As stated I have met the people involved, I don't claim to have any insight into their lives, or anything else...and the majority of what I am stating was in the news story if you actually listened to or read it, rather than just reacted to it without thought of an effort to understand what was being said.
I will try to answer the questions you posed to the best of my knowledge...not because you demand it, but because, sadly, many will simply read your unfounded accusations and stretches of logic, and factless, proofless statements and think them true.
You ask why I compare the activities of the parties to professional escorting; I don't...what I do is acknowledge that the ladies in the story are professional escorts, they are not unknown to the Las Vegas and LA communities, and I met them at a get together / party hosted by a couple of TER members and attended by TER members in Vegas.
The women were arrested for an outcall appointment, they were charged with solicitation of prostitution.
To my understanding the parties were seperate from their escorting, but the police and the news put the two together and the reason the women were set-up by LE for their escorting was because the news station, in their "investigation" of the parties found the escorting site and took that to the police since despite what might have been insinuated, the parties were not illegal.
There were no accusations or charges relating to children. One mention of one photograph, and the fact their child was taken as the authorities didn't think it was a fit enviroment for him....what exactly did they base that on? The lack of any indication of child pornography? The lack of evidence of child absuse or neglect? Maybe they said it was an unfit enviroment because it was a family of a husband and two wives that had sex parties and the women were escorts...even though the child wasn't at the parties, and had nothing to do with the women's escorting?
I am not sure what you saw about the parties that was unsafe and harmful. I had seen the site about their parties once, and from what I had read on that site;
yes, men had to disrobe at the door women had the choice of lingerie or nudity, women wore wrist bands that indicated whether or not they were game for activities or not, if a woman had the wrist band that indicated she was not there to play no one was to do anything to / with her. The activities had to be with consent, and intercourse had to be covered. Not sure who that harmed, or who that was unsafe for...and from the pictures I saw in the video, I didn't see what you did, obviously, since other than a "gang-bang" type party I didn't notice the harmful and unsafe...unles naked men involved in sexual acts is inherantly unsafe.
Perhaps Polyamorous isn't the exact right word for their relationship, but they are in a threeway marriage (according they themselves, and the news story) where the man has two wives, but each woman has a husband and a wife...it isn't polygamy it isn't polygyny and it isn't polyandry. If you know a better word to describe it then I would appreciate you sharing it.
Now your statement of:
"In many, many instances these characters who exert the pressure are pathetic, low-life scumbags who are products of screwed-up childhoods and are only out to make a bundle at the expense of others. They are often psychological cripples and predators who take advantage of the unfortunate economic situation of others to enrich themselves. They are self-centered, self-serving, low-lifes who function on the verge of perversion; and, often times they cross over the line. They are thugs and cowards who hurt us all..."
I don't know what this has to do with the news story, the parties, or the people involved. If you could expand in specific detail, at great length, why you associate these things I would appreciate it.
As to people of my "persuation"? I am not sure what you mean exactly...and I don't speak for anyone but myself, I am not a representative of any persuation or group...so could you expand on that in great length on that as well?
As for me having any "concrete information"...I don't have any...but then neither do you, since you went to a place of hyperbole, and apply to this situation things that were not mentioned, not indicated, and not associated with the story.
Care to provide your "concrete information" as to your assertations about the people in the story?
care to go great length explaining why you reacted as you did?
Care to share the insight of people of your persuation about sex parties, escorts, etc?
Care to expalin why your reaction accused the people of unsafe and harmful activities in relation to escorts?
Why you want to characterise the people in the story as, "These people are ugly and evil. The behavior of these useless dogs is potent fodder for Islamo fascism, and this we don’t need in this great land of liberty and freedom."?
You throw out a lot of accusations, a lot of strong words and mentions of behaviors that you don't (or maybe can't) connect to this with no proof and no "concrete information" and then expect others to defend or conter with all kinds of facts...interesting hyperbole and accusation and great leaps of thoughts to combine issues of people harming escorts or exerting pressures to escorts behind closed doors with this story...with no proof, no facts, no knowledge, and drawing in things even the news (in a grasp for ratings) didn't go to, and if anyone attempts to offer that you are mischaracterising anything they have to do so with "concrete information" and facts, and anything else....if that is your standard for saying anything maybe apply it to yourself before demanding it of others...just a thought.
