I have been watching the boards and the news and I noticed that providers are being raped or riped off. What's up with that ? I am very surprised that this has happened to providers who screen and use verification services. Are providers cutting corners when this happens (not screening/verifying) ?

About 90% of the cases the ripeoff/rapists end up getting caught. One guy in was bold enough to rape 2 providers in a 24hour time period.

In the cases with the rapes are the rapists nice enough to use condoms ?

If you found out a provider was raped would continue to make appointments with the provider ?

the hobby is a 'victimless' crime.

almost always equate it with this hobby, however, and certainly as much as the media and LE do.

Shoot, look how much domestic violence happens in the home. Do you think people will mention assault when they talk about marriage?

that a crime is ok if no one gets hurt. Similarly like running a stop sign on a deserted street at 3AM or cruising along 20mph over the limit on a deserted stretch of highway.

It's a bit hard to fathom but occasionally the very same people who might feel 'inconvenienced' by a misdemeanor bust could be saved from a violent attack by the same public offical.

This is a lot like accusing a retail store of crime because it "causes" shoplifting and holdups.  And for victimless crimes-- how about banking?

/Zin

If there's no theft, destruction of property, there's pleasure to be had, and nobody will be hurt?

I don't consider a misdemeanor "bust" over sex to be a mere inconvenience in this country.  How does making a "bust" save somebody from a violent attack by a public official?  I don't follow you.

The only reason prostitution is a crime is that it upsets some people.  That's no basis for restricting freedom.  If crimes occur due to the opportunity given, theft, rape, or battery, then the charges should be theft, rape or battery.  Period.  If the practice of sex for money were more accepted, providers could build in procedures to protect themselves from this.            

/Zin

For me, that's a shot in the dark.  I don't know what you are confused about with my statement.  I'll try.

I'll break the principle down: prostitution is not a crime.  The state cannot punish sex between consenting adults, on any basis.  If the state considers it a crime, it's because the state is overstepping its powers. In other words, it's the state being criminal there.

That being said, providersip is not necessarily healthy.  For one thing, it does create the opportunity for crimes, but in the same way a store or a bank creates the opportunity for crime.  The provider doesn't commit a crime, the crime is committed on her as a consequence of the opportunity.

Could there be better ways to prevent crimes against providers?  Yes.  Lending money for interest was considered as sordid as sex for money.  Now we have banks.  Operating legally, there are protections against theft built into banking.  

/Zin

this one dates back to 1805 (LOL) preventing cohabitaion in North Carolina. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/cohabitation_job_040703-1.html

Like the sheriff said  "When it comes to my attention that any law is being broken by any of the employees, we have to correct that," he said. "If anybody would disagree with me, I would have to say, what laws would you have me ignore when it comes to my employees?" . A law is a law no matter whether we happen to disagree with it.

Unfortunately, these things have been happening even with clients who are verified through RS2000, etc.

Some people seem to think it's foolproof screening but it isn't. There are always those who will abuse it and use it to their advantage.

Why the question about a provider being raped?

If she's still going to work, what would be the problem? As long as you did not mean her any harm?

Weird question.
Sara

I have never had such an experience (well, except for a blackmail), and have been shocked by the amount of posts that report it.  How many of you providers have experienced it?  Any tips on how it can be avoided?

you are either LE, or you are trying to "reform" us.

Thankfully, we all just write stories for entertainment.  :P

Sedona and Zinaval are right.  Go be a good citizen...there are old ladies crossing the street somewhere.

who realizes the laws against prostitution are antiquated but they can be enforced. I agree that in most cases neither party is harmed but there are circumstances where that is not the case.

Imagine what would happen in a civilization if individuals were allowed to choose the law that would not be enforced for them? I'd first opt for paying taxes, maybe punching a bully or slashing his tires. And what do you think I'd do the the jerk who beat up my kid?

