I have been reading several cases about alleged prostitution rings charges brought onto escort agencies and now even Entertainment Agencies. The agency owners are being charged BIGTIME, while the ones that actually did the dates are being given immunity (women) or are hidden completely (men) from the public.
Some of these agency owners are simply phone operators that book dates and take a percentage for the referral to subcontracted employees...just as a dating service.
If the owners did not participate in any dates, who is to say that they were selling sex for money? How would they know, by peaking in windows to see what the two consenting adults are doing?
Are the agency's responsible for being the morality police to follow up and see if these people are having sex? and if they exchange money?
Why is it o.k. to humiliate only the women?
This topic brings into consideration many moral issues, ethics, and many of the same privacy issues the recent Supreme Court vs. Texas ruling where it states that Liberty protects people from unwanted intrusions into our personal lives.
Whose business is it if two consenting adults have sex in private?

Here is a newspaper link from a case in Michigan I have been following labeled "a high profile state wide prostitution ring". The defendants are a married couple with two young children who had an Entertainment Agency for years (they were disc jockeys, and booked all types of entertainment for others as well). They even paid their taxes by the way. This is a very sad case for all involved. (might end up bbeing the entire state)

http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/bas...xml?bctimes?NEB

What I would like to know is WHO is on the "good client list" and where is it ???

I see this case as nothing more than for a political agenda, an ego booster, and is upcoming to trial for election year.

One local News broadcasting station stated Court TV may be taking the case, who knows, this just may be the first case of this kind to make it to the Supreme Court.

Wondering others thoughts and opinions?

The USA is so uptight about SEX!
We obsess on it, we say nobody should do it,
we try to punish people for doing it, etc!!!

It's nobody's business if two adults are
engaging in consentual sex. IF the government
wants to get involved so badly, perhaps they
should legalize prostitution and those escort services
that "go the extra mile". Then they could tax them,
and use the proceeds in our next invasion of a foreign
land.

Women are always the ones made to be wrong
for the sexual acts that occur. Why? I guess it's
still a man's world.

I'm a bit confused as to the question. Is this a "should prostitution be legal" thread, or a "should the persons involved in racketeering of prostitution (which is currently illegal in most states) be punished"?

If the former, I would be for legalization of prostitution.

If the latter...Laws must be enforced, and there appears to be a significant amount of evidence to indicate that this company was receiving a percentage of money from prostitutes. I would expect that they received a higher percentage for those engaging in sex acts than they would have for simple conversation. Part of the evidence presented by the prosecution was an employment interview with the company owners. Something condemning was said at that interview. I fail to see how "only women" were humiliated by this situation. Could you explain?

HI and thanks for your responses!

I guess what I am thinking is that IF prostitution did occur on any of the dates that were arranged, it did not include the phone operators.
Prostitution takes two people, and neither one of these two people were the defendants.

If these two people on the date say they did something illegal, they would be charged with a misdeamor...the phone operators were charged with 4 felonys and weren't even there or couldn't control the dates. At some point in the dating relationship they could assume these people might have had sex like humans do, but not for money, that is the key.

Not sure if the link I provided talked about the contract/application the women signed stating they would do nothing illegal on their dates including sex and/or drugs.

They took the same fee (percentage)of their dancers, escorts, singing telegrams, gag grams, disc jockeys, whatever. They were in our local phone book.

The women are being called in to testify and their names exposed in the papers, tv, etc.
Their is no word of any men that used the service as if they did not exist.
Plus, Prosecution is hiding the client list, defense has requested all copies of evidence, and they continue to deny providing that list.

I feel that the name of the men are no less important than the name of the women or the defendants. If prostitution was occuring by the town's leading officials, or local doctors, etc., the public has the right to know.

I am going to search for some of the other newspaper articles, one shows the testimony of one of the escorts, and one shows the testimony of the undercover female officer that was trying to get a job and didn't even get a call back.
One of them says the pandering charge was dropped, which to me says they didn't tell anyone to have sex, and didn't advertise for it.

To me, this case is exactly what their attorney said, Un-American.

I appreciate hearing both sides of the argument. Hope that helps.

