Posted January 16, 2016 Didn't know that did you? I came across this tidbit while chasing some TRB threads. Check out this link to the relevant section of US Code. Pay particular attention to Quote (10) Sex trafficking The term "sex trafficking" means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. On May 29, 2015, Public Law 114-22 changed this definition, substituting "... obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of ..." for what was "... obtaining of ...". See Section 109 for the rationale. Perhaps our legal advisors can sort this out, but my interpretation is that any commercial sex act is now considered trafficking. Just making the call establishes guilt. It looks to me like our congress critters slide the knife in our backs and twisted. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 16, 2016 Note: Neither of these documents (22 USC 1702 or PLAW 144-22) contains the word 'consent'. Anywhere! Perhaps women aren't considered sufficiently independent, intelligent, whatever, to give consent. Or maybe it's an artifact of new Codes of Conduct so popular on America's college campuses where one practically needs a written contract before initiating sex. But even then that contract may become null & void on a whim or post-coital remorse. Yes, I understand that No means No, and that force is NEVER an option. But word should spread about a tease faster than the lessons of Denver Ladies. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 17, 2016 On January 16, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Bit Banger said: Didn't know that did you? I came across this tidbit while chasing some TRB threads. Check out this link to the relevant section of US Code. Pay particular attention to On May 29, 2015, Public Law 114-22 changed this definition, substituting "... obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of ..." for what was "... obtaining of ...". See Section 109 for the rationale. Perhaps our legal advisors can sort this out, but my interpretation is that any commercial sex act is now considered trafficking. Just making the call establishes guilt. It looks to me like our congress critters slide the knife in our backs and twisted. Thank you so much for keeping us informed. I wouldn't know where to find this information you posted. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 17, 2016 would this law include Transportation for Escorts 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, Nikki Holiday said: would this law include Transportation for Escorts I'm not a lawyer, but my layman's eyes say, "Yes." 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 18, 2016 I am not a trafficker, because I only pay for companionship! There is a difference you know! At least, that is what the ads say! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 18, 2016 That would be the SAVE Act and you can forward thank you notes to Elizabeth Warren. This made the news early last year and shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Twitter has time and again proven to be the best resource on the internet for provider related news. You can register with a throw away email address and use no personal information. You don't even have to actually tweet but it use it as a news feed of sorts. Those who are the most informed are usually providers and following providers across the country is a great way to stay current with what's going on in all areas.Also Google alerts is our friend. Plug in the key words and areas you want news from and you get alerts in your email. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 18, 2016 11 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said: That would be the SAVE Act and you can forward thank you notes to Elizabeth Warren. This made the news early last year and shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Twitter has time and again proven to be the best resource on the internet for provider related news. You can register with a throw away email address and use no personal information. You don't even have to actually tweet but it use it as a news feed of sorts. ... They needed to do something to support their inflated statistics (*). So they rewrite the definitions to match their conclusions. It's so much easier than acknowledging that the research is flawed. Need to get more $s to their friendly NGOs. I don't participate in Facebook or Twitter. I was not aware you could join Twitter anonymously. Good to know. (*) There were a number of posts several years ago by xyzzy. IDK if they can be found in the archives. There was also a series of WestWord articles on the subject. This is just one example. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 19, 2016 On 1/16/2016 at 10:33 AM, Bit Banger said: Didn't know that did you? I came across this tidbit while chasing some TRB threads. Check out this link to the relevant section of US Code. Pay particular attention to On May 29, 2015, Public Law 114-22 changed this definition, substituting "... obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of ..." for what was "... obtaining of ...". See Section 109 for the rationale. Perhaps our legal advisors can sort this out, but my interpretation is that any commercial sex act is now considered trafficking. Just making the call establishes guilt. It looks to me like our congress critters slide the knife in our backs and twisted. Of course all of us knew that. That's the reason we hire the beautiful women here to play a nice game of Scrabble and spend some time hanging out, talking and just enjoying the evening. Thanks to all the pretty ladies for your double word scores! Anyone want to have a movie night? Hit me up! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) On 1/18/2016 at 9:11 AM, Bit Banger said: They needed to do something to support their inflated statistics (*). So they rewrite the definitions to match their conclusions. It's so much easier than acknowledging that the research is flawed. Need to get more $s to their friendly NGOs. I don't participate in Facebook or Twitter. I was not aware you could join Twitter anonymously. Good to know. (*) There were a number of posts several years ago by xyzzy. IDK if they can be found in the archives. There was also a series of WestWord articles on the subject. This is just one example. You can participate anonymously on Facebook or Twitter, FB just requires a real name like you can't be Boo Boo Kitty Fuck but you can be Brian Williams, Kevin Smith, whatever seems like a real person. They don't verify it but if you do attach real info on FB it will stick. I obviously didn't join twitter using real info. Edited January 19, 2016 by Lucy Kitten 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
