8 women held hostage in a Georgia mansion by suspected human sex trafficker, who women met on SD/SB site, Seeking Arrangements. Arrested at the home was **** *****. Police said he's been charged with false imprisonment and trafficking of persons for labor.
(Because the news article mentions names, I'm unable to post a link to the new's article. Do an Internet search for more information.)Only putting the caveat on there because the police and media have abused the "trafficking" claim too much so without more than the headline you never know. Which is bad.
If it's not a choice it's wrong.I am with you, if true (and it does appear to be legit) getting a psycho off the streets is a good thing, BUT with all the media fueled hysteria about human trafficking, this gives them reason to double down on not only hookers and johns, but SDs and SBs as well.
This ever widening net is not good for any of us. If they catch one genuine human trafficker/pimp/abuser or whatever, it gives them license to lock up a thousand consenting adults in the process.Nevertheless, I'm glad they are all ok ad this guy is in jail.
StephI didn't read the article so don't know the ages or nationalities, but it is always in the best interest of the "provider" to claim they were forced into it.
How the heck to you keep 8 people in a house long term against their will (unless they are chained or caged.) Otherwise it would be like herding cats."What we believe was happening is these women were basically lured there with a promise of either financial help or a modeling career or some kind of career advancement," said the Sandy Springs Police Sgt."
"According to police, women in the 6,800-square-foot home were forced to dance for money and even get plastic surgery." I'm sure we will be learning much more about this horrific act, in the next few days. Meanwhile 'Seeking Arrangements' is stating (as usual) their SD's & SB's never engage in illegal prostitution. Yeah, right! lolThis guy belongs behind bars for a long time.
The words "trafficking" has again been used to hype and exaggerate because it has became a word de jour for BS.
Read the article carefully people. All it really described was 8 women being lured under false pretense into the mansion then held against their will from leaving. THAT'S IT! THAT'S THE END OF IT! So "exactly" where's the trafficking part came in? These women have NOT been forced to do ANYTHING against their will except they're being held captive. FALSE IMPRISONMENT or KIDNAPPING is the more CORRECT description of what happened. Where's the fuck is the "trafficking"? even the guilty party that dude was probably more like a psycho than a trafficker. Notice that if he has had a record of pimping or trafficking then maybe, just maybe that was his true intention. Another fucking worthless TRAFFICKING BS headline.According to the article it was not CAGE nor CHAIN nor any kind of hardware (guns, knives etc...) that kept the women from leaving.
Rather it was a very SCARY sounding uttering from the dude: "I will kill you" backed up by absolutely NOTHING. Yep that's right folks just those 3 magic words are sufficient to keep anybody enslaved. Pardon me while I snicker uncontrollably...
How the heck to you keep 8 people in a house long term against their will (unless they are chained or caged.) Otherwise it would be like herding cats.
Read the article carefully people. All it really described was 8 women being lured under false pretense into the mansion then held against their will from leaving.
THAT'S IT! THAT'S THE END OF IT!
So "exactly" where's the trafficking part came in? These women have NOT been forced to do ANYTHING against their will except they're being held captive.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT or KIDNAPPING is the more CORRECT description of what happened.
Where's the fuck is the "trafficking"? even the guilty party that dude was probably more like a psycho than a trafficker. Notice that if he has had a record of pimping or trafficking then maybe, just maybe that was his true intention.
Another fucking worthless TRAFFICKING BS headline.
sugar arrangements are technically legal though
What is Human Trafficking?
Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. Elements Of Human Trafficking:Act Means Purpose On the basis of the definition given in the Trafficking in Persons Protocol, it is evident that trafficking in persons has three constituent elements; 1. The Act (What is done)
Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons.
2. The Means (How it is done)
Threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or vulnerability, or giving payments or benefits to a person in control of the victim.
3. The Purpose (Why it is done)
For the purpose of exploitation, which includes exploiting the prostitution of others, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery or similar practices and the removal of organs.
Arrested at the home was **** ******. Police said he's been charged with false imprisonment and trafficking of persons for labor. Thus, it IS human trafficking!
...the police needs. Won't post it here, however if you read one of the articles you can find his handle. The man has a stuff tiger in the foyer of his home, is showing off the bling and the thousands of dollars in pics and videos. Don't forget the cars and gifts for the ladies. Not generalizing when I am saying his pimp hand was strong and he is a thug!
I agree... I'm all for ending trafficking but unfortunately the government, on both sides of the aisle just take a hammer to everything and make it easier to exploit women with their utopian bs while also hiring escorts.... smh.
Robin and Steffi provide the clearest thinking on a subject. Beauty and brains remains the ultimate aphrodisiac.
It's the same reason why you see so few busts of independent SWs: too much effort for one bust. LE likes to go after agencies because it's more bang for the buck.
I'm with you and would even go farther -- perhaps; depends on your meaning "any of us" (taking that as any in the hobby world). The expansion of fabricated charges/inflated charges is not good any anyone in the society -- it's the path to authoritarianism and brutality.