These weren't phone operators. These were the owners of the business. The escorts they provided were offering sexual services for a fee. There is apparently some rather condemning evidence in that regard...a list of potential policemen and patrons with venereal disease, offered by the business, was one of them.

They (the business owners) undoubtedly received far more money from clients obtaining sexual service than they did from those seeking simple conversation. I have looked for this case elsewhere, too, and haven't seen anything.

The bottom line is this...Since the purpose of the law is to deter prostitution, punishing the business owners, who are the source of the crime, is a more effective deterrent than slapping a misdemeanor charge on the participants. I certainly don't agree with publicly naming the women involved, though.

Edited to add: IF it is true that they weren't receiving a higher amount of money from their employees for sexual service I would agree. I find that very, very hard to believe though. Were the women just so overwhelmed by their paying dates they felt compelled to do more?

I'm going to answer these generally rather than limiting myself specifically to the instance provided...

If the owners of an escort service operate with the understanding that they are only providing company without sexual actions I don't feel they should be held responsible for any sexual actions which may occur on such a date. While they may provide a dating service, they are not responsible for what services an employee may provide after fulfilling the customer's purchase.

I'm unclear about the humiliation of women in this instance. If the women make the choice to engage sexually without provocation or financial benefit of those running an escort service, they are making their own choice as to whether or not they engage in acts bordering on prostitution.


I don't think it is anyone's but those participating. Further discussion would probably be better suited for a separate topic, but I do support the legalization of prostitution.

I looked all over and the other articles are no longer available. (this case is over a year old already)

One had the testimony of the female officer trying to get a job and quoted her saying none of the payment to the agency was contingent on her having sex and she was told she didn't have to do anything she didn't feel comfortable with.

The other one was the escort witness who stated she didn't have to do anything she didn't want to do, would have gotten paid either way, and the couple had no control. She did say she sometimes had sex for money...which got her out of marijuana charges.
(these were witness for the prosecution)

The first one explained the rates and fees...I believe it was like 25-30% booking fee, same for all the entertainers. No cut was taken of any tips...

Rumors around here are that many big businessman, politicians, doctors, attorneys, etc, are named on the list and daily logs...

Let me tell you, there are people sweating it out throughout this town and the entire state...keeping their fingers crossed, that their name don't come out. Election year is just around the corner...

Good points everyone, I know I think I have my mind made up on the ego booster idea, even if something occured, I see this as a victimless crime, and I realize that I won't change any ones mind here either...

Honestly, I too believe it's a victimless "crime". I simply also believe that laws have to be enforced. It's a waste of resources to pursue these types of matters, which is one primary reason prostitution should be legal, IMO. However, as it is illegal, anyone offering such services (and, let's be honest, ALL 'escort' services are thinly veiled prostitution services) is taking a great risk.

Without taking a side on the issue...

...isn't there a health concern here . After all, you can test prostitutes frequently, but there is always a risk of contracting an STD and transmitting it between testing. I suppose you could make the argument that a client would know this risk, but that seems fairly heartless. What if a woman’s husband visits prostitutes without her knowledge and inadvertently gives her Herpes or HIV because of his action. It seems in this case, prostitution has claimed a victim or two. If we legalize prostitution how do we protect this hypothetical woman?

What leads you to believe that the government has any obligation or authority to oversee the responsibility of individuals?

Whether it is a husband engaging with a prostitute or the same husband later engaging with his wife, both persons engaging in a sexual activity make the choice to trust their respective partner under the circumstances. I don't see anything heartless in asking people to be responsible for themselves rather than having the government dictate what actions we may or may not do as individuals.

You don't give amnesty to marijuana dealers just because they label themselves herb salesmen, you don't let off pimps who label their business an escort service.

If the women in question signed a document stating they would not do anything illegal while working, and their is no hard evidence that the company received extra money for the girls prostituting, then what did the business do wrong? If I run a pizza place and my driver leaves work sober on a delivery, stops and gets drunk or stoned after leaving the store, and hits somebody, is that my fault? What do you suggest the person in charge do to keep this from happening?

A blanket statement that all escort services are thinly veiled prostitution rings is a pretty awful thing to say. I'm not condoning or condemning escort services, but a broad generalization like that doesn't help anybody.

