1940]

Also legalization means state regulation and control as well as greater opportunities for private exploitation. They're not the same thing.

 

Yes, it's a double edged sword. Even in countries where is legal exploitation/slavery of sex workers happens yet I think decriminalization is a good first step.

 

Maybe more states should follow the example of Nevada and make it legal, taxed, consensual, indoor and safe in some counties.

 

\\

 

http://www.worldnextdoor.org/wp-content/uploads//2014/02/JH-10601-2.jpg

[instudiocity]

Obviously the goal would be to have it legalised completely across the board, so that all this ridiculous nuanced fudging with wording and jumping through hoops doesn't need to be done. Probably not much chance of that though while the bulk of federal and state legislators are worried about what an old man in the clouds thinks about the matter.

Rates would double to cover increased regulation, licensing and legitimizing escort income with Social Security and Income Taxes.

[Mocha]

DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED

DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED

 

it makes me crazy when folks toss out the word "legalized".

 

You know what "legalizing" weed did? Made a lot of white men a shit ton of money while black and Latino men sit in prison in those very same states for non violent weed offenses.

 

REMOVE THE CRIMINAL PENALTY AND GIVE SEX WORKERS THE SAME RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO OTHER PEOPLE

 

 

Tell it like it is, tell it like it is honey. People don't understand when they say it should be legalized, taxed and regulated. That would mean shipping us out to the desert of Nevada and having 30% of our pay swiped, plus fines for not using condoms, and fines for working within 100 miles of a school...which would mean more arrests. So when someone asks, do you BB? Just say, for legal reasons I don't discuss that by phone.

 

What gay man is going to drive way the hell out into the desert to pay, when the city is right where it's at?

[OCClient]

Yes, it's a double edged sword. Even in countries where is legal exploitation/slavery of sex workers happens yet I think decriminalization is a good first step.

 

Maybe more states should follow the example of Nevada and make it legal, taxed, consensual, indoor and safe in some counties.

 

\\

 

http://www.worldnextdoor.org/wp-content/uploads//2014/02/JH-10601-2.jpg

 

Nevada gives the Mormons so many options!

[Bertster]

Rates would double to cover increased regulation, licensing and legitimizing escort income with Social Security and Income Taxes.

 

I reckon a cashless society is under a decade away anyhow. Going to have to make the leap sooner or later

[Kevin Slater]

Rates would double to cover increased regulation, licensing and legitimizing escort income with Social Security and Income Taxes.

 

Escorting income is already subject to social security and income taxes. That is unreported income from an activity illegal in most jurisdictions doesn't change that.

 

Kevin Slater

[amused1]

As the honorable Mr Slater pointed out, if escorts are properly reporting their income, likely as either entertainers or personal services-other, they are already paying income tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes. So, those expenses are already worked into their rates. Interestingly, the IRS doesn't particularly care if your income is from illegal activity aside from it limiting certain business deductions for some activities. There are some very bizarre rules covering illegally incurred income.

[maninsoma]

Escorting income is already subject to social security and income taxes. That is unreported income from an activity illegal in most jurisdictions doesn't change that.

 

Kevin Slater

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I mean, I understand that a lot of people involved in cash based businesses might try to under report income so as to pay less taxes, but it's pretty silly to be outraged that one has to pay income, social security, and Medicare taxes like people who have ordinary jobs where those taxes are withheld before their pay even hits their bank accounts.

[+ Keith30309]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but decriminalization would occur on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. Is it city or county ordinances or state laws that address this?

I suspect that it is state laws that local municipalities enforce based on local priorities... for example I'm guessing that in California the local priorities in San Francisco are very different from those up in Redding.

 

If this is the case then decriminalization is something that will begin in certain places and ebb and flow based on cultural evolution and the influence of conservative religion on local norms. In other words, what the decriminalization landscape looks like 20 years from now is unlikely to be very different except in larger cities. It would therefore seem to make sense to focus efforts at the most local level? I think.

[+ José Soplanucas]

DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED

DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED DECRIMINALIZED

 

it makes me crazy when folks toss out the word "legalized".

 

You know what "legalizing" weed did? Made a lot of white men a shit ton of money while black and Latino men sit in prison in those very same states for non violent weed offenses.

 

REMOVE THE CRIMINAL PENALTY AND GIVE SEX WORKERS THE SAME RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO OTHER PEOPLE

 

I have been advocating for legalization, so you are making here an interesting point.

Is it possible to get protections for workers and clients without full legalization?

Also about @instudiocity comment, the rates we have right now are supposed to be that high because of the risks involved in an illegal activity. If it is fully legalized, that risk would disappear, so the escorts could absorb the increased taxation coming from regulation.

 

My intention is not to oppose decriminalization but to understand why it is actually better than legalization. A good regulation would avoid what happened with weed. Weed production requires capital and investment, it is easy for the wealthier to take over the industry. Prostitution is an individual enterprise that requires no investment. I do not see why legalizing sex work would be detrimental for minorities.

