Houston Sting

[Guest NYCMuscBoy]

RE: Hmmm...

 

Surprisingly, the mood of my day neither rises nor falls based on what people write on the M4M Escorts Message Board. I'm not sure why.

 

As for Mssr. Jake's post being "well said", the subtext of my reply was more along the lines of "Wow, what a jerk!" than "Gee, that really put me in my place."

 

I admit to having no idea of the seething dynamics between the posters on this board, and little did I know I stepped on a big steaming turd when I entered this discussion.

 

So I'm stepping back -- and craig, Jake, and Quinte de Soleil, by all means go at it for everyone else's delectation.

[Guest craigrc]

RE: Hmmm...

 

NYC, as you've see in my posts I don't stoop to the name-calling and invective that people like Jake and Quinte use. If anyone is going to "go at it," it isn't going to be me.

 

It's very easy to get along with people who agree with you. It's much harder to deal with people who disagree with you. We can learn about an individual by observing how he reacts to people with whom he disagrees. The posts by Jake and Quinte tell us something about the kind of people they are. The same is true of the posts by Tampa Yankee. I'm sure you see the distinctions. Have a pleasant day.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Hmmm...

 

I agree with NYMuscl. It seems Craig was trying to give some sound advice and the escort just went off on him because he doesn't like being reminded of the dangers of what he does for a living. There's nothing insulting or self-righteous in Craig's posts. There are plenty of insults in Quinte's. I know which one I would rather spend time with.

[Guest Quinte]

RE: Hmmm...

 

You missed my last post to Craigc on the subject. In short, what I said was I had said all I had to say, as far as I am concerned, the he doesn't even exist. He is not to be taken seriously.

 

I sincerey thank you all for your contributions/concerns and I am sorry I even did his post the justice of a reply. I regret not one word that I ever said to him, (my passion in all things, surely will be the death of me!) but Bilbo did help put things in perspective.

 

Again, thank you.

 

 

Unmoved,

Quinte DuSoleil

 

http://www.rentboy.com/quinte

http://communities.msn.com/qdus

nubiandreams@hotmail.com

[Guest Quinte]

RE: Regulation

 

So much for my last post...

 

We do not know each other, granted. I will therefore, not jump to make conclusions of you as you have of me; I thank you for your time, and for your comments.

 

If you would permit me, here is what I have to say to YOU on the matter: Were you an escort, maybe your reaction to Craigc may have been different. No? I am in a job that often has people saying "things". As a good escort, you learn to not let things get to you. Water off a duck's back. My reaction to Craigc's post was not in isolation of what he said. Bilbo was right. We all have different thresh holds; and there is a fine line between blunt and rude. His comment was directed at me, hence, I make the judgment on if it was suitable or not for me. He rang my bell; He crossed MY line; He came to tea without provocation or an invitation. Ok?

 

Secondly, you do not have the benefit of knowing Craigc's previous posts/comments, nor the "situations" he seems to create wherever he goes. If I have a "disagreement" with anyone, I discuss it, with them in the hope of attaining a rational solution and conclusion to all parties concerned. I am yet to have a disagreement with anyone on these boards. What ever transpired here was not a "disagreement" as he puts it, but a deliberate attempt at provoking me into a response. Dare I say it worked? I may be guilty of wearing my heart on my sleeve, but I do not take DIRECT comments from people like Craigc lightly. Just because I do not condone or put up with disrespect, does not mean I will not return it to its sender IF I choose to. Whatever he had to say, I hear every day. Even from myself! However, I choose to address people in a polite manner; I like to show consideration, and expect no less in return. Escort or not. If nothing else, he will learn to choose his words wisely and not just whatever crops up in his head because after all, he is addressing an escort or a "criminal". If nothing else, he now knows Quinte does not just roll over, "Belly side up".

 

Finally, my dear Regulator :-) before you dismiss one by a single thread, it maybe more prudent to see their earlier contributions to this site, said one's interaction with THE majority, or reviews if any. Then again, if your mind is already made up, it may just be easier to go by a single thread.

 

 

My learned friend Craigc and the likes of him, are misinformed they think that by his poorly directed drama he can "define" or "categorize" me. The essence of me he will never know, and it is pure arrogance of the man (who has never met me) to think he can discredit me or the testimony of they who have. Clients and non-clients alike.

