Thanks for the morning laugh, Savage!

Should prostitution be legal? Should government money be spent helping those struggling with addiction, poor educational opportunities, childhood abuse and the other factors blighting a life into this sordid means of earning a living? Should enforcement dollars be spent on underage or forced prostitution? Maybe. But when this young man chose a criminal means of livelihood, and now, that isn't where we are. And he chose it anyway.

Hey anonymous? Your "business" is illegal. That means that courts and law enforcement and the legal codes aren't going to help you. On the contrary, you face arrest and prosecution every time you sell sex. You might of thought of that before building your career on the basis of criminal behavior. You know, rather than now whining about the lack of legal protection from arrest afforded criminals.

Oh, and two things. First, you better figure out an alternative income stream. Like pro sports the career length of a hooker isn't noted dor length. And if you stop blaming everyone and everything but your choices for where you ended up (the socialist claptrap scattered through your diatribe was particularly funny, kid) you might find legal work pays too. Get some counselling, get some education or technical training, work hard and live within the law- and quit whining- and you'll be surprised how well you do.

I KNEW I'd find you here!

Seattleblues has won his battle with the pod people! Let us all rejoice.

Son of the return of... Seattleblues! Much as I'm tempted to engage you directly, SB, I'm not going to take the bait beyond this paragraph. You often start out sounding borderline reasonable and civil like this, then, inevitably, within a few exchanges comes the uncalled-for mockery, the references to Dan as "Danny", the scattershot and pointless insults, the refusal to stay on-topic, and so on. I've got your M.O., SB. Go away.

Now as for the article - 'anonymous' makes good points. One thing he doesn't say (perhaps it goes without saying) is that the very oppression and hassling Rentboy and sites like it are encountering are part and parcel of the sexual repression in society generally - and therefore what ultimately drives the price of escort work like his up. If sex work, and advertising for it, became 'normalized' and relatively stigma-free, rates like $200 an hour might become a thing of the past as more people felt it was okay to enter the profession (for whatever duration).

Hey it's against that law. All we need to know. There are no laws out there that constitute outrageous overreach on the part of puritanical demagogues and that have no place in an alleged free society. All laws are wise and just because they are, well, laws.

Nobody is arguing that prostitution is not illegal in the state of New York. They are calling into question why authorities, after many years of benign neglect, are now going after the prostitution business model that has the least harms associated with it.
- Men hiring men: no sexist exploitation
- Pimpless prostitutes setting their own terms, their own schedule, with the ability to be picky about their clients
- No trafficking, everybody is a consenting adult
- No streetwalking (nobody with delicately prudish sensibilities will have to confront the fact that some people are willing to pay for sex and others are willing to offer the service)
- Sites like Rentboy have reputation systems built in that allow for accountability of both clients and sex workers

Prostitution is a victimless crime and should not be a crime at all. Prosecuting prostitutes, and the businessmen who enable them to work more fairly and more safely, is unjust.

@5 - Mr. Mehlman - those two things aren't mutually exclusive. The act(s) of cops (or U.S. Attorney offices, etc.) busting Rentboy, informal brothel arrangements and the like can be accurately characterized as "state violence" or "political scavenging" at the same time that they are inarguably law enforcement. What you're saying seems to suggest rather limited and circular reasoning. The whole point of the article is that the author disagrees with these laws, and makes the commonsense argument that they do not have to be enforced with this kind of thoroughness or intensity. If we all just relaxed about these sexual-morality laws long enough, their counterproductivity might become apparent to everyone and they would stand a better chance of getting repealed. Makes sense to me.

Oh my what a surprise our little Subbie is all hot and excited over sex workers. Next we'll find out that water is wet.

@6

Ah I see. Confused how this works, are you?

See, if Rentboy's poster child here and you had taken Civics you'd understand it. Well, maybe.

In our country we can try and remedy laws we dislike. Legislation can alter them. Court challenges can nullify them.

We can agitate for the former with our elected representatives. In my state citizens can initiate the legislative process with enough voter signatures. On some occasions mass civil disobedience have helped force legal change. (Though, read the book first. Thoreau explicitly said if your fellow citizens disagree with you, you're oblidged to accept the legal and social consequences.)