If the women working for this place are going to be outed in public, then the guys that payed for their services should be too! They are both guilty of the same crime.

You think that's an awful thing to say? I thought that was common knowledge. You actually think people generally hire those women solely for conversation? Yes, they are indeed thinly-veiled prostitution rings. True story.

The bottom line is, we don't know all of the facts of this case. The document (stating the women were not to have sex with customers) was obviously an attempt to ameliorate any eventual legal potentiality. An undercover officer who interviewed with them gave some incriminating evidence. They had a list of undercover agents and customers with VD to avoid "dating"...Why, and how did they find out? Clearly, if the owners insisted they sign an agreement stating they wouldn't engage in sex, and ment to keep it, such behavior would be grounds for termination of employment, not documentation for future reference.

Here would be an example of an incriminating interview: "Every date should have a 'happy ending' if they pay X amount of dollars. Here's a list of potential customers with venereal disease, and undercover police officers. Stay away from them. I have everyone who works for me sign this agreement in order to cover myself in case of legal action...say, if one of the girls accidentally offers service to a police officer."

I don't know exactly what went on during the interview, and I would doubt that it was that direct. The point is, it was used as evidence for the prosecution, so there was something condemning. Everything else is speculation.

Escorts are prostitutes. End of story. Men don't really care enough about communication to pay $250 an hour for it.

Isn't that what every single contract in the world is for?

A fantasy interview does not help, either. How about quoting actual evidence rather than making stuff up that makes your side look right and making broad assumptions. Maybe these people are nothing more than pimps, maybe they were legitimate business-people who got caught up in something they knew nothing about. I only hope the people deciding this case are more open minded and remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that verdict requires facts and evidence, not assumptions and stereotyping.

Perhaps they wanted to document all the police officers and disease carriers because they were bad communicators.

You can't trust the media to display all the facts exactly, and I have not done a good job in sending them to you because I cannot find a couple of the first articles and what would really give us facts would be actual transcripts. I realize there has to be some speculation done to give opinions on this case.

I am happy with the responses on this issue. I like to see both sides being presented and this topic has a low number of views for the number of replys. I knew this was a very controversial case

Keep on posting!

Humm... my fa vo rite topic. Excuse me while I get verbose.

Please realize that I am speaking as an independent (ie: no pimps, agencys, etc.) escort/companion/muse. I have been referred to as a courtesan, which, in my world means that a lady is skilled in many capacities... the textbook definition lacks what some of you may be able to understand by watching Dangerous Beauty. She is witty, intelligent, beautiful inside and out. And this does not mean that she looks like a model... but that she knows how to dress and please her courtiers. There is something about her that is... magic.

Now... questions and statements will be answered in the order recieved.

Why is it o.k. to humiliate only the women? - It is not "okay" it's just the way things are. No one will really stand up for us and we cannot really stand up for ourselves in this business because of our desires for discretion. Many of us have real lives outside of our clandestine activities. The men will always protect the men and the women are paid to do so. Men like to blame women but I do not believe that any of my ads have ever been viewed by people who were not looking for companionship. He makes a conscious choice to do all that he does.

Good Client Lists - Should not exist. I am sure they do, but that is dangerous for both parties. I am able to remember everything I need to know about each gentleman I have ever seen. Unless you want to count that I have a day planner where I write down when I recieve money? I like to know if I have made my plan for the month or not. Also, many ladies will stupidly "name names" to try to get out of something... not gunna happen. I have talked to a lawyer about this.

They (the business owners) undoubtedly received far more money from clients obtaining sexual service than they did from those seeking simple conversation. A lady is paid for her time. Period. Many men buy multiple hours... sometimes overnights, days and weeks at a time... Mistresses even! Beacuse they enjoy who the woman is. In my world, a lady who asks for more money is an upseller, she will likely have an alert written about her if the gentleman utilizes the message boards. (Yes... good Lord in the heavens a message board about escorts!) A woman who upsells is clearly a prostitute because she will ask for XYZ dollars for this, ABC dollars for that. This is generally the realm of thieves and street walkers.

Health concerns: The incidence of STDs is lower for us than for much of the general population let alone most teenagers. You are far (like... way far... totally far) more likely to recieve sex without a condom with a real girlfriend or a woman at a bar.