I think as long as everyone (hobby or not) keep saying the ends will never justify the means and in the situation where the police are throwing the baby out with the bathwater more harm than good is accomplished.Ever consider that the two behaviors are not inconsistent?
Well, strictly speaking, as I understand how the SB-SD relationship works, they do not engage in prostitution any more than the woman who marries for financial security does.
and blurring those legal distinctions is not better for anyone than is the blurred lines between trafficking and consensual prostitution.
Especially when they use SM to their own demise. For years local, state, and fed LE have been telling anyone who will listen, they are going after the low hanging fruit, not to mention wasn't the heat already on in that town?
Who's going to pay the mansion rent now? #ballin' Oh, and shouldn't "trafficking" charges only apply to people who cross state lines in commission of a crime? Damn IG.They are legal. Courts have found them legal. You can give your girlfriend gifts and pay her rent, etc.
(Because the news article mentions names, I'm unable to post a link to the new's article. Do an Internet search for more information.)
but we all know better. No one believes the whole "I don't charge for sex, only for time and companionship" except perhaps the most naïve hookers and johns.
I think SA will be safe until either the bible thumpers or the feminists start raising a stink over it. Yes there is quite a bit of overt P4P going on there, but SA is pretty good at removing the profiles of girls with ads that are indiscreet and manages to keep an air of "Plausible deniability"My understanding, and I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, is the legal distinction here is that with the escort the only exchange is cash directly so the claim it's not for sex but only for time is ambiguous. In the other scenario the girls gets non-cash benefit (though we all know cash if fungible) and prostitution is about the "for money/cash" criteria.
I suspect one of the reasons the courts are willing to accept this type of a loophole is that closing it for this situation opens the door for charges against women marring for money and that's a can of worms the elite and the moral majority really do not want opened.I think SA will be safe until either the bible thumpers or the feminists start raising a stink over it. Yes there is quite a bit of overt P4P going on there, but SA is pretty good at removing the profiles of girls with ads that are indiscreet and manages to keep an air of "Plausible deniability"
Minor differences win court cases. Here the problem is the legal definition of a girlfriend. There isn't one. Instead they try to define a prostitute. It has to be pretty narrow because otherwise it encroaches on actual girlfriend relationships.
Lots of guys support girlfriend financially. Is the state going to throw a guy in prison because he mostly shows up for sex and doesn't take her out enough? LE really needs a definitive showing of quid pro quo, money for sex. Any kind of additional relationship implications quickly evaporates their ability to win in court. The lesson here is that the guy should explicitly state these other relationship aspects when he is negotiating for an SB.I guarantee you the court can and would find many SB's guilty of solicitation if LE were to put in the time and energy to make the arrest, and in fact there are a few cases where an SB was arrested for prostitution. one of them that comes to mind is when an ex husband found his ex wife's profile on SA and made a complaint to his local PD and they created a sting and arrested her.
These instances are very rare, but please don't confuse non enforcement of the law due to limited resources and a lack of any real desire (so far) to go after SDs/SBs with some kind of "loophole" in the law that makes it legal.Are you SURE the courts have ruled on this and if so can you provide a link?
You have to read the case law backwards. Why, because mistress relationships don't usually end up in court as prostitution charges. Rather case law is developed around prostitutes claiming mistress relationships and palimony cases where mistresses are demanding financial support.
When mistresses are mentioned in the case law, it is because they are contrasting what would be legal and what prostitutes do. In these cases it is sex by the paid instance. In palimony cases they don't get any because they were just mistresses. You can search the cases in the article in the link.It's all going to hang on is the relationship only sex for financial consideration or is there enough else going on in the relationship to raise reasonable doubts about the claim that it's sex for money. In the escort world we know the "it's for my time" claim doesn't create the reasonable doubt for a non-guilty finding.
Now, my understanding of the SB-SD world is that a lot more is going on in those relationships. If not I would say people are doing them wrong and so exposing yourselves to those charges. If not then LE would have to go after the married couple where the ex husband/boy friend wanted to get back at the woman who left him for a richer guy. It's more than just limited resources at work here.If the answer is ZERO, I suggest you do a bit more research before continuing this little discussion.
Your statement "My understanding of the SB-SD world" is the telling one. It's like someone coming onto TER stating "My understanding about how escorts work" and expecting guys with decades of experience to defer to that person. If you care to get a bit more insight about how the Sugar World actually works, I suggest you check out the Erotic Highway board, it has become the de-facto "Sugar Board"Where's the "exploitation" part? were the women forced to perform sex acts? dig trenches? cook hamburgers? removal of organs?
Fucking idiots don't know what they're talking about.The Donald will not let the Liberals in government infringe on the rights of escorts or their clientele. The Donald will not send the FBI after sugar daddies or sugar babies. The Donald is working on make America Great Again.