Court Finds 'Happy Endings' To Be Legitimate Massage Procedure

**Deb4512** · 02-04-16 15:21

You always bring good, strong reasoning to the board. Do you think it will go through? I mean in the near future? Will it be like pot decriminalization in Washington State and Colorado? It's interesting that the group you referred to is it's main purpose is to fight human trafficking! Many of the trafficking organizations have no clue what the difference is between consensual and coerced. Good news if this goes through and hits states like a domino effect, no one will be concerned with being arrested and if an escort is a rob, violent or tries to blackmail you you can contact the police. If an escort is a victim of crime the same goes for her. Good for the guys, prices will probably drop for escort services, because there will be more saturation of supply over demand. There will be more escorts to choose from. Women will enter escorting more freely knowing they won't be arrested. I don't know if the services will improve though. I know I will be traveling to NH more often!

I'm surprised that nothing was posted in NH about this. Maybe the guys are jaded and skeptical? I'm always hopeful. Anytime I think if any form of consensual sex between adults being illegal seems ludicrous to me. Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state in government?

I'm working with another escort Gabrielle who's in her 30's. We just came back from NY, not too far north of NYC near the CT border. Every time I'm anywhere, especially in a hotel I'm nervous about noisy housekeeping and front desk staff. The hotel we used was a really beautiful resort hotel with two swimming pools, a jacuzzi, golf course, two restaurants, room service, a gym with classes and equipment. Negatives, which is why we won't be going back there, ants in the bathrooms and my friends cell service didn't work in her room, so it was a hassle for scheduling. Thankfully mine worked. I was nervous working with someone new, because I've had so many bad escort experiences off of backpage like you all seem to have. It's been a month, but I think I've hit gold with her! I will keep you all updated on that.

**Nrlmus** · 02-04-16 11:04

Originally Posted by Deb4512 [View Original Post]

No one saw this one? This is big news! What do you guys think?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/01/pr...tion-debated-i

It's good that it's being proposed by the female reps. Who knows, maybe Live Free or Die state will actually end up living by its motto. Maybe we'll see the reason why they actually deserve to have the first primary.

Check the list of organizations that recommend decriminalization. "Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women" instantly jumped at me. Do you think they know better then our (often false) Women rights zealots-feminazis?

**Deb4512** · 02-04-16 02:59

http://www.nh1.com/news/state-rep-fr...itution-in-nh/

**Deb4512** · 02-04-16 02:21

No one saw this one? This is big news! What do you guys think?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/01/pr...tion-debated-i

**Britaly** · 12-13-15 10:51

Originally Posted by Skatar018 [View Original Post]

Would you have a link to the Federal law by any chance? Thanks.

http://www.dhs.gov/human-trafficking-laws-regulations

Good luck reading this confusing mess. Just like reading tax code. Like A2/ Blue said. BS.

**Brooksy** · 12-13-15 01:39

Originally Posted by Deb4512 [View Original Post]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzuF...ature=youtu.be

As a privacy person, I hate this.

As a single person, I LOOOOOOOOOVE this.

**Deb4512** · 12-12-15 21:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzuF...ature=youtu.be

**Skatar018** · 12-12-15 15:03

Originally Posted by Rebrobate218 [View Original Post]

This federal law was designed as a way to go after the customers of underage prostitutes.

Would you have a link to the Federal law by any chance? Thanks.

**Rebrobate218** · 12-12-15 12:46

Originally Posted by HowardSprague [View Original Post]

It all comes down to the level of control the alleged trafficker has over the alleged victim. Does the accused control where the victim works, lives and sleeps, her transportation? Does the victim have valid identification (meaning, is she in the country legally)? They have a checklist and if they think they can answer yes to enough of the questions there's a trafficking charge. As well, cops are trained to charge an accused with as many crimes as they can find even a little evidence to support. They throw everything and see what sticks. It's a lovely tactic which makes life more difficult for EVERYONE else involved, including the prosecutors, and bogs down the criminal justice system.

Skatar018 - I have read about tactics like this being used by the authorities. I want to say in Oregon a woman violated a new federal law which makes it illegal to aid in anyway a minor involved in the sex industry. So a stripper was charged under this law for giving a ride to another stripper who was underage. This federal law was designed as a way to go after the customers of underage prostitutes. It was specifically written to appear to target pimps but the ultimate goal was to make the penalties so harsh on the customers that all prostitution would end. The penalty under this was is a $5,000 fine, which is to go into a fund for the victims of human trafficking. So far only petty pimps, some of them women, have been charged. This was passed in the 1st quarter of 2015 and there was a buzz as to why Jarrod of Subway fame was not charged under the new law. Lawrence Taylor could have been charge if this law had been in place when he was arrested.

