Alleged prospective sex buyers in this scheme first had to respond to a survey and provide information online, including their driver’s license photos, their employer information, credit card information, and they often paid a monthly fee to be part of this.”
Wait, what? (͡•_ ͡• )
That should make the prosecutors jobs much easier.
Criminals and criminals masquerading as religions love to get blackmail on their clientele/members, it’s probably the more lucrative part of their enterprise, and it keeps those members/clientele loyal, because who wants their nasty ass secrets leaked out or sold to their enemies?
I’m guessing it was that one P411 website or whatever. That site has been in the news in the past. It baffles me that people would willingly comply with such invasive identification requirements for something that’s illegal. I get the idea behind it is to try and prove that you’re not a cop/murdery type of criminal in order to protect the sex workers, but… yeah, lol.
deleted by creator
None of that’s illegal, aside from the card info it’s actually a lot of the things a trustworthy sex worker will be asking you for as a background check before agreeing to meet you.
Not really, because the people who made the survey are probably smart enough to not include anything about exchanging money for sex. Basically, there’s nothing illegal about filling out a survey about who you are and what are your likes or dislikes. There’s also nothing illegal for someone to pay another person for their time.
So no mention of exchanging money for sex and it’s incredibly hard to prosecute.
No idea if you’re right or not but that’s not what I meant. I meant they don’t have to hunt down the johns, the johns already provided all the possible info the prosecutors would need to find them.
I think what the person above was implying is that having your name on that list is not de-facto evidence of participation. I’m sure the DOJ has more than just that one piece of evidence if they’ve already made arrests, because sex workers in America are nothing if not extremely careful about how they conduct their business to avoid exposing themselves or their clients to law enforcement stings.
Hell, if they’re actually smart, they have red herrings in the list that muddies who is actually a client
How exactly does that help? It’s not like they are going to do stake outs on these guys. It’s not enough probable cause for any type of warrant or anything.
It would help support a case if you already had one, but as an entry point it’s all but completely useless, if not actually completely useless.
Which is why they won’t release the names, because doing so would open them up to lawsuits. All risk no reward.
Are Johns (and sex workers) even worth prosecuting? I think the DOJ is interested in a organized prostitution ring and it’s leaders, involved in conspiracy and money laundering, not a few dudes paying for (adult) sex.
I don’t think they’ll waste their time.
Why is sex work even illegal in the first place.
Selling is legal, fucking is legal, why isn’t selling fucking legal?
– George Carlin
Seas he also the fella that said “Getting paid for sex is illegal… UNLESS YOU RECORD IT!”
The underlying assumption is the same as in abortion: that women can’t be entrusted with agency over their own bodies.
Puritan values.
Old white men elected themselves under the guise of voting (gerrymandering who?) and are too embarrassed and confused to allow women the rights they have as humans. Isn’t democracy silly.
I’d say the diagram of “Why is sex work illegal” and “Why is abortion illegal” is almost a perfect circle.
It’s about contolling other peoples’ bodies and weakening the separation of church and state.
AFAIK, it’s not federally illegal, but mostly every state bans it. As how Nevada can have prostitution.
You’re correct, it is not federally illegal in the US. Most things aren’t. Murder isn’t, either. However, traveling across state lines with a prostitute has gotten people in trouble with the federal government before.
Sex work differs from most other type of work in one very significant way - it’s an industry in which capitalists cannot really control the means of production unless slavery (ie, a person can become the private property of another) is legalized and institutionalized. In other words, a sex worker - for the most part - is not as easily coerced into selling their labor to capitalists like most workers can be, and capitalists hate when people have a way to opt out of being hosts for their parasitism.
Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.
This is not to say that sex work is automatically a revolutionary, anti-capitalist or even “empowering” thing by itself - there are plenty of ways in which our socio-economic systems allows and enables de facto slavery without calling it slavery - but it certainly doesn’t fit into the neat class hierarchy that capitalists wants society to be trapped within.
Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.
cough, what? No, it reinforces those norms. Men in power get to have women at their beck and call.
This isn’t a capitalist thing. Just look at how profitable the sex industry is in Nevada.
It’s a “holier than thou” thing that we just haven’t been able to get rid of in our society.
As much as I like calling out greed for what it is, this simply isn’t one of those cases.
cough, what?
You read correctly the first time. It’s a lot more difficult to entrap sex workers in patriarchal hierarchies than a housewife (for instance)… this should not be too difficult to understand.
This isn’t a capitalist thing.
All sex work in the world today exists under a capitalist mode of production - as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as “publicly-funded” sex work… and that is unfortunate.
Yikes.
I disagree with this entire claim. Sex workers are notorious for “having a price” to do nearly anything. I would say they are more susceptible to doing disgusting shit for money. There’s a reason why there’s an ongoing joke about sex workers getting shit on during their trips to dubai.
Sex workers are notorious for “having a price” to do nearly anything.
And what do you think the rest of us do, eh Clyde? How many sex workers have to piss in bottles to make Jeff Bezos richer?
