Someone needs to organize the local providers
Why? Because absolutely no one cares about the right of middle-aged men to purchase sexual variety. It is far too easy for the media to portray us as bad guys. But if you take the side of the providers, then you have something.
Recently they tried to pass a more restrictive anti-prostitution law in Canada. The proposed law was shot down, largely because a handful of providers organized a legal campaign against it.
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25468587[/URL]
Look at it this way: What if LE succeeded in eliminating all activity tomorrow? For us, this would be inconvenient. I might actually have to think about joining Match or EHarmony. Some of you would have to return to the novel concept of having sex with your wives.
The ladies, however, would suffer an immediate financial disruption. The law, therefore, is attempting to eliminate their ability to practice their chosen profession (even though most of them would say that they're only doing it temporarily). This is economic warfare carried out by the state.
The argument against prostitution is framed in terms of human trafficking because no counterargument is ever presented. Aside from the occasional oddball Libertarian, no one ever advocates in favor of legalization.
But you see what happened when Canadian providers stood up for their rights. The focus of the arguement shifted.
We need the same sort of action here.
I don't think it would be as difficult as it might sound. This is not pie in the sky.
For example, a few of the ladies could volunteer to talk to the local media with their voices and identities altered. They could say that the "human trafficking" bit is nonsense. (Does anyone really believe for a moment that Dawn, Molly, or Silky Wetness are being controlled by sadistic gangster pimps?
That is the angle that must be pursued, IMHO. There have to be a few ladies out there who could and would do this.
I would personally nominate Dawn. I've talked to her numerous times. She's mature, intelligent, and could hold her own against the lies of Jesse Bach and his friends.
I'm sure there are other providers who could do this as well (though I really like Dawn for this role) But to win the war of public opinion, one must first show up.
[QUOTE=JohnGalt10;1977492]Good work G3. Yep, Jesse Bach, the bombastic seer of the Imagine Foundation is hyping his way to a fortune. And the politicians have to play the game with him. Such great research coming from a PhD candidate with a non linear math fetish. Pretty hairy stuff, that. Randyman summed it up, a 6 month reading of BP and CL is all this was. And Varoom is spot on about zealots. Find a victim and make a lot of money from politicians and amass power. This guy knows how to take a simple explanation and turn it into labyrinthine grandiloquence, dazzling the dumbmasses. We see them for what they are. And to think he has taught le how to differentiate between voluntary and enslaved girls. According to him, if their ad has no pic or there are multiple girls with same digits then they are the ones enslaved by another. Wow. They make me sick. JG.[/QUOTE]
Real data suggests that Todd has a point
[QUOTE=Todd Cincy;1977714
What if LE succeeded in eliminating all activity tomorrow? For us, this would be inconvenient...
The ladies, however, would suffer an immediate financial disruption. The law, therefore, is attempting to eliminate their ability to practice their chosen profession (even though most of them would say that they're only doing it temporarily).
[/QUOTE]
My first observation when I read the "study" on the backpage ads was that it was just the attempt to use weak data to support a political agenda. Todd Cincy, however is right about the mis-application of anti-trafficking laws to adult women who chose to make a living as providers potentially destroys their livelihood. The first chapter of Superfreakonomics addresses this subject, and the conclussion of the authors of that book was that without pay for play, the lives of a great many women and their families would actually be far worse off. Not that we really needan economist to tell us that. It's common sense. These ladies wouldn't be entertaining us if it were not to their advantage.
War on Women like the War on Drugs?
Maybe in time, this will go the way of legalized pot. Just as the War on Drugs is beginning to surrender, maybe the War on Women's rights to choose their profession will also be brought down. Look, even the provincial town of Cincinnati has a casino now! Even 10 years ago, I didn't think it would happen. If politicians realized they could raise BIG tax $ for their pet projects through legalization of prostitution, well.
Finally time to stop motel incalls and BP?
First of all, I would be willing to bet that Jesse Bach is a former hobbyist who one day woke up with a self-induced guilt trip. (Phil Burris, Cincinnati's erstwhile anti-porn crusader, was a former porn addict). There is no zealot like a convert.
This situation is overwhelmingly negative, of course. However: At least Bach did admit that he has no *no clue* what percentage of BP ads are the "victims of human trafficking" The whole human trafficking angle (as it applies to Bach's "investigation") is pure speculation at this point.
Reading the comments threads on these stories, I'm not seeing a lot of public outcry to end the horror of paid sex between consenting adults. This seems to be mostly the project of a few small advocacy groups, led by some self-promoters (like Jesse Bach) and their cheerleaders in the media.
I would guess that this will blow over in time. In the meantime, however, I think we can assume that LE will be focused on the low-hanging fruit, as identified in all these stories:
- BP ads.
- hotel incalls.
- incalls in certain known "hot spots" throughout the area.
To me, this says that it would be disproportionately risky to use any provider who advertises in BP, and works out of a motel in areas like Covington, Tri-County, or anywhere within the city limits.
I've long said that I refuse (with rare exceptions) to patronize hotel incalls. This is why. When you're in a hotel, you are conspicuous, and because it is a public place, it is relatively easy for LE to conduct stings. That is much harder to do when each appointment takes place in a private residence.
I started out in the hobby in Columbus 20 years ago. The upper end escorts *never* worked out of motels. For first-time customers, they only visited private residences.
Maybe that is too strict for the current market. (I'm not trying to leave out the married guys). But the business model of a lady spending an entire day in a motel room in Covington and seeing guys all day has got to go, IMO.
I don't claim to be the expert here. But we need to throw out ideas. Twenty years ago, the hobbyist community couldn't pool its creative resources. Now it can.
At the very least, I vote that we let BP dry up and wither. Most of us are unhappy with that venue anyway, because it has long attracted so many scammers.
BP also attracts a lot of attention, because everyone knows about it, and many citizens visit it for unrelated purposes.
[QUOTE=Thwack;1978329]This ran on the local 11 o'clock news last night.
[URL]http://www.fox19.com/story/24420526/report-sex-trafficking-thriving-in-cincinnati[/URL][/QUOTE]
Actually the rules vary by department...
[QUOTE=TheGoodSh;1980756]I've heard that male cops have gone through with the whole session, then busted providers. This was from a provider here, who said she heard it from other providers.
I am certain it wouldn't work the other way, as I can't see a female cop taking advantage of the client or wanting to have him touch her, etc... So for the guys, it's definitely a pretty good bet that a intimate cop check would work.
But for providers, I can see male cops taking advantage of the girl, and then just acting like he didn't, and bust her.[/QUOTE]Some departments only allow the undercover to partially undress, while others leave it to the undercover's discretion.
Case in point was a county in VA a few years back where the bust usually didn't occur until the lady asked for her donation, so if it was at the end of the appointment so be it. After a local TV station did a story on the practice the department changed the policy to only allow unmarried officers to work a sting (seems the issue was that married guys were being "required" to be unfaithful to their wives).
I don't think you'll find a female undercover providing FS, but it wouldn't surprise me if I heard of one that stripped down to her thong depending on the value of the target.