 

There is a "world of Quinte" out there that they thankfully will never experience. The losses dare I say, are irrecoverably his. Not mine.

 

Dwell in peace,

Quinte DuSoleil

 

http://www.rentboy.com/quinte

http://communities.msn.com/qdus

nubiandreams@hotmail.com

[Guest DJPerez]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-00 AT 05:28AM (EST)[p]Bilbo:

 

It does not surprise me that the postings have gone up in the "Masseurs" section. Potential Houston customers are probably looking to stay away from "escorts", in specific, due to the bust.

 

However, there's no guarantee that the police won't crack down on all Adult Entertainment & Personal Services, as a way for a Houston imcumbent to flex some moral & political muscle, as well as align himself with good ol' G.W. on the national campaign. I agree with others here who caution all involved & interested in body services in Houston to proceed with caution; at least until the election year "clean-up" fervor is over.

 

Wishing you Peace and Saftey, Men of Houston!

 

 

CIAO! D. J.

DJPWorld@yahoo.com

[Bilbo]

Years ago the Houston police had a tradition of raiding the gay bars just before any election. The gay community as a whole stood up against it and it no longer happens. However, while it was happening, discretion was often the better part of valor.

We have now had a gay community politico leader come out in a gay newspaper as against the Omni sting. We have not had any comment by our only, and first, gay city coucilperson. It is only a beginning and I do not foresee it going any further for another four years or so.

Meanwhile, I can only wonder at myself for not having seen the trend earlier, and agree that we must all apply mucho discretiono til mid-November, at which time hopefully W might have his tail back between his own legs. Wounded animals are dangerous of course, so all munchkins probably had better come back out come back out fairly slowly even then.

However, since my massages are only sensuous and not sexual, I hope that they will serve as an outlet for that need to be touched, if not to touch.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Previous Posts

 

You are wrong in saying I haven't read Craig's previous posts. I read all of his and others' posts on a recent thread about getting into a relationship with an escort. I didn't have any problem with what he said in those posts and I don't have any problem with what he said in this thread either. You may not agree with it, but if you can't stand hearing the opinions of others you probably should stay away from internet message boards.

 

Maybe you are right in saying that if I were an escort I would react differently. I guess if I spent all of my time around escorts and people who hire them I might forget that most members of the community think prostitution is wrong and should be a crime. Craig is not the one who created that situation but you seem to want to blame him for it.

 

If you are going to participate in discussions on serious issues with others you should learn to do it without getting into the kind of insults and name-calling that you did in this thread. I don't know what kinds of "situations" you claim Craig creates, but the name-calling you get into creates a bad environment for everyone.

[Guest NYCMuscBoy]

RE: Previous Posts

 

I know I said I was stepping back, but I'm irritated by Quinte.

 

First of all, I *was* an escort, but stopped a couple of years ago, so you're not the only one with perspective, Mr. de Soleil. And I think if someone had told me, "What you're doing is illegal..." I would have completely agreed! Because it IS. It's not right that it's illegal, but the fact is, it IS illegal. So measures need to be taken to make sure one is not arrested. I was lucky and hopefully Quinte will be too.

 

In general, I am annoyed that Quinte thinks he can micromanage the way he is treated by others. It is not water on a duck's back, Quinte -- the things people say seem to stick to you like Velcro. And the whole reason I entered this discussion is because you are NOT polite like you claim to be. That list of "Ways Craig has to treat me in the future" is utterly preposterous. To think one can control others that way is rather alarming.

 

And on the flip side, very nice pix on your website, which I looked up this morning.

 

Cheers.

[Bilbo]

RE: Previous Posts

 

Dear Reggie,

Have you taken a poll or are you just assuming that most members of the gay community believe that escorting is wrong and should be illegal? Remember, at one point I would have believed that most nongay Americans thought that the president had stepped over the line and should be impeached. I was wrong. They merely thought that that question should go away and not bother them anymore.