The wife: We cannot stop the man from straying. Men know the risks involved. It's not something men jump into overnight. Almost all of the ladies I know have a screening procedure so gentlemen are leary. It is my personal belief that if I were to marry and my husband were to stray, I would rather it be with a true professional than a woman might attempt to destroy my marriage. While I enjoy my time with my patrons, if it weren't for the money I would not be spending time with them. This is how I support myself.

Why avoid the police? Well, #1, vice cops are the most corrupt of the police officers from what I have heard and they are pushy. I could not have a good time with anyone who was asking me "So, what can I get for 50 bucks?" "How much for a BJ?" When I meet someone I just want them to be cool. Come in, give me a hug, put the money on the table, chat with me for a bit and just chill. When we are ready to go further (if we want to go further) we will get there. I am not going to tick off the minutes with a freaking egg timer but no, you cannot stay 4 hours for the price of one.

Why avoid clients with health "issues?" Oh... sometimes I have been know to be a little slutty during my meetings.. you know... as a natural course of things. I do adore men. And I would not want to have any health issues myself. I would like to live forever and if I wanted to be naughty with someone else then I would not want to give them anything.

Anyways... ya'll have a good day... ya hear?

Oly.

I think Olympia's post makes it pretty clear that escorts are prostitutes.

Really? How so? You should know better than to offer us only a one-liner to debate. On a mere semantic level, why would the two words, prostitute and escort, exist if they did not connotate different, albiet perhaps slightly, definitions?

What I think is clear is most people don't have a clue as to what is the difference between escorts and prostitutes.

"Escorts are prostitutes," eh, Hugo? And I guess chiropractors are brain surgeons and podiatrists are dentists too?

Olympia did a good job of explaining what a escort is. But while she may financially compensated whether she DOES or DOES NOT have sexual relations with the man (or woman) that is paying for her time and companionship, it seems it is much easier to merely lump her into the same category as a curb-crawling streetwalker.

I think your one-liner response to Olympia's post Hugo, indicates your disdain in what she was trying to convey and a overweening desire to slip in a snide little zinger.

You're such the gentleman Hugo.

A woman who is a prostitute can lie and say she is an escort... clearly you do not expect me to stop others from lieing do you? LOL

You aren't telling me that I can't be a slut AND an escort are you? I would not want to choose between the two!

Go on... let me know what you really think and why you think it and I will be happy to explain things from my point of view as an escort for the last (almost) 2 years. Though... please try to keep it on topic and respectful.

Oly.

I personally do not feel that it is the profession for me. However, there are plenty of women (and men) who sleep around for nothing. Does the fact that she get paid for it make her morally worse as opposed to someone who does not get paid for it? I don't think so.

Yes, escorts are prostitutes. The analogy would be closer to 'a brainsurgeon is also a doctor'. Would you want your daughter to be an escort, nighttimer?

A woman (or man) doesn't have to stand on a street corner to be a prostitute, and escort services offer a bit of class. They are also free to advertise (and operate) under the euphemistic guise of 'escort'. If anyone actually doubts that escorts are prostitutes, open your phone book and look under escort services. I can't provide a link here, because any such link would violate the rules of the forum.

You asked for it. There is an escort review site at www.aspd.net. Skim through it and understand that escorts are prostitutes. The word prostitute came into being and replaced the word whore because the word whore had bad and illegal connotations. The word escort came into being to replace the word prostitute because the word prostitute contained bad connotations. As soon as everyone is bright enough to understand that escort is simply another word for prostitute a new word will replace escort. No, once a man pays the prostitute the money she does not have to sleep with him. She can rip him off, she won't get a repeat client. I am also sure there are some impotent old men who also use the service, this does not change the fact an escort is a prostitute. It does not matter if she is a $5 crack whore or a $1000 an hour escort, if she takes money and then "chooses" to have sex with her client she is a prostitute.

Nothing wrong with it as far as I am concerned. It is illegal in most of the US though.



Why does the word automobiile exist and also the words coupe and sedan?

If the $5 street whore takes the john's $5 and then chooses not to have sex by running away is she now an escort?

Back on topic the environment and the price paid for a service does not change it's legal status.

