Go Legit

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by jjchmiel78

Oh gee Jackie, you make the US seem like the worst place on the planet. Why do any of us still live here? Lets try to spin this then. What would be your ideal proposal to lawmakers to legalize it? The proposal should have an age restrictions whether 18 as a legal adult, 21 legal drinking age, etc
Some way to collect taxes and some sort of health concerns addressed. Afterall no change occurs unless if all we do is complain how it is or might be like.

Originally Posted by jjchmiel78

"a concept apparently completely lost on you and maybe a few others."

No need to get snippy! I didn't ask you about decriminalization. I understand that concept perfectly and you made your position on it abundantly clear in the earlier posts. I asked you what would be "your" ideal rules to make it legal. Your answer of none answers that question. Simple as that.

Yes, my answer of "none" does answer the question. I apologize, but I feel your question was answered before asked, I plainly said in multiple posts I don't support making it legal - therefore one could (might) easily extrapolate I have no "ideal rules to make it legal". I don't support legalization. I stated that prior to your passive aggressive-question, where you equate my feelings on the subject being discussed to America being a less than desirable country in which to reside (my comments making the US seem to be the worse place on the planet, wasn't that what you said?), which may have something to do with why you felt I was snippy in my reply. I've answered your question multiple times. I answered your inquiry before you made it in the first sentence of post three and in the second to last line of post 9, prior to you asking the question in post 10. A reasonable person would assume that I would not have such an opinion about something I do not support, so why ask initially? Since you asked me about legalization after I mentioned I was not in favor of legalization multiple times, and additionally asked me to detail a plan for something I was clearly do not support, many would say that your question was answered prior to it being asked, and also come to the opinion that you did not understand the difference between legalization and decriminalization.

I'll answer you directly, one last time, addressing both ways you have phrased your inquiry. I do not have any ideal rules to make prostitution legal, I do not support making it legal, I support decriminalization. I do not have an ideal proposal for any legislature to legalize prostitution as I do not support it's legalization.

Since you asked in the manner in which you did, forgive me please if it was not abundantly clear to me that you did understand the difference between legalization and decriminalization, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As for your mentioning taxes and health concerns - I pay taxes on every dollar I earn, I declare the income on my income tax return and I file multiple state returns. I provide a service (my time and conversation in exchange for a fee) which is not subject to sales tax. My health is my own personal business, I am a responsible adult proactive in my own care.

As to age: Those issues are already addressed by statute, specifically, each state has an age of majority established by statute and also have statutes addressing age of acquiescence as it relates to prostitution and penalties for prostitution with persons under a specific age. I do not support decriminalization of those statutes.

I believe that covers all of your specific concerns.

- Jackie

[spacejanitor]

Seriously...I was just thinking... a hard hat, some condoms, and some baby oil Just make it legal, put a flat tax on it and be done with it.....tooooooo utopian?

[Bigh1955]

Decriminalization - if an act isn't criminal, it's legal. Example, making porn used to be a criminal activity, once it was considered protected by "freedom of speech" it was decriminalized, and as Jackie points out, is now highly regulated. Making porn is legal, it's big business; it's taxed; and because of the nature of the business and the public's need to protect itself and the people engaging in the business, it's regulated.

Having said this, I recall that "escorting" is a legitimate business, although I seriously doubt those engaged in the business list it as their job on their 1040.

[jjchmiel78]

Originally Posted by spacejanitor

Seriously...I was just thinking... a hard hat, some condoms, and some baby oil Just make it legal, put a flat tax on it and be done with it.....tooooooo utopian?

Yep. Instead we must focus on all the negatives why it will not work. Like any of us have control or influence on the scale it would take to change the status quot. All any of us can do is vote for the politician we agree with and write them with our concerns or ideas. This applies to every law and regulation in place.

Now me personally I support the idea. I think it would be very beneficial to the client in particular. My ideals would be 18 as a minimum age. At 18 an individual can choose to fight for this country, be tried as an adult, choose to continue education etc. All the same reasons why I support lowering the drinking age. Keeping the taxing like it presently is with escorting. IRS will still do their job if they catch you buying a $100,000 car and only reporting $30,000 income. The additional tax and additional revenue would come from a licensing fee. There would be branch networked with the doctors kinda like the DMV. The provider getting monthly checkups would not only be paying the doctor but pay a license fee. I understand why providers resist the idea of it being legal, it would open their market to more competition and additional expenses by them.

