Huskguy - Yeah, I'm surprised it hasn't reached the media because LE would love the headlines as if they are doing society a great deed and can justify their 14% pay raise they got earlier this year. Wonder if they went in with their guns drawn and some unlucky chump got his pecker bit because the girl clamped down when startled.
Don't know if it was OPD, State Patrol, FBI, CIA or whatever other fucking government agency had nothing better to do that day. I'm leaning to believe that it was the State Patrol because the OPD union would want the headlines to impress the puritans and the West Omaha soccer moms that they are keeping their husbands in check. It's all about the propoganda of perpetual socialism and the removal of personal freedom by the government.
The funny thing is, the spas have many cops as clients so I have been told. Wonder if word was out at the station to stay away from the spas that day. They wouldn't want to catch a fellow law enforcement officer in a compromising position. Wonder how many times "Bob Johnson" appears on the client list with an member number of 911 or "5-0" or a badge number.
To be blunt, got the info from a now former employee of a spa when she was coming up for breath while sucking my dick.
- guest101013-2
- 10-28-2011, 07:01 AM
- huskerguyomaha
- 10-28-2011, 07:56 AM
Off today and was planning on visiting the new place. Even though they don't offer extras, all of this has me a bit nervous about going there. That plus the State of Nebraska gets their panties in a wad over doing massage and advertising it as massage without having the necessary licenses
- guest101013-2
- 10-28-2011, 08:11 AM
The new spa has their licenses up on the wall of the lobby. Noticed them the other day. As far as I know, they are totally legit. Actually, they are more legit than 95% of federal government agencies because most of them are unconstitutional.
- MsElena
- 10-28-2011, 08:30 AM
huskerguy,
I was told by my massage therapist a couple reasons for having a license is
I was told by my massage therapist a couple reasons for having a license is
that the licensing would protect the consumer from therapists who are not properly trained and for medical reasons also. Some people go there on orders from their doctor or some read up to find out that a certain style of massage is good for certain health conditions.
Its a great idea and I for one am glad they must have licenses. Too many people call themselves a massage therapist and they don't know what the hell they're doing.
Its a great idea and I for one am glad they must have licenses. Too many people call themselves a massage therapist and they don't know what the hell they're doing.
- guest101013-2
- 10-28-2011, 08:57 AM
Don't agree with you Elena on the licenses stuff. Many of my best massages have been with gals who don't have licenses and no, I'm not talking about the extras. Over in Europe where I've been, its not regulated at all. Those gals could run circles around some of the licensed masseuses we have here. Having a license doesn't mean squat other than the fact that you pay an annual licensing fee.
For example, a true Thai massage has bone manipulation as part of the program. Here in the states you have to go to an expensive chiropractor and pay 40 to 80 dollars for a couple of adjustments and 10 minutes of time. Over there, I paid $7 for an hour of chiropractory called "Thai Massage" that manipulated every bone in my body. They do 1000 times what a chiroprator does here and all for little money. That's why you have Chiropractors driving expensive foreign cars and raising our insurance premiums to cover a very simple procedure to screw the consumer through the use of governmental regulation aka known as licensing.
Massage is kind of like hookers. You take your chance on the experience. If you don't like the massage or the hooker for whatever reason, you find someone else. Eventually the "bad" ones get weeded out and the "good" ones prosper. All licensing does is creates very expensive government jobs that have no justification and raise the price to the consumer. It's kind of like a progressive verus a conservative watching TV. A progressive will use or create a government agency to eliminate or license a program they don't agree with so they can control it and thus control others and attempt to "regulate", "tax", or "license" the show to their liking. Additionally, a progessive will "demonize" anyone who doesn't agree with them or their view or in this case whoever watches the program. A conservative will just change the channel if he disagrees with the program and probably mumble something like, "that program is fucking stupid".
It's just funny that a number of years ago you didn't need a license to give a massage. The price of the massage was just a few dollars. Now after licensing, some places are getting near $100 for an hour massage. Licensing only creates beuracracy, eliminates competition and empowers the controlling few. The massage industry should regulate itself by creating an association. The association should assist with making industry standards and help get the word out that a "member" meets the standards and practices good massaging. Masseuses could then decide if they want to join the association or not. Some will and some won't. If you want to go to an "industry member" or not, its your freedom of choice as a consumer. Forcing someone to join the association and requiring people to use the association is wrong. Kind of like public sector unions forcing a consumer through the laws to be required to use their services and that employees must be a member and pay dues. Once again, its all about personal freedoms and freedom of choice.
