Decriminalization progress?

Feel free to add more or comment but please keep it intelligent.

worldwide:

http://www.bayswan.org/ICPRChart.html

nationwide:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/117

(ladies pay special attention to the addition of the term "intent" and section 2428- forfeiture as to our prior discussions). Also, for those of you who travel, this is the case to keep in your records.

Mortensen v. United States

This is why I don't trust anyone blatantly discussing illegal acts in which some participate- or anyone who defends them. I'd also like to add that my association to these members does not mean that I support their behavior and that any compensation I have received in the past has been for my time and expenses such as clothing, nails, hair, cosmetology/ies (ie: teeth whitening, make up, spa days, gym memberships...) and many other expenses that equal any compensations received. In fact, I can prove a loss as an adult entertainer, in which I no longer participate and that my reasons for traveling had nothing to do with entertaining. All of my travel decisions have been made for personal reasons (ie: visiting family, seeking new employment, comparative analysis of the real estate markets vs. tax codes) 8)
Mokoa's Avatar
  • Mokoa
  • 12-06-2010, 12:18 AM
This topic is more suited for the Main Discussion forum.

Moved to the proper forum.
You can bet that many American states will be shifting to the morally bankrupt "Swedish model" in the next few years; Maryland and Texas are already headed that way. The "Swedish Model" is advantageous to prohibitionists as it allows suppression of the trade and pleases anti-sex feminists while robbing sex workers of those women who dislike prostitution but are on our side due to human rights reasons. Basically, it's a dodge which allows the government to fight us while pretending that the laws aren't sexist despite the fact that under the "Swedish Model" a woman is basically defined as a legal minor who is incompetent to consent to sex.

And no offense, Lacey, but that disclaimer isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. In every state in this country women can be arrested for just LOOKING like prostitutes to the cop making the arrest. Strippers, models and party girls are often arrested and charged with prostitution, and like escorts the charges rarely stick. Even when they do, it's generally cheaper to plea bargain and include an expungement of the record than to fight it, which is of course what they want but there you are.
You can bet that many American states will be shifting to the morally bankrupt "Swedish model" in the next few years ... Originally Posted by AngelOK
You are right, because it is much more effective from a psychological perspective. In essence, in that model, all providers are victims and their clients are abusers.

Whether or not that is the *reality* doesn't matter. Lex dura, sed lex. That model is devastatingly effective it keeping guys you WANT as clients out of the hobby.
John Bull's Avatar
Lacey, you need to come back home before you start quoting court decisions from 15th century Poland. hahahaha
macksback's Avatar
" a woman is basically defined as a legal minor who is incompetent to consent to sex."

That sounds about right!
" a woman is basically defined as a legal minor who is incompetent to consent to sex."

That sounds about right! Originally Posted by macksback
I understand you're joking, but you do realize that automatically casts all men as statutory rapists, right? Which is exactly how they are treated under the "Swedish Model".
abdclub's Avatar
To me, it's amazing how thinking individuals are left out of the equation!

abdclub
To me, it's amazing how thinking individuals are left out of the equation!

abdclub Originally Posted by abdclub
The problem we run into is that not everyone in society is a thinking individual, and not everyone in society -- given freedom -- will use that freedom responsibly. Therefore, laws are made to substitute for common sense.

How do you feel about gun control? Shouldn't thinking and responsible individuals be trusted to arm themselves for their own defense?

Yet, we need a law prohibiting providing felons and those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent from buying guns. Why? Because some people have no common sense and without a law and a penalty will even knowingly give a felon or a crazy person a gun.

How do you feel about people texting while driving? It is pure common sense that you shouldn't text while hurtling in a 3500 lb vehicle at 60 mph barely 4 feet away from other vehicles to your left and right. Yet, many people do it. And in response to the fact that many people *do not think* some states now have laws specifically prohibiting texting and driving.

While, quite selfishly, I would prefer to simply round up everyone who can't think or be trusted to use common sense and send them somewhere else so the rest of us can be free; the reality is that society consists of a wide array of individuals; and our laws are often made to reflect that. Because of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, we can't make laws that only apply to idiots. To restrict the idiots, the rest of us have to be constrained as well.

I am recalling a couple of situations. In one case in MA, an older provider pimped out her 17 year old step daughter and one of her step daughter's under-age friends. The two girls got rave reviews until the situation was dismantled by the local constables.

In another case in Providence, a woman who was being held as a sex slave also received rave reviews until the constabulary shut it down and discovered she wasn't the only one that the fellow was holding.

Now, to ME, it is common sense that you don't pimp out girls who are underage. You just don't. They are not old enough to give informed consent -- they literally ARE minors -- so it is wrong. And of all people, an older provider OUGHT to know better.

To ME, it is common sense that enslaving someone and forcing them into sex with strangers is wrong and evil.

Consider for a moment that providing usually works with extremely asymmetric disclosure. Providers wouldn't allow most clients to check their driver's licenses to assure they have reached the age of majority, and don't allow clients to know enough about them to assure they are acting of their own free will. A client essentially has to take a provider's word for these things; which even for providers with rave reviews could be a damnable lie. A lie that turns the client into an unwitting rapist.

As long as there are unscrupulous people out there who are either lacking in the most basics of conscience or common sense; laws pertaining to prostitution will tend to reflect that we have a population that contains a substantial number or people who cannot be trusted with sharp objects.
ANONONE's Avatar
Lacey, you need to come back home before you start quoting court decisions from 15th century Poland. hahahaha Originally Posted by John Bull
Here, here!

. . .and you still have that damn CONTEST to make good on. . .

. . .let's see. . .


1) Anonone with MLG for two hours (woohoo--we can do Bad Santa one hour and the Referee for the other!)
2) John Bull with Lacey Companion for one hour
3) Marcus would get $50.00 towards a session with CeCe Sinclair

Get your cute little ass back to Ohio so we can have a party!


Oooops. . .perhaps that could be seen as hindrance toward decriminalization if I am seen to be pandering the position that advocates doing indecent and unspeakable things to one another during said party.
abdclub's Avatar
L, perhaps I should have said thinking individuals with common sense! LOL
I agree with virtually everything you stated.

abdclub
Common sense is really NOT that common.