I am about 7 - 8 months behind on reading my magazines, but just yesterday an old (current for me) Advocate reminded me that since in most states what gay people want to do in their bedrooms is illegal, it creates an awful lot of gay people who become proud of thinking differently from the crowd and not at all adverse to breaking laws about morality and victimless (basically) crimes. I would doubt that the gay majority is very interested in thinking that anything "should be illegal".

As far as "wrong", I am "blessed" with a very hazy memory, so I may be in danger of ascribing a feeling to a famous man that he really doesn't have, but as I remember it, in the 70s in Denver, Troy Perry, founder of the Metropolitan Community Churches, knew that I was an escort and reassured me that he didn't find anything wrong with it so long as it was practiced with integrity.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Previous Posts

 

Bilbo, I wasn't referring to the gay community. I was talking about the larger community in which we all live. You know, the people who vote for the city council members and state legislators who insist on passing and enforcing laws against prostitution? Remember them? I don't know of any local, state or federal lawmaker who is willing to stand up in public and say that he thinks prostitution is a good idea. Do you? If not, why do you think that is the case? Could it be because those officials think a lot of the voters wouldn't like it? I don't live in Texas, but I remember what happened during Ann Richards's first gubernatorial campaign when her opponent told the media he had been "serviced by Mexican prostitutes" in his younger days. I don't think any politician in Texas (or any other state) wants to be in that position again.

 

I don't know whether or not a majority of people in the gay community think prostitution is okay, and based on your post it looks as though you don't know either, so it wouldn't make much sense for us to debate it. Let's not.

[Bilbo]

RE: Previous Posts

 

Reggie, I haven't heard anything about what it might have been like when Nevada passed the law that gave the individual counties the decision on whether to make prostitution legal or not. Nor have I heard what the debate was like in those counties that decided to allow it. And I certainly haven't heard anything about any attempts to repeal. But it seems to me that some politicos must have had to stand up (so to speak) for my side.

The times are changing and sometimes I think that we underestimate how fast that is happening. (Thank you, European court!)

Since we form our own community here, a community of people who have chosen to be together discussing something we all have an interest in, and then there is the gay community, limited to those who accept (to whatever degree) their own homosexuality and therefore have sorta chosen one another as an extended family, and also just by our existense in it are part of larger and larger communities, I sure wish that you would specify which one you are talking about when you first start citing public opinion in it as something which, though faceless, you expect us to respect.

Love, Bilbo

[Guest regulation]

RE: Previous Posts

 

Bilbo, since this thread is about enforcement of the laws against prostitution I thought it was obvious that when I referred to a "community" I meant the community that passes and enforces those laws. I'm sorry it wasn't obvious to you.

 

Since neither you nor I knows anything about the passage of that law in Nevada, once again, it doesn't make any sense to me for us to talk about it. I'll give you an example I do know about, however. If you've followed the career of Barney Frank, the only openly gay member of Congress, you must remember the scandal that happened when it was discovered that his (much) younger boyfriend was using his apartment to run an escort service. When this story came out, did Frank tell the media that there is nothing wrong with prostitution and that he approved of what his boyfriend was doing? That's not the way I remember it. As I remember, he told the media that he had tried to help a troubled young man get his life back on track and that he was sorry to discover that his effort had failed. I guess that tells us what he thinks -- or what he thinks the voters in his district think.

[Bilbo]

RE: Previous Posts

 

Reggie, It all depends on how you look at it, of course. I felt that this thread was about assesing a hopefully temporary turnback in the march towards the majority of us getting what we want so long as we can do it without hurting anyone. One of my definitions of democracy. And since the majority of us on this site would benefit from legalized escorting ...

[Guest regulation]

Majority

 

Bilbo, I don't see any way of looking at the situation we are discussing in which the people who frequent this site make up a "majority" of anything. Gay men are a small minority in this country, and I think it's likely that gay men who hire escorts on a regular basis are a minority within that minority. If you think issues like the legality of gay prostitution should be decided by a democratic political process, you'll have to concede that it should be banned.