[adannyboy]

I have been advocating for legalization, so you are making here an interesting point.

Is it possible to get protections for workers and clients without full legalization?

Also about @instudiocity comment, the rates we have right now are supposed to be that high because of the risks involved in an illegal activity. If it is fully legalized, that risk would disappear, so the escorts could absorb the increased taxation coming from regulation.

 

My intention is not to oppose decriminalization but to understand why it is actually better than legalization. A good regulation would avoid what happened with weed. Weed production requires capital and investment, it is easy for the wealthier to take over the industry. Prostitution is an individual enterprise that requires no investment. I do not see why legalizing sex work would be detrimental for minorities.

 

Just about all sex-worker led organizations, the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, UN Women and Amnesty International have supported or advocated for decriminalization of consensual sex work.

 

Legalization puts the state (police) BACK in charge of enforcing regulations in the industry which hasn't exactly worked out in the US as it is. Many legalization models also impose mandatory licensing and std testing. Minorities engaged in survival/street-based/lower economy work would find it difficult to pay fees or taxes and will be subjected to fines/penalties because of it. (Fun fact: In Poland, the state does not collect taxes from prostitutes because to do so would technically make them pimps.)

 

In The UK, where selling is legal, sex workers can still be prosecuted for solicitation, loitering and even brothel-keeping if more than one worker shares an in-call space for safety/money savings, etc.

 

The issue with licensing is connected to stigma. Say I got licensed by the state to be a legal sex worker. In five years, if I'd like to quit and get a different job, that license would pop up on a govt background check. "Oh, you've been an escort and now you wanna be a _____? Sorry, we can't have that." May not be said in as many words, but remember the only federal protections from employment discrimination are on the basis of a job applicant's race, national origin, gender, pregnancy, age, disability, or religion. Licensing also makes you give information to the state (name, ssn, etc).

 

As far as mandatory testing, I don't know a sex worker of any economic status who wouldn't want to keep themselves healthy if afforded the opportunity to access affordable, stigma-free healthcare. Unfortunately, neither exists. Also, people hate when you mandate medical procedures, right?

 

Decriminalization makes it a job like any other. It also makes it more likely that people can report violence without consequence. Right now, in WeHo with the murder of Gemmel Moore by Ed Buck, the police are trying to investigate and talk to other men who have had encounters with Mr. Buck but can't guarantee immunity from arrest for engaging in prostitution. Yes, legalization would do the same, but why do we need it again?

 

I will add that decriminalization alone will not solve everything. There will still be trafficking, abuse, exploitation, racism, classism, homophobia and transphobia. But it will allow the worker to access resources (the kind where you've gotta give them your employment/income info) or help from abusers without themselves being penalized.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Just about all sex-worker led organizations, the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, UN Women and Amnesty International have supported or advocated for decriminalization of consensual sex work.

 

Legalization puts the state (police) BACK in charge of enforcing regulations in the industry which hasn't exactly worked out in the US as it is. Many legalization models also impose mandatory licensing and std testing. Minorities engaged in survival/street-based/lower economy work would find it difficult to pay fees or taxes and will be subjected to fines/penalties because of it. (Fun fact: In Poland, the state does not collect taxes from prostitutes because to do so would technically make them pimps.)

 

In The UK, where selling is legal, sex workers can still be prosecuted for solicitation, loitering and even brothel-keeping if more than one worker shares an in-call space for safety/money savings, etc.

 

The issue with licensing is connected to stigma. Say I got licensed by the state to be a legal sex worker. In five years, if I'd like to quit and get a different job, that license would pop up on a govt background check. "Oh, you've been an escort and now you wanna be a _____? Sorry, we can't have that." May not be said in as many words, but remember the only federal protections from employment discrimination are on the basis of a job applicant's race, national origin, gender, pregnancy, age, disability, or religion. Licensing also makes you give information to the state (name, ssn, etc).

 

As far as mandatory testing, I don't know a sex worker of any economic status who wouldn't want to keep themselves healthy if afforded the opportunity to access affordable, stigma-free healthcare. Unfortunately, neither exists. Also, people hate when you mandate medical procedures, right?

 

Decriminalization makes it a job like any other. It also makes it more likely that people can report violence without consequence. Right now, in WeHo with the murder of Gemmel Moore by Ed Buck, the police are trying to investigate and talk to other men who have had encounters with Mr. Buck but can't guarantee immunity from arrest for engaging in prostitution. Yes, legalization would do the same, but why do we need it again?

 

I will add that decriminalization alone will not solve everything. There will still be trafficking, abuse, exploitation, racism, classism, homophobia and transphobia. But it will allow the worker to access resources (the kind where you've gotta give them your employment/income info) or help from abusers without themselves being penalized.

 

Interesting. So I may have been wrong all this time. I need to do some research but you sound pretty convincing.

[+ quoththeraven]

Rates would double to cover increased regulation, licensing and legitimizing escort income with Social Security and Income Taxes.