Sorry about the rant, just pissed off that they took the spas away.
For example, a true Thai massage has bone manipulation as part of the program. Here in the states you have to go to an expensive chiropractor and pay 40 to 80 dollars for a couple of adjustments and 10 minutes of time. Over there, I paid $7 for an hour of chiropractory called "Thai Massage" that manipulated every bone in my body. They do 1000 times what a chiroprator does here and all for little money. That's why you have Chiropractors driving expensive foreign cars and raising our insurance premiums to cover a very simple procedure to screw the consumer through the use of governmental regulation aka known as licensing.
Massage is kind of like hookers. You take your chance on the experience. If you don't like the massage or the hooker for whatever reason, you find someone else. Eventually the "bad" ones get weeded out and the "good" ones prosper. All licensing does is creates very expensive government jobs that have no justification and raise the price to the consumer. It's kind of like a progressive verus a conservative watching TV. A progressive will use or create a government agency to eliminate or license a program they don't agree with so they can control it and thus control others and attempt to "regulate", "tax", or "license" the show to their liking. Additionally, a progessive will "demonize" anyone who doesn't agree with them or their view or in this case whoever watches the program. A conservative will just change the channel if he disagrees with the program and probably mumble something like, "that program is fucking stupid".
It's just funny that a number of years ago you didn't need a license to give a massage. The price of the massage was just a few dollars. Now after licensing, some places are getting near $100 for an hour massage. Licensing only creates beuracracy, eliminates competition and empowers the controlling few. The massage industry should regulate itself by creating an association. The association should assist with making industry standards and help get the word out that a "member" meets the standards and practices good massaging. Masseuses could then decide if they want to join the association or not. Some will and some won't. If you want to go to an "industry member" or not, its your freedom of choice as a consumer. Forcing someone to join the association and requiring people to use the association is wrong. Kind of like public sector unions forcing a consumer through the laws to be required to use their services and that employees must be a member and pay dues. Once again, its all about personal freedoms and freedom of choice.
Sorry about the rant, just pissed off that they took the spas away.
- MsElena
- 10-28-2011, 11:52 AM
No need to apologize, its your freedom to rant. 
But, you're wrong about the license's. As long as I've been in Nebraska, you've always needed a license to give massages......legally. Nebraska Dept of Health & Human Services would ticket agency girls/indys if they claimed to give massages in their ads, over the phone and/phone book advertising.
Just to be on the safe side, I called NE DHHS License and massage therapists needed to be licensed since the 50's.
But, you're wrong about the license's. As long as I've been in Nebraska, you've always needed a license to give massages......legally. Nebraska Dept of Health & Human Services would ticket agency girls/indys if they claimed to give massages in their ads, over the phone and/phone book advertising.
Just to be on the safe side, I called NE DHHS License and massage therapists needed to be licensed since the 50's.
- kendra kayy
- 10-28-2011, 12:37 PM
I understand Nash's point of view BUT Elena is correct most states require a license to legally provide massages. I know of quite afew Texas ladies who have obtained a MT license to cover their tracks.
Not to change the subject at hand but while watching daytime tv yesterday, I seen alil segment discussing sugardaddy/sugarbaby relationships. This arrangement of exchanging sex for money is infact legal. Or so they say. I don't see how that is perfectly acceptable but other forms of such relationships are not condoned. Anyone have any answers on this???
Not to change the subject at hand but while watching daytime tv yesterday, I seen alil segment discussing sugardaddy/sugarbaby relationships. This arrangement of exchanging sex for money is infact legal. Or so they say. I don't see how that is perfectly acceptable but other forms of such relationships are not condoned. Anyone have any answers on this???
- Guest121212
- 10-28-2011, 01:04 PM
Kendra,
Any arrangement that contracts (implied or otherwise) sexual acts for remuneration (any kind) is a violation of statute if such arrangement occurs outside of a Nevada brothel (assuming you are within the confines of the US).
This would be an excellent Co-ed thread if you'd like to begin one . . .