Now Jackie to address your regulation fears. When a company breaks an OSHA regulation for example, most times it is a fine like it would be under decriminalization. Also while escorting is legal and what happens between two consenting adults behind closed doors is legal, you think a Judge or Jury would buy that if you were to be arrested? Now the services we as clients get now we would still be able to get, but we would be breaking regulations, not the law. I suppose you would like the Swedish approach? Perfectly 100% legal for you as a provider but completely against the law for the client.

Now Jackie to address your perception of me being passive aggressive. I'll admit text is harder to translate tone. The "Oh geez" and the absurdity of the statement of the US being the worst place on the planet was intended to lighten you up and get you in thinking in a different path. Attacking you was not my intention. My perception of you by reading your posts is that you are a stuck up self righteous B! Now I am sure those that have met you would disagree and stick up for you. I have never disagreed about your thoughts on the subject and never discredited your opinions. Now you saying decriminalization is lost on me any some others comes across as a direct attack on me and any one that might disagree with you on our intelligence. I may have taken it personal. I do not like being insulted or discredited and I felt both for asking you a question.

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by Bigh1955

Decriminalization - if an act isn't criminal, it's legal. Example, making porn used to be a criminal activity, once it was considered protected by "freedom of speech" it was decriminalized, and as Jackie points out, is now highly regulated. Making porn is legal, it's big business; it's taxed; and because of the nature of the business and the public's need to protect itself and the people engaging in the business, it's regulated.

Having said this, I recall that "escorting" is a legitimate business, although I seriously doubt those engaged in the business list it as their job on their 1040.

The adult film industry is truly only highly regulated because, in most every respect, the industry agreed to be regulated to avoid future litigation. It was more profitable to accept regulation and pump out film after film than to continue to be at odds with California. It has been the subject of various books and is an interesting read . . . Many of the "old-timers" in the industry, in retrospect, loathe the day California v Freeman was decided finally in favor of Freeman.

"Decriminalization - if an act isn't criminal, it's legal." - that isn't (usually) technically true. But I get what you're saying. The process of decriminalization is most usually performed by directive: the law is simply left on the books - the act is still criminal technically, it is just that it has been agreed not to be pursued with a criminal penalty and that a fine be offered to the offender in place of prosecution that could lead to incarceration or a record. Understandably, that isn't true decriminalization, but that is usually how it is accomplished, especially here in the US. So, the law stays on the books, but you never get prosecuted in a manner that would include incarceration or a criminal record as an option.

There are examples of formal decriminalization, specifically without regulation - and that is what I favor.

Kisses,

- Jackie

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by jjchmiel78

Now Jackie to address your regulation fears. When a company breaks an OSHA regulation for example, most times it is a fine like it would be under decriminalization.

No, if the issue was formally decriminalized but not regulated (by directive), the act would not fall under the purview of OSHA. Decriminalization doesn't ALWAYS subject the act to regulation. An act that remains a misdemeanor by statue but carries no jail time or reporting is not within the purview of OSHA.

Originally Posted by jjchmiel78

Now Jackie to address your perception of me being passive aggressive. I'll admit text is harder to translate tone. The "Oh geez" and the absurdity of the statement of the US being the worst place on the planet was intended to lighten you up and get you in thinking in a different path. Attacking you was not my intention. My perception of you by reading your posts is that you are a stuck up self righteous B! Now I am sure those that have met you would disagree and stick up for you. I have never disagreed about your thoughts on the subject and never discredited your opinions. Now you saying decriminalization is lost on me any some others comes across as a direct attack on me and any one that might disagree with you on our intelligence. I may have taken it personal. I do not like being insulted or discredited and I felt both for asking you a question.

I can occasionally come across as a self-righteous bitch, that's my prerogative as a woman - LMAO! There are instances where I mean to, obviously - and others where it is completely unintentional. This exchange has been admittedly a mixture of both. And, as has been discussed on this board many times, connotation is very difficult to convey. I apologize for not reading your words as intended, and I believe I have already conveyed to you why I took your comment in the manner in which I did, in a previous post; so no need to beat a dead horse, so to speak.

You are correct, however, I do believe all that have met me IRL would agree that I'm not as such - I've stated MANY times myself that I suffer from being misconstrued online because I share my opinions in a well educated manner many do not expect from the average "hooker". Also, I've never once excluded myself from suffering from the same difficulty in relating connotation properly online - something that burdens us all.

I have already apologized to you twice, prior to this posting. As that seems to leave you dissatisfied, once again, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

On a separate note, I believe, after reading the comments here, that the concept of decriminalization without regulation equating to legalization is not well understood.