That didn't work? Well, take it to the courts. An impartial judge or panel of them will rule on your complaints based on centuries of precedent and the legal theories underpinning our legal structure.

But Rentboy's poster child can't just break the law and than whine about how unfaaaaiiiiirrrr it is when the consequences of his choice come back to him.

SB said, "[I]f your fellow citizens disagree with you, you're oblidged (sic) to accept the legal and social consequences."

I agree. Do you?

@7

Gee! It must be a conspiracy against gay men! I mean, a prominent site thumbs its' nose at the law over a course of years and rakes in millions in unlawful profits- and gets busted? Couldn't just be a prosecutor tired of flamboyant scofflaws setting an example!

This prosecution may be a bad idea. Prosecuting of age willing prostitution may be a bad idea.

But then so is habitually breaking the damn law.

@10 Ah yes, thanks for the civics lesson. Now did you lobby the legislature regarding anti-discrimination laws or did you just go ahead and violate them by evicting a lesbian couple because you disagree with the anti-discrimination laws?

Help me out here as I'm having a hard time grasping this: you are a great champion of liberty, a strong, rational (snicker) voice for getting government off people's backs. Now can we think of a more obvious example of government overreaching into people's private lives, into their private financial transactions, than laws against prostitution? Just wondering how you are able to reconcile your great passion for liberty with your even greater passion for policing people's sexual activities. Seems possible that liberty pretty much does not mean squat if it doesn't mean first and foremost liberty to do as you please with your own body. No?

@14

Try reading lessons.

First, it's my property. The lease expired. I didn't renew it. What law was broken again?

Second, I've repeatedly written that criminalization of prostitution may be a bad idea. In my opinion it is. I don't like it prostitution either for the buyer or seller. But I think pot smells bad and messes up the mind and still voted for its' legalisation. In both cases where consenting adults are involved it shouldn't be a legal issue.

Finally, whatever the law should be, at the moment prostitution is not legal where Rentboy was active. To break the law as civil disobedience is risky. If you're fellow citizens don't agree with you, the legal consequences still apply. But to break it necause you really want to, and then complain about the consequences is just stupid. It isn't brave. It isn't noble. It's stupid and childish.

Careful now Subbie you keep this up and Venomlash is going show up with a very long post containing many links throwing your hypocrisy in your face. At which point you'll slink back into your hole like you always do. So why don't you save us all a little time and just slink away now.

@16 Our founding fathers spent a surprising amount of time in brothels. Drank a lot too.

Pathetic. Should prostitution be legal and regulated? Yes. Prohibition of consensual adult behavior is pointless. Is it still pathetic that in the richest country in the world your only option is taking it in the ass for money? Also yes. Learn to type, program or install electrical wiring.

@13 I'm not a bit surprised to see you twisting my words in order to focus on the least important part of what I wrote while ignoring everything else.

@15,

What of your repeated assertions that you'll not comport to the mandates of the Affordable Care Act?

Dan: In case you randomly drive by here in the comments...Out of curiosity, why did the Stranger stop running escort ads?

@16 - Rentboy operated without any such action by the US attorney or any other agency for 18 years. How much "governmental authority" or "rule of law" was "undermined" during that time, besides the specific authority to... prosecute Rentboy?

I agree there is such a thing as a general social respect for the law, and it is possible for that respect to be generally undermined. Bribery, for example, is an incredibly corrosive influence. But I don't think that letting the occasional irrational or counterproductive law go un- or under-enforced poses a serious threat to our democracy. Better to repeal a bad law altogether, of course. But letting a law lie fallow can be a kind of moral placeholder until repeal happens.

If the fucking department of homeland security has so much time on it's hands ya think they might have spent some of it on the domestic terrorists who assassinate doctors and blow
up clinics, rather than concentrating on consentual blow jobs.

@27

One doctor was murdered, not multiple assasinated. Quite a while ago too. A guy who murdered babies for a living deserves the protection of the law too, but a baby murderer really tries that principle.

And when was an infanticide clinic last blown up again?

As for what possible connection abortion and prostitution have. That's a mystery only you and @26 understand.