Kisses,
- Jackie
Any arrangement that contracts (implied or otherwise) sexual acts for remuneration (any kind) is a violation of statute if such arrangement occurs outside of a Nevada brothel (assuming you are within the confines of the US).
This would be an excellent Co-ed thread if you'd like to begin one . . .
Kisses,
- Jackie
- guest101013-2
- 10-28-2011, 09:49 PM
Prostitution is legal in the US. There isn't a federal law that makes it illegal. It is state law that makes it illegal. You are absolutely correct, other than the NV brothels (which suck btw), it is illegal. Most other countries it is either legal or tolerated. Believe there are only two countries where it is on the books as being legal. Germany and the Netherlands. Germany made it legal in 1994. However, pimping is harshly punished, which is a good thing. Remember it well because that was my first trip over the pond to go to a beautiful and legal brothel.
- eco_nerd
- 10-28-2011, 10:49 PM
What about licensing for escorts?
Heard this on public radio today:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ne...em.in.Nebraska
Heard this on public radio today:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ne...em.in.Nebraska
- guest101013-2
- 10-29-2011, 06:17 AM
What about licensing for escorts?
Heard this on public radio today:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ne...em.in.Nebraska Originally Posted by eco_nerd
Don't these people have anything better to do with their pathetic lives. The biggest opponents of prostitution are probably the biggest users of prostitution. Case in point would be Elliiot Spitzer and I'll just use the term hypocrite to lump them all together. Prostitution isn't the problem, it's the PIMPING.
Two very distinct and different things, prostitution and pimping. Prostitution is what prostitution is, but pimping is hostage taking or violent unjust influence. Lumping prostitution and pimping together is like lumping sex and rape together. Both are very distinct and very different, but seem to get lumped together. In a beuracrat's mind, maybe the government should ban all sex to prevent rape. Wonder how the American people would react to that government regulation.
An easy fix to the problem would be to legalize prostitution and impose very harsh punishments for pimping. The answer isn't to place more "licensing", "regulation", or "tax" to take away personal freedoms, but to give every American citizen the right to make free choices. Prostitution isn't right for everyone, but neither is government control to limit free choice. The government always forgets that you cannot legislate stupidity. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and self righteousness?
The whole point of my earlier rant was to clarify that "licensing", "regulating", " taxing" or any other term the government uses is just a form of governmental control to limit freedom. There is no reason in the world why a person cannot put out a shingle and perform a massage or be a hooker without needing approval from the government. Having a license does not make a person any better or any worse than a non-licensed masseuse. Licensing is just a governmental tool to limit free choice and to exert undue influence.
Massage parlors are a popular front for prostitution and through the licensing requirements, our government gained control over their destiny thus limiting our freedom of choice. Basically, it's the government giving you their choice that the government believes is best for you. That power or control of choice is administered by a group of beuracrats that believe in their minds that we "people" are stupid and that only they can help society if everyone does things their beuracratic way. Yes, some people are stupid, but eventually they go away or learn to be "not stupid".
- Guest121212
- 10-29-2011, 11:37 AM
Prostitution is legal in the US. There isn't a federal law that makes it illegal. It is state law that makes it illegal. Originally Posted by nashluv69There absolutely are federal statues prohibiting (specifically addressing) prostitution, the act itself is even defined in federal code, however, said statutes are admittedly very specific in nature (scope). There is no federal statute that makes prostitution illegal "across the board". However, federal prosecutions for prostitution under certain circumstances are very common in some districts. So, yes, there are federal laws that make it illegal . . .
My statement made the assumption that the reader would understand that since prostitution is legal in Nevada that the legalization of the act would be a state's rights issue . . . However, where applicable, the feds will trump the state every time . . .
Kisses,
- Jackie
And, before you start calling me a liar . . . for reference:
Title 8 Ch. 12 Sub Ch. II Part II Sec. 1182
Title 8 Ch. 12 Sub Ch. II Part VIII Sec. 1328
Title 18 Part I Ch. 67 Sec. 1384 - VERY commonly prosecuted statute in some districts
Title 18 Part I Ch. 95 Sec. 1952
Title 18 Part I Ch. 117 Sec. 2421
Title 18 Part I Ch. 117 Sec. 2422
Title 18 Part I Ch. 117 Sec. 2424
Title 25 Ch. 34 Sec. 3207
Title 29 Ch. 20 Sub Ch. I Sec. 1813
- guest101013-2
- 10-29-2011, 02:35 PM
Federal prostitution laws only apply to non-citizens or across state/country borders. Federal prostitution laws do not apply unless you are an non-citizen or in trafficking situations mostly. Prostitution laws fall at the state and local level just like you mentioned. The feds have a law if you spit on the sidewalk in case some of the states miss it. So if I wanted to open a brothel here in Omaha, I would be in conflict with state and local laws only.