 

Let's get down to it. I've hired escorts in the past, and it would be easy for me to make a lot of self-serving statements about victimless crimes and letting consenting adults do what they want and having the police focus on violent crimes and so on, the point being to stop people from interfering with something I enjoy doing. But the fact is that even I feel ambivalent about this issue. I don't think my involvement with prostitution has hurt me or anyone else, but I know that lots of other people on both sides of the transaction have been hurt. It's a little like drug use. I know people who use heroin now and then and can apparently control it so that they don't ruin their health or lose their jobs or get into any other serious trouble. I also know that a lot of people have had their lives destroyed by using heroin. So, should everyone be forbidden to use heroin for the sake of those who will be harmed by using it, even though others won't be? Should prostitution be banned for the sake of those who will be harmed by it even though others won't be? I don't know. But it's a very difficult question and I'm very suspicious of those who have an easy answer to it.

[Bilbo]

RE: Majority

 

Reggie, If you take the field defined as "the people who frequent this site and are likely to read these posts" then it is obvious that the set of "people who frequent this site" is going to contain the majority of the defined field. It is all too obvious, girlfriend.

If we protect Americans from everything which might hurt them, we are left with a nation of sheep. Of course, the first time I ever used that argument was when I was rather young and my small city, Colorado Springs, was just starting to ban the private use of fireworks. Didn't work then, either.

Should I not be allowed to what I want to do, when it isn't hurting my wife or anyone else's if I can help it, and it isn't causing me to be on the public dole from getting sick, etc. just because there are those who don't have the brains to protect themselves and their loved ones? Of course. Tough love. Survival of the fittest.

I suggest that you find some way to define your integrity in this matter. Once defined follow it. Once you're following it, protect it.

Love, kisses and respect, possums,

Bill

[Guest regulation]

RE: Majority

 

Bilbo, you may get a kick out of calling men "girlfriend," but I don't like it so please don't do it when you address me.

 

The men who post here are certainly a majority of the men who post here, but they are not a majority in any political community (municipality, county, state, nation) that has the ability to enact laws, so I don't see what relevance that has to the question of the legality of prostitution. Why bother playing such silly word games?

 

I'm glad you brought up that old chestnut about the folly of protecting people from themselves. I've wanted an opportunity to say what a load of b.s. I think it is. I'm not a smoker, but some of my tax dollars, through Medicare and other government health programs, go to treat people for illnesses that were created or aggravated by their decision to smoke. Our failure to protect these people from themselves is costing me and every other taxpayer money. In case you didn't know, that was the basis of the lawsuits filed by the states against the tobacco companies.

 

The same is true of any vice that can cause serious health problems, health problems for which people like me end up footing the bill through higher taxes or higher health insurance premiums. So don't say that practices (like promiscuity and prostitution) that spread STDs only affect the people who engage in them and they can look after themselves. They affect the entire community, so the community has a right to regulate them. It costs the community something to treat people who get STDs through prostitution. It costs the community something when younger people become too ill to work and contribute to the economy. It costs the community something to deal with the consequences of prostitution by runaway kids, who make up a significant portion of the prostitutes in any major city. You may think those kids should be left to their own devices, but a lot of local agencies try to help them in various ways and guess who is paying for that?

 

Some people, like you and me, may be strong enough to indulge our vices without causing serious problems for ourselves or others. A lot of people aren't. Taking the attitude that we should let those people go to hell in their own way has nothing to do with "love," tough or otherwise.

[Guest NYCMuscBoy]

RE: Majority

 

If we all keep posting on this thread, will it get so narrow that there'll be only one letter per line?

 

Sorry, it's late and I'm in the mood to experiment.

[Bilbo]

RE: Majority

 

Reggie, Bravo! Your sense of self denigration has brought you by its circuitous means to a wonderful load of information and ideas. Now, if you could see them through the lens of a little informed self interest, you might be able to come up with a solution. There is nothing that says that this is an all one way or all the other proposition. What I would love to see you come up with would be a more complicated law which would protect those who need protecting and set free those who don't. There would need to be compromises on both sides and I am sure that there would still be some tax burden in the long run but there would also just as surely be something given up by my side. But push this thing through, and really do think up some regulations for us to propose to our braver, more intelligent lawmakers. I'm sure that you can do much better than General Hooker, since you've had several decades of social progress to benefit from.

And when and if I feel that you deserve a bit of a comeuppance, I will slather you with female sobriquets.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Majority

 

LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 09:15AM (EST)[p]Regulation,

 

I just can't take anymore of this BS...