@28,

Here's you on the Affordable Care Act.

"And if no plan or purchase of something I don't need, don't want and which (very expensively) does me no earthly good at the point of unlawful federal force is my choice? Easy. I will not buy what I don't need to make halfwit socialist trash happy. I will pay not one damned dime in fines for assertion of my fundamental rights. There's nothing I can do about the theft of my money for EITC, food and housing assistance, and now subsidies for others to purchase health insurance. But principled resistance to this latest act of federal tyranny? That I can do. "

But that's a law you don't agree with, so you can feel free to ignore it?

@29

What's this Affordable Care Act of whicn you speak? You mean mein fuhrer Obama's tyrannical plan to extend federal authority beyond all Constitutional bounds, Obamacare?

Prostitution does manifest harm to buyer and seller. Moreover it's trade, which falls (in the case of an interstate website like Rentboy) under federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause. Unlike the purely intrastate transactions in my doctors office, which benefit the patient and are beyond federal authority.

My right not to engage in a form of commerce not in my interest? Absolute. And I won' t now and have not complied with the unconstitutional mandate to buy a financial tool I neither need nor want. Nor will I pay fines for asserting my basic citizen right to decide if I want to engage in commerce.

It's a piece of bullshit, this raid. We all see it, except for our old adversary, SB, then he is only the sand paper against which to smooth the ideas.
So. What are you guys going to do and how can we help you?

@17: YOU RANG?

@1: "Hey anonymous? Your 'business' is illegal."
Big talk coming from the guy who proudly claims to violate state anti-discrimination law in his business.

@10: And now you're talking about the democratic process. All this from the guy who insists that it is his God-given right to break laws that he personally disagrees with, believes he has greater authority than the SCOTUS, and refuses to recognize the sitting President.

@15: "First, it's my property. The lease expired. I didn't renew it. What law was broken again?"
You didn't just not renew it. You refused to renew it based on the tenants' sexual orientation. Which law was broken? Oh, just RCW 49.60.222, which states:

(1) It is an unfair practice for any person, whether acting for himself, herself, or another, because of sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, families with children status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability:

(a) To refuse to engage in a real estate transaction with a person;
...
(f) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling, to any person; or to a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, rented, or made available; or to any person associated with the person buying or renting;

(bolding mine)
I've quoted this law to you multiple times already. First you insisted that refusing to renew a lease is different from evicting someone, when it comes to anti-discrimination law. Then I showed you where in the law it explicitly made illegal the kind of action you took, and then you claimed the law doesn't apply to you because (I shit you not) YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S SUCH THING AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. And now you're back to playing ignorant again. What short memory you have!

@28: "One doctor was murdered, not multiple assasinated [sic]. Quite a while ago too."
Just one doctor? Since 1993, eight workers at abortion clinics, including four doctors, have been murdered by pro-life extremists. One of those murders, in 1998, was the last in a series of attacks perpetrated in New York State and Canada by one fanatical nutter who went around shooting doctors in their homes. And was 2009 really "[q]uite a while ago"? It's only six years and a bit since Dr. George Tiller was gunned down while serving as a church usher.
"And when was an infanticide clinic last blown up again?"
I know your feeble brain can't understand the difference between an embryo, a fetus, and an infant, but I'll humor you. When was the last time a pro-life extremist bombed an abortion clinic? LITERALLY TWO WEEKS AGO, one of those psychopaths tried to blow up a clinic in Wichita and had to be headed off by the bomb squad.
But go ahead and keep trying to pretend that your side isn't soaked in the blood of real live people, that there aren't those in your ranks who think that the fate of a mindless clump of cells is worth killing innocents over.

@30: "What's this Affordable Care Act of whicn [sic] you speak? You mean mein fuhrer [sic] Obama's tyrannical plan to extend federal authority beyond all Constitutional bounds, Obamacare?"
The ACA was suggested by President Obama, passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, upheld REPEATEDLY by the Supreme Court...and yet you still can't bring yourself to admit that it's legitimate legislation.
Hey, did you know? The polls show that more Americans approve of the ACA than disapprove of it. So now you think that YOUR OPINION should trump all three branches of our government along with the will of the people. You think that you should have more say than everyone else...and you're accusing President Obama of tyranny? Dude, look in a mirror and get a little perspective!