Federal prostitution laws apply when prostitution involves a non-citizen alien or crosses international or state boundaries. Under Federal law, the importation of people for the purposes of prostitution is illegal and considered a form of human trafficking prohibited by federal code and the 13th Amendment of US Constitution.
Any instances of prostitution on federal property, such as a military base, also fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, including overseas military bases.
Federal prostitution laws apply when prostitution involves a non-citizen alien or crosses international or state boundaries. Under Federal law, the importation of people for the purposes of prostitution is illegal and considered a form of human trafficking prohibited by federal code and the 13th Amendment of US Constitution.
Any instances of prostitution on federal property, such as a military base, also fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, including overseas military bases.
- Guest121212
- 10-29-2011, 02:49 PM
Federal prostitution laws only apply to non-citizens or across state/country borders. Federal prostitution laws do not apply unless you are an non-citizen or in trafficking situations mostly. Prostitution laws fall at the state and local level just like you mentioned. The feds have a law if you spit on the sidewalk in case some of the states miss it. So if I wanted to open a brothel here in Omaha, I would be in conflict with state and local laws only.
Federal prostitution laws apply when prostitution involves a non-citizen alien or crosses international or state boundaries. Under Federal law, the importation of people for the purposes of prostitution is illegal and considered a form of human trafficking prohibited by federal code and the 13th Amendment of US Constitution. Originally Posted by nashluv69
Any instances of prostitution on federal property, such as a military base, also fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, including overseas military bases. Originally Posted by nashluv69
Uh, no Nash . . . Title 18 Part I Ch. 67 Sec. 1384 doesn't define how close one need be to an installation (military) and it makes NO discrimination as to citizenship (in fact, Title 8 Ch. 12 Sub Ch. II Part II Sec. 1182 is the only statute that specifically states that it is applicable only to non US citizens) and prosecutions have been successful when the act has occurred as far away as ten miles from the nearest recruiting office (within the same state) . . . it isn't common at such distance, but it can be prosecuted (and was, in Kansas City, near the airport). The appellate opinion handed down defined the "reasonable distance" as "that which was determined or specified (defined) by the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy or the Secretary of the Air Force up to and including the entirety of the area of the US and it's possessions" (effectively criminalizing the act federally anywhere on US soil if they wanted to . . ). The ONLY reason I know this is because I was very good friends with one of the defendants, who is now deceased.
In a nutshell, Title 18 Part I Ch. 67 Sec. 1384 states "Within such reasonable distance of any military or naval camp, station, fort, post, yard, base, cantonment, training or mobilization place as the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, or any two or all of them shall determine to be needful to the efficiency, health, and welfare of the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, and shall designate and publish in general orders or bulletins, whoever engages in prostitution....prohibited shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
I cited all applicable federal statues regarding prostitution in my previous post. There are also RICO and other "conspiracy to commit" realted cases that can be made from involvement in prostitution alone (even when not crossing a state line), even though it is a statute violated at the state or local level. Go figure that one out - seems unfair as all hell but there have been successful prosecutions in such manner also. But, I never did full understand RICO and I believe it to be overly broad and abused.
Have a great weekend!
Kisses,
- Jackie
PS - Admittedly, Title 29 Ch. 20 Sub Ch. I Sec. 1813 would probably ONLY apply to a non US citizen in country legally, but the statute actually makes no such specific delineation.
- guest101013-2
- 10-29-2011, 03:05 PM
Jackie,
I agree with you 100%, just that we say it differently. Think we can both agree on the bottom line that government is overreaching. If you give the bastards an inch, they will take a foot.
I agree with you 100%, just that we say it differently. Think we can both agree on the bottom line that government is overreaching. If you give the bastards an inch, they will take a foot.