 

from your most recent message...

 

<I'm glad you brought up that old chestnut about the folly of protecting people from themselves.>

 

<Our failure to protect these people from

themselves is costing me and every other taxpayer money>

 

< So don't say that practices (like promiscuity and prostitution) that spread STDs

only affect the people who engage in them and they can look after themselves.

They affect the entire community, so the community has a right to regulate them.

... >

 

If this were the issue there would be laws on the books (and enforced) about having sex outside of committed relationships, where the vast majority of STDs are spread.

 

 

<It costs the community something to treat people who get STDs through

prostitution. It costs the community something when younger people become too

ill to work and contribute to the economy. It costs the community something >

 

Seems to me you are much more concerned with the cost in money than in lost

freedoms for the majority. Freedoms are not easily gained as our history has

shown but they are easily lost, history also shows us.

 

From your message preceding it ....

 

<I've hired escorts in the past, and it would be easy for me to make a lot of self-serving statements about victimless crimes and letting consenting adults do what they want and having the police focus on violent crimes and so on, the point being to stop people from interfering with something I enjoy doing. >

 

This is called individual freedom. What is wrong with being self-serving? If you don't serve yourself who will -- Big Brother? (I have more to say on this below.)

 

<But the fact is that even I feel ambivalent about this issue.>

 

Ambivalent about individual freedom? That's the problem, once you start to pick and choose about individual freedoms there are enough pickers and choosers to exhaust all of the freedoms eventually. (I agree that we have to make certain sacrifices to live together as a society but these should the very limited and guided for the most part by necessity not philosophy.)

 

 

There are extreme cases to be made for banning almost everything, cigarettes,

guns, wine, red meat, butter, automobiles, homosexuality... the list goes on.

However, are we to give up our individual freedoms for the good of society as

determined by the state, or even the majority? -- our forefathers abandoned that

concept over two centuries ago. What they believed (not all but most) worked best,

in my view, was the principle of Jeffersonian democracy -- individual liberty with

individual responsibility. As we have 'progressed' as a society we have demanded

less individual responsibility and eroded individual liberties. Does this mean we

abandon our fellow man -- certainly not, but we help them deal with their

responsibilities and live with their freedom, not deny all the rest of us ours

because the few can't handle it. But this view seems to go against the popular

current. Is this an easy approach to take? No it isn't, which is probably why it is not

fashionable. But the easy approaches don't really seem to work if experience

serves.

 

Is Jeffersonian democracy self-serving? You bet -- the fundamental idea, as I

understand it, is that what is best for society is a society of happy free responsible

individual citizens striving to make life better for themselves, working collectively

when necessary to further their own interests while maintaining compassion for

their fellow man. It worked more often than not for 150 years.

 

'Self-serving' is often a code word for selfish and the two concepts are not

the same. I am sure that you recognize the distinction. I admit to

being a self-serving individual but I don't think I am a selfish one.

 

Just a thought on the prices we pay as individuals for what is called the betterment

of the whole, but that often seems to fall far short of the goal.

 

This is not a simple answer -- it is not an answer at all, only a principle to be

applied as we seek the answers.

 

It is just the type of well-intentioned but misguided and muddled thinking as yours

that will have us all wards of the state sooner or later.

 

P.S.

 

Regarding your comment

<It costs the community something to deal with the consequences of prostitution by runaway kids, who make up a significant portion of the prostitutes in any major city. >

 

I tried to engage craigrc on this point -- if your interested see message 37 in response to message 32 in the thread 'soliciation on line against the law?' (The misspelling not mine this time.)

[Guest regulation]

RE: Misguided and Muddled

 

Tampa Yankee, thanks for your observations on my "misguided and muddled" thinking. I really enjoy being patronized and talked down to -- doesn't everyone? What would become of me if I didn't have someone like you to show me the error of my ways? I can hardly imagine.

 

Your comments are a great example of what I have in mind when I use the term "self-serving." To my way of thinking, people are self-serving when they make long (in your case, very long) philosophical arguments intended to justify doing whatever it is they feel like doing, regardless of the effects on others. Are you by any chance related to Ayn Rand? Please give her my regards at your next family reunion.