Something I seem to have missed if it showed up in the comments is that this is not a case of "prostitution is illegal and Rent.boy was bla bla bla". Rent.boy's been in business for years. So have a dozen sites doing precisely the same kind of thing for heterosexual escorts. Suddenly the Department of Homeland Security and the clueless New York public prosecutor (just finding out about slings, are you, lady? never heard of a twink before? yet you call yourself a Manhattanite?) go after Rent.boy, but they leave the dozen heterosexual sites up and running, doing exactly the same thing for a different orientation of client. What does this tell us? It certainly tells me something, and what it tells amounts to illegal discrimination in New York State and New York City.

@35 - Don't forget to remind him that the Affordable Care Act is based on Governor Romney's Healthcare For All plan in Massachusetts. In case he's too busy objecting to remember where it came from in the first place.

@33 LOL

Last link in #33 should lead here, in which Seattleblues says:
"Sexual orientations and gender identity don't exist. There are choices to behavior people make. But I no more need observe a law protecting imaginary people than I do one prohibiting bothering a dragons nest. If Washington chooses to make nonsense laws I'll politely ignore them as nonsense."
Yeah, good luck getting any judge or jury to believe THAT load of bullshit.

@39

Good enough, little fella. So where in the genetic map is the gay gene again, or the "transgender" one? Not 'I feel like' a nan though all the biogical evidence is otherwise. Not the stated desire for sex with the same gender. Not 'their brain is mapped more like a woman.' How about the smoking gun biologically forcing a guy or gal into perversion?

And while we're at it how about staying on the topic? You know, just for a change? I get it. You dislike me. It hurts so badly I'm unsure how I'll carry on, boy. But in case I can manage living in a world where an infantile know it all hypocrite who believes a lot of BS dislikes me how about engaging my actual points?

So- did Rentboy sell a legal good or service or not?

The poor victimized hooker Savage showcased here, did he break the law habitually for financial gain?

Is the government legally pursuing an interstate organization conspiring to engage in criminal behavior or not?
Seem to be fairly easy yes or no questions to me, boy. How about it?

@37

And? Bad law becomes good if one person I reluctantly voted for supported it?

Oh. I didn't know it works thay way.

@40: Not everything that is biologically fixed is genetically determined, you moron. Where's THE GENE for height? Or for handedness? Or for personality? Sure, there are genes that are known to contribute to those traits in some measure (particularly when it comes to height), but you can't point to any gene and say "THAT is the gene for such-and-such trait". And yet all those traits are quite determinate and are in no way subject to conscious choice!

This is because genetics and ontogeny are far more complex than your feeble mind can even begin to understand. I've spent YEARS OF MY LIFE studying this sort of thing and will spend MANY YEARS MORE (I'm actually beginning a serious research project on the ontogenic morphometrics of trilobites), and I right now have a fairly basic understanding of how this all works, which puts me leaps and bounds ahead of the laymen who have only a dim and fuzzy view of it all, and immeasurably far ahead from people like you who are not only ignorant, but determined to remain so. Now then, on to actual issues of the origin of sexual orientation:

As it turns out, some scientists have come up with evidence that sexual orientation in men is linked to one or more genes on the X chromosome, in a region called Xq28 (source, source). Other scientists aren't so sure (source, source), but there is evidence (however patchy and inconclusive) that in at least some cases, there may be a direct genetic link between male homosexuality and that male's genetic makeup.
Of course, the more interesting evidence is in regards to brain structure and how it relates to sexual orientation. Study after study confirms that the brains of homosexuals of both genders differ physically from the usual patterns in certain key areas*, that gay men's brains are (in certain respects) like those of straight women and lesbian women's brains like those of straight men**, and that the brains of transsexuals (while only recently studied in any great detail) have significant and analogous physiological differences from those of cissexuals†.