**Skatar018** · 12-12-15 10:04

Originally Posted by Britaly [View Original Post]

[blue]In some states the language says "transporting for the purposes of prostitution." That means, you pick up a SW, drive to your spot, have sex, give her money, you are a human trafficker. Bullshit is what it is [A2/blue]

Not sure if you stated the above or if A2 did.

Regardless I've yet to see any place where this has happened, I could've have missed it though.

Not to say that the DA wouldn't try to charge someone as being a human trafficker, just saying that I've yet to see it happen with a SWer.

On the flip side I've seen those charged with human trafficking a lot within MPs & the escorting venues, very few convictions though.

Originally Posted by Spectator [View Original Post]

It would be nice if as in Nevada, Canada, and most of Europe, legislation more clearly defined the difference between prostitution and "human trafficking". Because, like, ya know, its only the difference between having to pay for it and kidnapping.

Agree 100%, to me the only known cure is legalization.

When anything is suppressed legally or not it's usually to the detriment of those the law is trying to protect.

Originally Posted by Skatar018 [View Original Post]

"Sex trafficking will end only when men stop buying sex".
This will never ever happen till payment for sex is legalized, & I do not believe legalization will happen here in the USA, with Nevada the current exception.
Legalization is the only logical long term solution to sex trafficking, just as legalization of alcohol was to prohibition.
People will never stop paying for what they want no matter how many laws are made & what the punishment or ramification are, it's like shoveling shit against the tide.
I know I may take shit for this but human & sex trafficking happen every day all over the world including here in the USA.
The other deterrent is the billions of dollars involved, from over inflated LE budgets, which the taxpayers pay for to every other low life parasite trying live off what others generate.
Want to stop it, legalize it, & while it won't totally stop it will reduce trafficking significantly.
As for the exploitation of minors & forcing sex work against a persons will, well public execution with a bullet to the back of the head may work.
There will be & are opposing views & I'm no expert, just my 2 on how I see things.

**Nrlmus** · 12-11-15 21:19

Originally Posted by HowardSprague [View Original Post]

It all comes down to the level of control the alleged trafficker has over the alleged victim. Does the accused control where the victim works, lives and sleeps, her transportation? Does the victim have valid identification (meaning, is she in the country legally)? They have a checklist and if they think they can answer yes to enough of the questions there's a trafficking charge. As well, cops are trained to charge an accused with as many crimes as they can find even a little evidence to support. They throw everything and see what sticks. It's a lovely tactic which makes life more difficult for EVERYONE else involved, including the prosecutors, and bogs down the criminal justice system.

Most certainly true on all sides. But even then prosecutors, judges and other attorneys that all comes later. Human trafficking professionals have ways to make your life irreversibly miserable irrespective of whether charges are filed and often even after that too. Those people work with conviction that would make Cotton Mather feel more like Mother Theresa in comparison. It's not a job for them, it's a mission. You're not even "plaintiff and defendant" to them, or "the accuser and the accused" you're "an abuser and a victim". That by itself underscores the attitude. Then even if you were to get acquitted of everything it at best is an "oops sorry".

Moreover, in America people rarely get acquitted anyway. Cases are encouraged to plea and strongly so. As part of the plea bargain the accused would usually have to admit to something. Whether they're actually at fault or not is not really relevant; it would take way too much resources from all sides in order to arrive to a reasonable conclusion in that regard and we all know that resources are always limited for everybody. So the system is very aggressive in trying to discourage the accused from going the distance. More often then not it succeeds. And then whether you were actually at fault or not your life will never be the same.

**Spectator** · 12-11-15 16:55

Originally Posted by Nrlmus [View Original Post]

life's circumstance forced some of them into it

Feminists blame men for the fact that starving women from 3rd world nations have resorted to what is truly, a difficult and thankless job.

Feminists blame men for wanting sex.

Feminists and the law enforcement establishment shame and blame everyone involved in prostitution in countries like the USA where its not legal.

Feminists "rescue" women who are making $1200 a DAY from being "trafficked" and then the women get deported and have to go elsewhere.

Nobody considers that the rabid application of "human trafficking" instead "pandering" or "sexual service for a fee" turns a lonely guy into a monster in the eyes of the public.