 

Drawing the line between the exercise of individual liberty and the needs of the community is never easy -- except for you, of course. Based on the way you draw that line I think you would feel right at home in today's Republican Party, except for the fact that a large number of your fellow party members think that all gay men should be in mental hospitals or prisons. If you can get over that tiny hurdle, however, you should join up right away. There you will find many who agree with you that people should have the freedom to use tobacco, and that those who become ill as a result, unless they can afford private health insurance, should be left to choke to death at home, not receive treatment at public expense. Let everyone exercise his individual freedom to indulge in whatever vices he likes, and let him and him alone bear the consequences. Never mind that a slight by-product of this policy would be to transform our cities into something resembling Calcutta, with people dying in the gutter on every street. Freedom is more important, right? Right.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Misguided and Muddled

 

LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 02:10PM (EST)[p]>Tampa Yankee, thanks for your observations

>on my "misguided and muddled"

>thinking. I really enjoy

>being patronized and talked down

>to -- doesn't everyone?

>What would become of me

>if I didn't have someone

>like you to show me

>the error of my ways?

> I can hardly imagine.

>

Sorry you feel patronized and talked down to, it was not my intent. It was my intent to have a frank exchange about an extremely important issue to many of us -- our freedoms to exercise as we please as long as we do no harm to others.

 

>

>Your comments are a great example

>of what I have in

>mind when I use the

>term "self-serving." To my

>way of thinking, people are

>self-serving when they make long

>(in your case, very long)

>philosophical arguments intended to justify

>doing whatever it is they

>feel like doing, regardless of

>the effects on others.

 

This seems to fit you as well as I, from where I sit -- justifying the ready abandonment of our freedoms, little by little as the need is perceived, based on what you think is best for all of us.

 

>Are you by any chance

>related to Ayn Rand?

>Please give her my regards

>at your next family reunion.

>

I thought I made it pretty clear that I consider myself philosophically descended from Thomas Jefferson not Ayn Rand. (Are you engaging in a little ad-hominum here or talking down?)

>

>Drawing the line between the exercise

>of individual liberty and the

>needs of the community is

>never easy -- except for

>you, of course.

 

This seems to me far easier for you than me, again from where I sit. I said there are no easy solutions because the easy ones don't work.

 

>Based on the way you draw

>that line I think you

>would feel right at home

>in today's Republican Party,

 

been there, done that.

 

>except for the fact that a

>large number of your fellow

>party members think that all

>gay men should be in

>mental hospitals or prisons.

 

Funny, it seems to me that your philosophical attitude is closer the these fellows than mine. I believe that think they know what is best for all of us too.

 

>If you can get over

>that tiny hurdle, however, you

>should join up right away.

 

Been there done that, like life as an independent.

 

> There you will find

>many who agree with you

>that people should have the

>freedom to use tobacco, and

>that those who become ill

>as a result, unless they

>can afford private health insurance,

>should be left to choke

>to death at home, not

>receive treatment at public expense.

 

I really wish that I had such clear vision as to what is best for all of my fellow men. However, since I don't always know what is best for myself how can I pretend to know what is best for them.

 

> Let everyone exercise his

>individual freedom to indulge in

>whatever vices he likes, and

>let him and him alone

>bear the consequences. Never

>mind that a slight by-product

>of this policy would be

>to transform our cities into

>something resembling Calcutta, with people

>dying in the gutter on

>every street.

 

I see, so exercise of freedom leads to the streets of Calcutta?

 

 

>Freedom is more important, right? Right.

>

 

Well, freedom (ours) has been important enough for many of our fathers and forefathers to have given their lives and limbs for it and our mothers and foremothers who have given their husbands and sons, as well -- they must have thought it important, and I do too.

 

You have certainly opened my eyes with the last two comments. I consider your thinking not only misguided and muttled, but your attitude is dangerous and antithetical to the concept of a free deomcracy with minority rights.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Misguided and Muddled

 

Tampa, I am truly sorry to have frightened you by expressing ideas you consider dangerous and antithetical to our "deomcracy." I hope to put your mind at ease a bit by pointing out that throughout the existence of this nation prostitution, as well as a number of other practices that arguably come under the heading of "victimless" crimes, have been illegal, and this does not seem to have led at any time to the death of individual liberty that you seem to fear. We can cite many examples from our country's history of laws intended to protect people from harming themselves in ways that could have serious consequences for the larger community -- the legislation creating the FDA is one such example -- but I don't think you can cite any example of such a law that led to the wholesale destruction of individual liberties here. Try it.