So, Seattleblues, read the sources AGAIN. I made a quick little search and found a few bits of primary literature to wave in your face. Here's what's going to happen now: you're going to abandon this thread and, the next time sexual orientation comes up, you'll claim ignorance and demand AGAIN that I show you the sources proving you wrong. You do this because you are a coward who cannot bring himself to admit that he might be wrong about some things, and would rather run from the facts than learn from them. You think you're better than that? Prove me wrong and read (or at least skim) those papers and tell me in this thread whether or not you still think that I'm wrong.


*Sources: 1, 2, 3.
†Sources: 1, 2, 3.
‡Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4.

@40: But as to staying on topic, YOU were the one who (in post #1!) appealed to the rule of law, denouncing others for alleged illegal business practices. I (along with rhizome and mikethehammer) accused you of hypocrisy, given your history of flouting laws that you don't personally agree with.

But sure, I'll humor you and answer your pointed questions:
1. Yes, until proven otherwise. Escorting isn't against the law.
2. Yes, by his own admission he worked as a prostitute.
3. Unclear. The fact that the investigation is led by the DHS raises issues of jurisdiction/propriety, as illegal prostitution in and of itself isn't a national security hazard.

But hey, why shouldn't they break laws that they don't like? You've advocated for it loads of times! If you were ideologically consistent, you'd be cheering them on in their bold defiance of a law they think is unjust!
In fact, I'll do you one better. You've attacked legislation YOU don't like by accusing it of being an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers. Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the right to ban prostitution?

Isn't Backpage the site that was selling sex with minors and kidnapped teens?

(citation hooks in #43 should be *, †, ‡)

*#42, gah

Don't know why you bother, Venomlash.
Once again, SB, how is how other people conduct their sex lives, any of your business?
Your only concern is keeping that blow up doll of yours, happy.

@47: Why do I bother? Because I am extremely Jewish (more or less) and therefore love to argue.
And as long as I'm here, hey Seattleblues, are you reading those primary source materials? Are you going to respond to them? Or are you going to fuck off as usual like the coward you are?

"Oh, just RCW 49.60.222" LOL - Venomlash - you are wasted, Wasted! on Texas.

@42

Right....

So the one set of 'scientists' who think they found the biological link to homosexual inclinations don't find consensus with their peers. No evidence there of anything.

And the rest are busily claiming that the brain is mapped for sexual perversity? Ever occur to them that this may have more to do with correlation than causation? Or that they have the causitive link backwards?

@50: NO, NO NO NO NO NO. Good God Almighty, how thick can you be?
One group of scientists found a GENETIC component to male homosexuality which is unsupported by other research, leaving the validity of that Xq28 connection in doubt. The NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL links to sexual orientation, on the other hand, are FUCKING CONCLUSIVE, you nitwit!

The brain is not "mapped for sexual perversity". There are certain parts of the brain, most prominently the hypothalamus, which are KNOWN to be involved in romantic attraction and sexual arousal. They take volunteers, put an EEG headset (or similar sensor) on them, and have them think of a loved one or look at pornography, and those certain parts of the brain LIGHT UP LIKE CHRISTMAS TREES. And you're telling me that the observed correlation--of atypical sexual preference to atypical brain structure in regions known to be associated with sexual desire--doesn't reflect a causative link? Buddy, you're stretching the bounds of plausibility here!
Or wait, you think that they've got the causality backwards, right? Atypical brain structure doesn't cause atypical sexual preference; CLEARLY having gay relationships makes your brain's structure change! Never mind the fact that the hypothalamus develops during gestation and early childhood and doesn't fucking change afterwards. According to you, people choose to be gay and this MAGICALLY changes major centers of their brains in a way that nothing else can, right?

The greater issue, of course, is not that you're making stupid arguments. The issue is that rather than accept the overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is fixed in human neurophysiology, you dismiss all the evidence laid before you. Without any evidence of your own, without any technical background in the field, and without any halfway-plausible rationale, you ignore all the evidence that disagrees with your opinions. You can't be convinced by facts because you'd rather deny the facts.
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. Against one who denies the principles there can be no debate. And so, because this is the only form of reasoning you're able to understand, I shall say this: I'm right because I know more than you, and I'm right and you're wrong because I say so. Look everyone, I speak Seattleblues's language!