There’s a reason we don’t use the term “prostitute” any more - it’s got something to do with the fact that understanding how capitalism works very quickly makes it real clear who the real “prostitutes” are…
I think sex workers are pressured to get into progressively more disgusting shit because that’s what pays. The market is flooded at this point and the only thing you can do to stick out is either be famous or be willing to degrade yourself.
I think
You think?
And this expertise on sex work comes from where?
I’m expressing my opinion on a public forum. I hate how internet comments have become an eternal game of gotchas. I can be aware of a topic without participating in it.
Is your opinion an informed one? Or are you just regurgitating propaganda you assume to be your opinion?
woke af
What does woke even mean?
It means staying awake, staying aware and thinking, not sleepwalking through life.
Implies the use of critical thinking. No wonder they hate it.
I have an MSc from a top UK university, my dissertation topic was labour abuse and work-related harm for which I received a distinction. I’m no puritan, but genuine “sex work” (outside the internet) is overwhelmingly negative for the actual workers and very few enter the industry from a position of personal or economic empowerment. This is the case to a shocking degree, even where it’s decriminalised. I’m not against it, per se, but it confuses me when people are strongly for it. So yeah, stay woke.
I think most people who’ve actually thought about it would say either “sensitivity to and awareness of the plight of marginalized people” or the same but with “oversensitivity”, depending on which side of it you’re on.
deleted by creator
Goodness knows.
I’m assuming they’re arresting the sex workers and not the politicians and military officials?
Hopefully neither, and they’ll arrest the organizers/pimps/etc.
sex workers and clients should be the lowest priority.
3 individuals sounds like just the pimps.
They’d probably have to confirm identities to arrest those folks, and also prove they aren’t just getting name-dropped.
Just grabbing the pimps and workers is a lot easier and less case intense
deleted by creator
Decriminalize sex work
Legalize.
Both.
Except for Lady G.
Anybody remember that one piece about our servicemen being involved in trafficking women overseas about three years ago that was swept under the rug?
I only remember the rug as I’m supposed to.
Ah, yes, 4-star generals in Procurement retiring to gold-plated consulting gigs in the very companies from which they ordered $1000 paper clips and congressional members using insider info from some congressional comission or other they’re in for trading on their portfolios is all fine, it’s paying for sex that’s the real problem with holders of high level official positions in America.
The bribery potential of those officials violating the laws they’re publicly supporting is the problem.
True. Which is why it should be legalized and regulated. Very difficult to bribe someone with something they can just have whenever they want.
No such problem were paying for sex is legal.
Hoover amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians.
“It sure would be unfortunate if someone was to send pictures to the family, bosses and the media.”
The potential for being compromised and coerced into overlooking a few budget items is one path to this graft.
deleted by creator
Customers are not named in the affidavit, according to the agent, because
the investigation into their involvement is “active and ongoing.”these are the type of people who don’t get held accountable, ever.Accountable for what? Something that should be legal in the first place?
Do you also think marijuana users should be named and shamed?
Heyo, I’m a heavy smoker!
It should be legal but it’s not. Those are government officials with clearances which put up their Driver’s licenses and credit card information on an illegal site to bang hookers. That’s the issue.
The “name and shame” argument is also meaningless. Take marijuana for example. If you’re a government official who is actively pushing for legalization and it comes up that you actually consume it… ok? Big news, you’re putting your mouth where your money is. Nobody cares, there’s no “shame” in being “named”. The issue comes when people are publicly against marijuana/prostitution and then engage in it. Those are hypocrites and should be shamed.
Or, you know, they don’t have any evidence that a crime actually was committed. These people aren’t morons and know that unless they are caught exchanging money for sex they are off the hook. The fact that they have their name in this group is not even remotely enough to even charge someone with a crime, let alone get a conviction.
The client list will likely go in the same vault as Epstein’s. They’re all assets now.
They’re all assets now.
In the age of Trump, are those really assets anymore?
Seems like they’re moreso assets of a bygone era.
It does make one wonder who the real assets are.
I’m sure they’ll be arresting and charging the politicians any and revoking security clearances any moment now…
Why would they revoke their security clearance?
Doing illegal stuff provides leverage for others to blackmail you to do more illegal stuff, like disclose state secrets
In this day and age where nothing stays secret, how is it hard for elected officials not do stupid stuff like visiting brothels?
Where else are they going to get sex? From the woman they live with that is laughably called their wife?
Look at Ted Cruz and tell me that there is a woman on the planet earth who will allow him inside her without money being exchanged.
Because elected officials are above the law until someone decides to blackmail them.
Was it run by this lady?
Oh sure, blame the capitalist.
I’d blame the communist, but communism is just a red herring.
If the girls were sex trafficked I have a problem with this, if they were free to do as they please, then I have no issue with this.
Nothing in the article suggests it wasn’t consensual, but you never know
That is why the context matters.
Who would have thought it. A brothel in Watertown. Cambridge I can see. What’s next, strip clubs in Belmont, Mitt Romney’s home town?
I bet Rudy was there
He’ll be leaking black goo for sure
And this is illegal and newsworthy why?