We can decriminalize marijuana (and many jurisdictions have done so) but yet not tax the transaction nor subject the grower to any agriculture regulation specific to growing that product or the seller to penalty if they advertise , etc. - I apologize for not initially being more clear in stating that I support a form of decriminalization without regulation (of any kind). If that seems like I want my cake and I desire to eat it too, well, yes, in many ways it is - but heavy fines and other penalties that do not include incarceration or a criminal record would still be in place in the circumstance I outline. So there's no free lunch.

I believe, under the circumstance, that I will withdraw from the thread after this apology to insure no one feels that they would be ambushed by an educated, thinking professional if they were to make a comment. After all, ECCIE seems to run more smoothly when the roosters feel they rule the hen house - so, have at it guys! Enjoy!

- Jackie

[strawberrycar934]

Great responses, there was more discussion than expected.

All in all, I am a numbers guy and I see it as Nashluv does. It is merely supply and demand. The main disincentive to supply is the decriminalization of the activity. Decriminalize it and you increase supply. Increase supply, you decrease price.

What I can't say with certainty is whether the decreased price would absorb the increased costs associated with regulation. I favor regulation as I think that a safe hobby benefits the most people and would therefore create the best business atmosphere but that is only my opinion.

Thanks to all who replied.

[MsElena]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but lets say for sake of argument that the price does decrease. Do you honestly think that the HOT babes that you guys long for and pray for would fuck you or suck you for $50-100 and take a pay cut of at least half or more? Hell, I'll go a little further and say $150?

I'm taking a wild guess here in saying NO.

[guest101013-2]

I know from many of first hand experiences, when it was 90 cents for a euro I was buying the hottest pussy on the planet for $40 for 30 minutes. Now it's $65. 100% due to competition. When you have a brothel of over 100 women, the competition is fierce amongst the gals. Additionally, you have clubs competing against each other for the gals and the tricks. Plus, the girls have to pay the same entrance fee as the guys to get into the club. If they don't work, they end up empty handed and lose money from the non-refundable entrance fee. Some clubs tried to raise the fee and the guys fled in droves. Pure free market pussy economics. Also, the cost of living is at least double as compared to Omaha. For example, a Whopper meal was about $14 compared to $6 here. Plus, you never tip a gal. If you do, make sure not to tell anyone because they will run you out of the club. The last thing they want is some foreigner spoiling the economy.

[Guest022718]

Originally Posted by MsElena

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but lets say for sake of argument that the price does decrease. Do you honestly think that the HOT babes that you guys long for and pray for would fuck you or suck you for $50-100 and take a pay cut of at least half or more? Hell, I'll go a little further and say $150?

I'm taking a wild guess here in saying NO.

Originally Posted by nashluv69

I know from many of first hand experiences, when it was 90 cents for a euro I was buying the hottest pussy on the planet for $40 for 30 minutes. Now it's $65. 100% due to competition. When you have a brothel of over 100 women, the competition is fierce amongst the gals. Additionally, you have clubs competing against each other for the gals and the tricks. Plus, the girls have to pay the same entrance fee as the guys to get into the club. If they don't work, they end up empty handed and lose money from the non-refundable entrance fee. Some clubs tried to raise the fee and the guys fled in droves. Pure free market pussy economics. Also, the cost of living is at least double as compared to Omaha. For example, a Whopper meal was about $14 compared to $6 here. Plus, you never tip a gal. If you do, make sure not to tell anyone because they will run you out of the club. The last thing they want is some foreigner spoiling the economy.

I really don't want to get into whether rates are too high, too low, or just right. What the lady asks for, the lady gets. In fact, I tend to agree with Ms E.....under the current rules of the game. With the internet, it's probably easier for me to check her out than the other way around.......and there is a dollar value associated with that.

That being said, I am surprised at the ladies here who are interested in decriminalizing the escort business. The difference between the two positions taken above,,,,,is the law. When there is no longer any (or very little as in Europe) legal consequence associated with the business, the value of the "prohibited" product will drop as supply increases. This is especially true in a tight economy. Nevada brothels? An aberration due to the laws in the rest of the country.

[guest101013-2]

I'm not arguing or starting a debate about prices as to whether they are to high or to low. Just trying to point out that there is a world full of pussy buying opportunities. I've experienced many of the different venues and attempt to set the record straight about the places from my experiences. Right at this moment, I'm thinking it would be great being in Frankfurt right now. There are probably 20,000 providers available right now within 50 miles of the city at establishments, not including girls off the internet over there which by itself is another huge venue of opportunity. I've never internet shopped overseas for pussy because I am impressed enough with all the different brick and mortar establishments.