Since providing is illegal in most places and will be so for a long time, the probability that a provider will not go to police if one is violated or robbed will remain high.  The best way to deal with acts of violation and/or robbery is, unfortunately, by use of "frontier" justice.  If a provider is violated, she pays one or two muscular guys that like to hit people money to have them take care of her violator.  There are probaly bouncers working in nightclubs who would jump at the chance to make a few bucks for something that a many of them would do for free.

have no qualms about going to the authorities if they were raped, robbed, beaten, cheated, etc., just like any legitimate business owner would. And we, the hobbyists, would have no qualms about reporting rip-offs, robs, false advertising, fraud, etc. There are victims in this "victimless crime" arena simply because it is a crime, who might also be victims if it were legalized, but at least they could have possibility of redress, just like any other business owner.

Prostitution is not a crime?  The state is overstepping it's authority by prosecuting it?  Last I knew the various state legislatures create the laws.  The state representatives are people elected by the majority and create laws based on the wishes of the majority.  So it stands to say that, in a perfect world, the laws the state prosecutes are the same laws the people want prosecuted.  Prostitution is a crime because it's on the books as such and the state will prosecute it whether we like it or not.

Now as a victimless crime... well take this into consideration... gambling is a victimless crime, yet people are against it and it's considered a crime. Why?  Well there are those worried about the additional crimes committed to support the activity... extortion, violence, and loan sharking. Then there are the gambling addicts who, because they blew their money on bets, don't pay their insurance, child support, mortgage, utility bills, taxes etc... their financial burden is what jacks up insurance rates and credit card interest rates for the rest of us.

In Madison WI there was an asian college student who murdered three other students because he owed them over 25K in gambling debts.  In Florida, a porn actress/ escort was murdered by a  photographer and his accomplice wife because his fetish went too far. In a post above, another escort complains of a serial assaulter visiting providers.  Clients are constantly worried their wife or kids will find out about their hobby, while many escorts are worried their family will find out.

There are plenty of "victims" in this hobby... we just don't always look outside of our own personal interests to realize it. These "victims" may not necessarily fit under the definition in the legal arena... rather they fall under the definitions in the arenas of marriage, emotion, trust, hope, parent, role model, friend, public figure, etc. etc.

After all, if he could hurt me, he could hurt someone else.

I'm very proud of what I 'do'; it's not my fault that for some reason it's deemed illegal. But MY good sense and pride would not get in the way of making sure someone else doesn't get hurt, or worse, killed.

SDPD might be tough on the Hobby, but they did give us a number to call, apart from what we do, to report actual crimes such as being assaulted or robbed. I'm very proud of them for being caring enough to let us know that.

Some of us have other jobs that make it difficult to come clean in public because of the laws and puritanical thinking. I know I do some acting, too, so it's very hard for me (at this stage) to show my face and be public about this profession. I cannot answer for everyone, but there's times when I have to be very careful and not be too mainstreamed. I would certainly hope that others would understand that.  In the meantime, I love your posts and your attitude. Can't wait to meet you.

Hugs,
Ciara

Very eloquently stated sir.

The laws against prostitution are among them.

-- Modified on 7/5/2004 11:14:22 PM

The British got their laws from the Church, who took it from the Bible, in which the prophets rant about prostitutes for chapters on end.  That's why it's illegal.  

Now, there maybe something like the human notion of a god in the universe (this is not the issue), but I assert that the Bible is fiction.  Science showed that Yahweh/Jehovah is a character in a fictitious universe, and nothing like that character could have created the real universe, nor would he have had the notion to.  He lacks any knowledge about the universe he is now purported to have made.  Archeology shows that none of the events recorded took place as they are purported to, if at all.  Historic discipline has shown its inaccurate on every major point.  Everything else is unverifiable.  Many people have not been taking this news well.

So, the *men* who enacted prostitution laws were mis-informed by their Bibles, or expressing their own misogyny made acceptable by the scripture.  Therefore, the basis of these laws must be questioned and debated.  However, almost none of the laws have been reconsidered.  This enslaves the will of the living to the wishes of the dead, (something, BTW, Thomas Paine thought was anathema) and not just the dead, but to the dead wrong.  And as they say, dead men have no sex, so how could this ever change?