It would be nice if as in Nevada, Canada, and most of Europe, legislation more clearly defined the difference between prostitution and "human trafficking".

Because, like, ya know, its only the difference between having to pay for it and kidnapping.

**HowardSprague** · 12-11-15 16:37

Originally Posted by Kuro4 [View Original Post]

I always took human trafficking to mean girls forced into prostitution not when girls choose to work as an escort for a legit agency. Am I wrong? Does it not matter if a girl is doing this stuff of her own free will? I'm assuming if no one was forced that a good lawyer could get that particular charge dropped.

It all comes down to the level of control the alleged trafficker has over the alleged victim. Does the accused control where the victim works, lives and sleeps, her transportation? Does the victim have valid identification (meaning, is she in the country legally)? They have a checklist and if they think they can answer yes to enough of the questions there's a trafficking charge. As well, cops are trained to charge an accused with as many crimes as they can find even a little evidence to support. They throw everything and see what sticks. It's a lovely tactic which makes life more difficult for EVERYONE else involved, including the prosecutors, and bogs down the criminal justice system.

**Nrlmus** · 12-11-15 14:27

Originally Posted by Kuro4 [View Original Post]

I always took human trafficking to mean girls forced into prostitution not when girls choose to work as an escort for a legit agency. Am I wrong? Does it not matter if a girl is doing this stuff of her own free will? I'm assuming if no one was forced that a good lawyer could get that particular charge dropped.

For those who works in human traffic enforcement, especially if it's a woman, it probably doesn't. I think that for many women, especially more feministically inclined ones (degree of militancy in that regard is directly proportional to the degree of religious fervor), human traffic enforcement in large part is a source of self-affirmation. Many of them are on a very high horse and deny outright the existence of volunteerism in the world oldest profession. For many of them every prostitute has been coerced into being that by definition and that's that. That by itself often prevents them from going after cases where coercion indeed does play part, which make no mistake do exist, albeit they're not as frequent as the establishment human trafficking enforcement industry would make us believe.

After all human trafficking enforcement industry by now is indeed "an industry", the industry that already long turned itself into a self-feeding monster. Jobs are dependent on it. The less human trafficking there are, the lower are the government grants to fight it, the more human trafficking enforcement specialists get to wait tables.

The fact that many women of the 3rd world countries often prevent their whole families (sometimes even their whole villages) from starving to death with their prostitute' income (in the places where it's the only viable of which there are many, if not most) and that many girls in those parts would likely be starving themselves if they haven't had such an opportunity, gets conveniently bypassed or pivoted to more general economic topics, which most of the time realistically unattainable especially in the short term.

I've always heard stories about human trafficking from Russia and former USSR countries. I've met many Russian pros here in the states and outside and I can assure you that not a single one of them was coerced into prostitution. I suspect the life's circumstance forced some of them into it but not a pimp or a person.

Well actually it may not be necessarily true. But judge for yourself. I knew this one girl from this very nice middle class family who began dating a pimp who eventually coerced her into the prostitution but! I've known her since we were both 17 and always thought of her as a crazy but good-natured chick that always gravitated (and severely so) to the dark side. In fact she became a junkie way before hitting the streets, even before meeting her future pimp-husband. I suspect many of the old timers may even remember the Russian blonde that used to work Hemingway and Combat Zone in late 80's-early 90's. Would you consider a person like that being trafficked? Coerced? Technically maybe yes, but boy was she ready and inclined to be coerced for a long time by that point or what!

I think you yourself should define what it is that you consider human trafficking and stick with that criteria but always remember that human traffic enforcement may have a definition different from yours and they're the ones that have power to make your life miserable.

**Britaly** · 12-11-15 11:54

Originally Posted by Kuro4 [View Original Post]

I always took human trafficking to mean girls forced into prostitution not when girls choose to work as an escort for a legit agency. Am I wrong? Does it not matter if a girl is doing this stuff of her own free will? I'm assuming if no one was forced that a good lawyer could get that particular charge dropped.

If you read the state statue they including everything but rotating your tires as human trafficking. The word "recruits" and "transport" are in there as well. Which means pretty much anything they want it to mean. No where in the statute does it require a victim which I find suspiciously troubling. This means in my humble opinion that even if you are the escort and don't claim to be forced into doing anything, the charge can still be filed against anyone who has demonstrated in some form any of the catch words used in the statute.

[blue]In some states the language says "transporting for the purposes of prostitution." That means, you pick up a SW, drive to your spot, have sex, give her money, you are a human trafficker.

Bullshit is what it is

A2/blue]