I would raise my daughter to think for herself and to think before taking action. If she chose this life, as I have, then I would educate her so that she would know what the heck she was doing. ie: She will need to make a business plan for herself which will encompass a great many aspects of how she will do business. How will she advertise? What will her image be like? What are her goals? She will spend time studying her career choice via the message boards and my wisdom. I will undoubtedly keep a few of my friends even after I leave and I will ask them to share their viewpoints. And most importantly I will teach her how to use her intuition and hone it. She will be able to draw men to her just by being and from those men she will be able to choose who amongst them will be most valuable to her. They will respect and cherish her for who she is.

The most important thing that I have to teach her IMHO is not how to handle the men, but how to handle the women. Many of the ladies war amongst one another and spread rumors... I guess they forget that men will do as they please and acting a fool does not aid their cause? Many of the ladies have been raped or taken advantage of at a young age. My child would have to learn to be quiet and listen to not only to the words a women speaks, but her actions. She will learn to surround herself with wise women and each will aid the other to success. But enough... I do not have any children and I do not forsee this happening.
------------------------

Humm Hugo... I have like... 900 and something posts there! LOL I have even applied to be a moderator!

So... what if someone is a social escort (dinner parties and stuff) and then afterwards she and he decide to have fun off the clock? Does that make her a prostitute? When a woman is paid at the beginning of the month reguardless of weather the gentleman visits her or not is she a prostitute? What if he pays all of her bills but not her? What if he just leaves her money on the table at the end because he feels like it? What if he buys a product and the lady shows him how to use it and they get a little "naughty?" What if... as I said before... a woman lies and says she is an escort when it is clear she is a prostitute? Does that make all escorts look bad? I mean... if that happened then Doctors would have been banned a long time ago! LOL Also, if you prostitute yourself once... are you always a prostitute?

Maybe I get all in a little tizzy about this because I hate it when people EXPECT me to be XYZ and I am not?

90% or the time I have spent more than a few hours getting to know who I am going to see. This means phone conversations, socials (yes... we gather! LOL), dinner on my own time where I can walk away easily, etc.

Do not tell me that because I say that I am an escort or a companion or a muse or a courtesan that I HAVE to provide you with ANYTHING more than a nice time. And a nice time means conversation not sex. All we should expect from one another is respect and kindness. Anything more and you are may leave the meeting quite unhappy.

And as per your "If the $5 street whore takes the john's $5 and then chooses not to have sex by running away is she now an escort?" I wouldn't call her a whore... I wouldn't call her at all. LOL

Oly.

P.S. I was pondering while cruising the rest of the site... why hasn't the word "whore" been *beeped*?

I wouldn't necessarily want my daughter to be an escort Mrs. Pigpen, but neither would I want my daughter to be a cashier at Wal-Mart or any other kind of minimum wage slave.

There seems to be this notion that escorts are little more than prostitutes with higher price tags. I would have to say this is what I thought too before I actually interviewed and met a few. Society and morality may disdain what they do for a living, but the notion that these are nothing more than a motley bunch of disease-ridden whores peddling their bodies because they didn't get enough love from daddy is purely and simply wrong.

Anyone looking to see how pervasive and wide-spread escort services are would just have to perform a Google search and you'll be busy for the next few days. I won't dispute the observation that escorts are prostitutes. But a far different kind of prostitute just as a dentist is not the same thing as a plastic surgeon. Many of the women I've interviewed concede they exchange sex for money, but they are a very different kind of prostitute than even a Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman.

It is a silly question to ask a prostitute why she does it...these are the highest-paid "professional" women in America.

--- Gail Sheehy, Hustling: Prostitution In our Wide-Open Society

“Seems to me that most working girls make pretty good money in comparison to lower class wage slaves, but they don’t even come close to making as much as upper class professionals. Let’s face it: There are a limited number of hours in the day, a limited number of clients a woman can see and the supply and demand curves dictates prices. So unless she is savvy enough and in a position to become a madam, the average working girl will make around $100K a year. But I suspect, if the truth were known, that most actually make around half that much because so much time off is required for illness, cyclical changes and burn out. No, not everyone is cut out to do sex work. It takes a special kind of person to do it, and a really special kind of person to do it well and enjoy it. Most women that try it don’t last a week. Some don’t even last a day.”