Victimless crimes, in general, are a different issue for a different post.

/Zin

     

-- Modified on 7/6/2004 12:59:23 AM

Following every stupid law our government has enacted, no matter how damaging or demeaning is just a bad habit.  Bad for everyone.

First of all, enforcing it just gives those in charge an unhealthy taste of power for a free society.  Hence, for example, you have cynical vice cops who abuse their LE position all the time.  

Furthermore, you follow a stupid law unquestioningly, it doesn't encourage the government to reconsider it.  No, our legislators and city councils will just pass a stupider more insulting and abusive law.  

The sheriff would have to state his case the way he did, but in fact, LE does choose which laws it enforces all the time.  Note that the sheriff leaves himself an out.  "When it comes to my attention..." he says.  And if he's paying attention to something else...?  Or has ADT?  

Citizens need to hold the government to its Constitutional promise to respect and protect our freedom.  This takes work, and it takes more intelligence than the citizenry has shown.  

I'm not saying break every law you don't like at the time.  You have to have your principle, and be able to state it, and you have to choose your battles.  The state is far more powerful than you are.  

/Zin  

-- Modified on 7/5/2004 9:36:59 PM

"Victimless crime" is just a metaphor, and usually a good one, for practices such as gambling, prostitution, and recreational drug use.  But like all metaphors, it can be misleading about what's going really on.  The "crime" committed and the harm done isn't in the acts themselves, but the criminal actions they are correlated with.  "Victimless crimes" create the motivations and opportunities for actual crime, because of the emotions they release, the commerce they entail, and the heightened chance for misjudgments (the latter is especially true about drug use).  The emotions can lead to crimes of passion, the commerce can lead to larceny, and the misjudgments can lead to accidents.  They could all lead to murder and death.  This is all true.

But compare it to other activities, such as driving.  It can lead to crimes of passion (road rage), it can attract theives, and misjudgments in driving often lead to horrendous deaths and maimings of the worst sorts.  The statistics on the latter two are staggering (but are better than they have been).  Not only that, driving can actually be used to murder.  Why isn't this treated as a victimless crime?

The answer is: ordinary driving lacks the overwhelming pleasure and thrill of the other three.  I invite you to try to come up with another one.  I can't.  You could argue that there are macro-economic interests at stake with automobiles, but that's true of the drug market and gambling casinos too.  You could argue that we are so dependent on cars, but this wasn't the case before we paved our roads, built interstates, and did away with our mass transit systems.  In the past fifty years, we built interstates to drive on while we arrested bookies, hookers, and drug dealers.  To put it succinctly: driving is a necessity, though we didn't have to make it one.  The other three are sins.  

Now, I'll take the comparison further.  While people have slowly worked to make driving safer, more theft resistant (we haven't made progress on road-rage yet, IMO), and have made a lot of progress, there's also also progress people can make with the other three, that can't be made while they're criminalized.  

Gambling is rather new to legality, and credit cards and insurance companies have yet to adjust to it, but they will.    

(Gambling is also a rather strange pleasure, because it is so high stress.  I don't understand it myself.)

As long as prostitution and rec drugs are illegal, no industries, advisors, or research groups can be brought into play to reduce their consequences.

It is only conjecture on my part, but I think our society pays dearly restrain pleasure.  We don't see these costs because this repression is about two millennium old.  But going on the little I know  about human psychology and primate neurology, I'd say our society is probably a lot more violent internally as a result, and we have many more depressed people than we would.  

Also, when the need for pleasure is blocked, people tend to squeeze it from very unhealthy and unlikely sources-- violent video games would be an example.  

Suppression of pleasure defeats the purpose of a free society, doesn't it?  How can we pursue happiness, but take no pleasure?  Unfortunately, pursuit of happiness has come to mean two hundred channels of satellite and a belly full of fast food.  Frankly, I'd rather see providers.  It's healthier, and it's more interesting, and I believe I learn more.        
 
/Zin

       



-- Modified on 7/6/2004 6:35:39 AM