 

As for being self-serving, I have hired and enjoyed escorts in the past, and if I wanted to be self-serving I would make exactly the same arguments that you have made. Removing the legal barriers to escorting would probably bring prices down, which would not be a bad thing from my point of view. Despite my enjoyment of escorts, I am objective enough to recognize that what I enjoy may not be in the best interest of the community as a whole. You are not in a position to say the same.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Misguided and Muddled

 

LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 07:13PM (EST)[p]regulation,

 

<but I don't think you can cite any example of such a law that led to the wholesale destruction of individual liberties here.>

 

It is not the wholesale destruction of individual liberties that I am worried about but the gradual erosion that goes largely unnoticed or without much concern until its too late to do anything about it. Hitler did not take over Weimar Germany over night -- he knew and used the strategy of gradualism until the had his pieces in place. I'm not really worried about a Hitler though, rather the potential for tyranny of an activist minority or minorities over the majority or other minorities. We have already seen this in one of the groups that you tried to hang around my neck -- the social right wing, much of which collects itself in the Republican Party. There are equally would-be-tyrannical groups on the left too. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not preaching that there is a grand conspiracy to wrest our liberties from us -- to the contrary I see a number of individual groups pursuing their own agendas and trying to take their own little nick out of the liberty bell, all for a good cause mind you, without regard to what others are doing. (Sort of a political entropy, if you will. ) Eventually, the timbre and even the appearance of the bell will be unalterably changed. The wholesale attempts to assault our freedoms will be withstood, because it will recognized for what it is and fought. But the nick-at-a-time effect does not generate consensus, because it is no big deal, or because it is someone else's ox being gored or because it is clear to some that the desires/actions of others are just unnecessary and they will have to learn to sacrifice them because 'we think it a good idea'.

 

<As for being self-serving, I have hired and enjoyed escorts in the past, and if I wanted to be self-serving I would make exactly the same arguments that you have made. Removing the legal barriers to escorting would probably bring prices down, which would not be a bad thing from my point of view.>

 

Strange as it may seem, my concern is not with bringing prices down, although I don't object to that. My concern is about having people treated similar to common criminals who are only engaging in consensual acts between adults without harming anyone and more importantly my concern extends to eradicating the real undesirable side to which you alluded earlier. Making the act illegal forces a segment into the arena operated by unsavory lawless elements that traffic in drugs, violence and worse. These men and women would not be subjected to that abuse if there were a legal regulated industry. A point I tried to make with craigrc, it seems that answers to problems are not sufficient, they must be the right answers -- so the problems linger because often the right answers are not compatible with the human condition.

 

<As for being self-serving, I have hired and enjoyed escorts in the past, and if I wanted to be self-serving I would make exactly the same arguments that you have made>

 

I've already admitted to being self-serving and see nothing wrong with it if it's not a selfish act -- we are all self-serving, short of Mother Teresa.

 

One last thought, I do appreciate your pointing out my position to me -- I see much more clearly now. I would suggest that in addition to 'self-serving' another word that might find a place in the discussion is 'hypocritical'.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Misguided and Muddled

 

Tampa, I think we need to discontinue this discussion because (i) this thread is getting narrower and narrower, (ii) it's obvious we aren't going to reach agreement on any aspect of the issue, and (iii) you're losing your cool and starting to get insulting.

 

I remain ambivalent about the legality of prostitution. Your arguments are nothing I haven't heard before, always from people who make money from the trade or who (like me) are customers and thus have an interest quite apart from any principle in arguing that it should be allowed to continue. What I am not hearing is an objective opinion from someone who does not personally benefit from one or the other position. I guess I'm on the wrong board for that.

 

If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest you start a thread devoted to it. I suspect that a number of people would contribute but are not now doing so because the title of this thread does not lead them to expect the discussion we have been having.