It's too radical a concept to expect most folks to accept sexworkers are ordinary people engaged in a extraordinary job, but for the most part a job is all it is. Brave young ladies such as Olympia Manet have made a conscious choice in what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. Whether or not the larger society approves, sexwork does exist and escorting is an option many women opt for over being a waitress or doing data entry for $7 bucks an hour.

The legal status of prostitution (which is illegal) and escorting (which is not) doesn't change the larger issue or whether or not this is a victimless crime, Hugo. Which one of us is the libertarian again?

Perhaps it would be easier for me to understand why people are so outraged by consenting adults engaged in private acts but so disinterested by corporations that pollute the environment, exploit workers, cheat their stockholders and corrupt our politicians. Those are the whores that scare me far more.

"It's legal for two men to go into a boxing ring and beat each other bloody for money, but it's not legal for me to go in and give someone sexual pleasure for money. What kind of sense does that make?"

Nighttimer, I understand your point. I can only speak for myself, but the reason I take issue here is not because I have anything against escorts. I think prostitution should be legal, and escorts free to choose what they want to do without fear of prosecution. I'm sure they're perfectly nice individuals and I have no distain for them whatsoever.

This thread was started on the premise that escort service providers should not be held legally accountable for what their employees do on the job. The guist of the argument was that escort agencies are no more providing prostitution service than any business which would provide clowns to make balloon animals at childrens parties. The clown might engage in sex on his own time, and the escort might also. The reality is, escorts are different in that respect than balloon animal making clowns and party magicians. They do regularly provide sexual service, for a fee, which is against the law. Therefore, anyone owning an escort service is taking a risk. They are taking a risk and might be prosecuted even if they are "nice, tax-paying people with children".

Nighttimer, let me quote you.



What two consenting adults do should be no business of the state. This is not that debate. You and me agree that escorts are prostitutes. My point is that anyone who runs an escort service knows that some, if not most, of his employees or sub-contractors are prostitutes. I think people are hung up on the word prostitute here. A prostitute is simply someone who engages in sex for money, I mean no negative connatation when I use the word. Seems to be a little class prejudice here with the poor gal who is forced by economic circumstances to work out of cheap motels being held in great disdain.

Not that many of you will care, but last time I stayed up late with my TV set on, I was bombarded with all these ads for Escorts. They kept telling me to pick up the phone and call them! So I am thinking hey why not they would provide an interesting conversation right? Well I suppose it would be more believable if they were not wearing really skimpy outfits and swaying their buttocks every chance they had. Let’s see puckered lips…seductive gestures…Sure looked like phone sex to me. The red head was rather stunning.

Escorts are marketed by many as a higher paid prostitute. We can argue about if they really are and so forth, but I think realistically when the two words are used a large percentage of people think they are the same thing. They certainly are marketed to be the same.

Also please do not make me find links that prove this case. I am not sure my eyes are prepared for the rest of what I might see on the net.

There is no question that there are some who use escorting services for a casual date. Good conversation and a lot of fun. Many such services are now starting to distinguish themselves from escort services because of the sexual implication given to escort services. There are plenty of TV ads and now internet adds promoting such a thing.

...I don't know of any escorts who advertise on TV ... I think they were just trying to get you to buy really expensive phone sex. lol (And I bet that red head was just an actress and not the girl you might actually get ahold of. )

Now... let me behave and stay on topic...

Why is it o.k. to humiliate only the women? (Been done do did discussed.)
Whose business is it if two consenting adults have sex in private? No ones.
And of course, a discussion of the case presented by Jazzy in Michigan...

I haven't really heard much about this case since I am in Texas. Land of the restraunts and pretty women. But another case to study would be "Operation Flea Collar." It deals with the TBD bust which seemed to only involve women being taken down. TBD is still around and better than ever (looks wise) actually.

Can we discuss that case here too? (as relivant to the topic of course)

Oly.

Who cares really?

I believe in freedom. We aren't talking about injuring people. Why should the law be involved?

PS:

I have no interest in prostitution at all. I just don't see why there should be persecution of people who are interested in it, as long as people behave with simple discretion.