It's already taxable.

 

I'm thinking less about rates and more about control. The police's record on that score is not good, and when it comes to something that personal, I want the state/government to stay out of our private business on all sides unless there's a security or other criminal issue (violence, harassment, stealing/failure to pay).

 

Yes, that doesn't provide for registration and checkups, but providers can do that and publicize it and clients can gravitate to them. It's true that barriers to entry into a profession can decrease the number of people in it or increase rates, but mostly they're pointless when so many people engage in a profession intermittently or part-time.

[+ quoththeraven]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but decriminalization would occur on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. Is it city or county ordinances or state laws that address this?

I suspect that it is state laws that local municipalities enforce based on local priorities... for example I'm guessing that in California the local priorities in San Francisco are very different from those up in Redding.

 

If this is the case then decriminalization is something that will begin in certain places and ebb and flow based on cultural evolution and the influence of conservative religion on local norms. In other words, what the decriminalization landscape looks like 20 years from now is unlikely to be very different except in larger cities. It would therefore seem to make sense to focus efforts at the most local level? I think.

Enforcement is local, but the laws are state laws.

[+ quoththeraven]

Another thought: Local law enforcement can decide not to enforce or selectively enforce, which is likely to be to the advantage of adult male escorts who advertise on the internet. But that is always subject to political pressure and change, especially when local law enforcement is separately elected and thus not answerable to the local political structure, as with sheriffs and county government.

 

The only sure thing is repeal of restrictive laws.

[+ Tygerscent]

Rates would double to cover increased regulation, licensing and legitimizing escort income with Social Security and Income Taxes.

I know a number of female courtesans~ Their rate schedule is amazingly different from males in the same catagory~

It's significantly higher than male courtesans... $1,000 to our few hundred per hour... $3,000+ to our $1,000-ish overnights~

 

Tyger~

[email protected]

971.400.2633 (phone calls must be scheduled in advance thru texting or email. thx)

https://rent.men/AAATygerscentXXX

http://www.daddysreviews.com/venue/usa/oregon/tyger_portland

[+ bashful]

Rates would double to cover increased regulation, licensing and legitimizing escort income with Social Security and Income Taxes.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (or missed seeing it in previous posts), but I was told when I considered some work activities after retirement, as someone who is self-employed, I would have to pay both the "employer", and "employee" share of Social Security, and Medicare deductions, essentially doubling the amount paid by those working for another.

[instudiocity]

Correct me if I'm wrong (or missed seeing it in previous posts), but I was told when I considered some work activities after retirement, as someone who is self-employed, I would have to pay both the "employer", and "employee" share of Social Security, and Medicare deductions, essentially doubling the amount paid by those working for another.

Actually it is referred to as Self-Employment Tax.

 

Social Security Taxes paid by employers and employees (it's an illusive fact that the employee is paying all of this is:

OASDI 6.200% + HI1.450% = Withholding Tax 7.650% which means 15.3% between employer and employee all on gross income.

 

Self-Employment Tax is OASDI 12.400% + HI 2.900% for 15.3% but on net income, not gross income.

 

There is an OASDI cut off after $118K this year and $120K in 2018. But that 2.9% goes all the way to the grave.

 

Therefore, incorporate and only pay yourself dividends.

[mike carey]

As far as I know, there is no mandatory registration rule for sex workers in Canberra but there are rules. Sex without a condom is illegal, for example. Today, a prominent story on the local news has concerned a conviction of three men for raping a sex worker. There was no hesitation in saying that the victim was a sex worker and the website through which they hired her was also mentioned in some reports.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/somali-man-found-guilty-of-rape-robbery-over-canberra-sex-worker-attack-20170901-gy8x0n.html

[+ saminseattle]

Wow…this is certainly not the direction I thought this thread would go, but I suppose that is par for the course around these parts :rolleyes: (I was actually hoping to direct some traffic to a companion thread I created, https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/practical-tips-for-a-new-era.127777/, and get some more comments on practical steps individual actors could take now to prepare for a potentially ominous future, given the direction we seem to be headed post RB.)

 

In terms of the legalization versus decriminalization issue, I am certainly more on the decriminalization side, though I suspect that most people who say “legalize it” probably just aren’t thinking about the details of how this would occur and may not even be aware of the distinction between legalization and decriminalization. My impression is that we are pretty far away from either approach being adopted in the US, so it’s a fairly theoretical discussion at this point. Still, it’s important conversation to have, and I appreciate @adannyboy raising the issue (as well as all his advocacy work).

 

My intent with this thread was also to spur a discussion of how to prevent or react to future crackdowns like the RB raid in more of a big picture/strategic way. In other words, if RentMen.com were suddenly shut down and its employees (or at least those living in or visiting the U.S.) were arrested, what could the community that depends on its services (both advertisers and their clients) do in response? How could the reaction to the RB raid (a few protests, some small-scale legal defense fundraising, editorials, etc.) be amplified and made more effective?