stevenkesslar

I just have what I think is a pretty simple legal question for you legal eagle type guys out there. I'm about 90 % sure I will vote for Elizabeth Warren for President in the CA Democratic primary. Is there a way I can do that and still vote for Chasten Buttigieg for First Lady? Chasten Buttigieg goes from opening act to fundraising star

Thanks Oz. Both for the compliment, and for pulling this thread back to what Adam obviously originally intended. I would like to make a whole bunch of additional comments, with the same forward-looking and hopeful spirit your post embodied. And sorry. I'll be very long-winded. You can't seriously discuss political strategy on decriminalizing prostitution in Trump-sized tweets. Realistically, there are two ways in which I can see something real happening. The bad news way would be if we all wake up tomorrow morning and DHS or DOJ or some other federal or state or local agency shut down Rentmen, or Daddy's, or this website. The good news way would be if Warren or Sanders or Harris (or maybe someone else, like Mayor Pete) were elected, and that created an opportunity to push legislation with a "friendly" President and Congress. I've read the article Adam posted repeatedly, plus many other recent ones. If you read what the Democratic Presidential candidates like Warren and Sanders and Harris actually said about decriminalization, I have my doubts about how serious they are. Which was, of course, Adam's initial point. And it is ironic. Because if there is anyone who should be open to decriminalizing prostitution, it is our current President. He seems to have a habit of hiring them (or at least hanging around with strippers and porn stars). And of hanging around with men who hired them or even helped traffick them, like Jeffrey Epstein. I'm not holding my breath on Trump getting on the side of women and children being trafficked. So to create any real political momentum, I think it means either something really bad has to happen, or we elect a Democrat and then use that as a springboard to propose legislation. Again, there are threads on Guy's right now based on really good WSJ reporting that indicate the problem of trafficking of prostitutes has not gone away. And websites have moved overseas where it is actually harder to do anything about it. The Feds are still basically flailing around. At best they are playing "whack a mole", and at worst they are doing stupid shit that everybody predicted - correctly - would make the real problems even harder to get a handle on. In my mind, it fits perfectly with Trump's "Wall" bullshit. Big talk, lots of flailing around, but no real solutions. To the degree that Trump has made progress, like by forcing women and kids seeking asylum to live in tents in Mexico, the principle boils down to this: let's take women and children whose lives are already unimaginably miserable, and try to figure out how to make their lives total hell. Let's turn the victims into the people we blame. Let's make them suffer. Maybe that sounds like a slam on Trump. And it is. But it's more than that. Timing and context matter. As Gay men, I think we are in a better position than we were even a few years ago. Because if you look at the big picture of what the federal government is doing to combat either prostitution or trafficking, it is not working. It is a fucking national nightmare. Assuming we are now past character attacks and on to a positive discussion of the issue, there's a couple things I avoided saying that I'd like to really stress. Had I used the language about "80 year olds" I think I would have been, and probably should have been, attacked. First, it's not true. I know Guy's website better than this one. But I doubt the average person reading this is 80 years old. Second, even if you are 80, who cares? Trump and his three leading opponents are all in their 70's. There was an ageist undertone to several posts above that implied (although, to be clear, didn't state) that older Gay men are over the hill geezers who have nothing better to do than sit around and look at pictures of hot young muscle guys, and maybe hire them if they feel up to it. That stereotype is bullshit, and I think everybody knows that. One of the reasons DHS fucked up on their first crack at taking down Rentboy is their complaint read like an attack on older Gay men as being sex perverts, who have nothing better to do with their time then smell the gym shoes and piss-infused jock straps of young guys. DHS did clean their act up after a lot of criticism. So by the time Jeffrey was dragged into court the focus had shifted to maybe a few Hungarian male escorts being trafficked, or maybe Rentboy doing lax age verification of Asian "boys". (I don't think any of the few allegations about trafficking or underage prostitutes made were ever actually proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Jeffrey folded because they took all his money, and the community did not really rally behind him.) So I will say it again. The reason I dragged Ollie and Eppie and community leaders like them into this discussion is that if we are ever actually going to try to do something, it is EXACTLY people like them that would need to get involved. Period. And we would need to intentionally create as many options as possible, both public (like in the media) and private (like in small meetings with Congressional staff) to do so. The people who come to the pool party, or who post both on this website or Guy's website, are EXACTLY the kind of people I would want walking into a room with me if I were going to meet with a US Senator or their staff. They are liberals, moderates, conservatives, Gay and out, closeted, retired school teachers, retired Republican state officials, retired millionaire tech investors. These are respected and respectable US citizens who can make a case about how nothing we do is criminal, or should be perceived in any way as criminal activity. So if the starting point of discussion is that we are going to magically conjure up the notion that everybody here is a "retired 80 year old", let's not bother. And if anyone truly believes that the work should be done by mythical stallions - you know, all the "young firebrands" with sharp brains and huge muscles and endless energy and, I daresay, extremely well hung penises - you should be reading the porn section, not the politics section. It's a fantasy. There is a corollary principle. When I actually was a hot young organizer in my 20's, an organizer friend of mine teased me by putting a Chinese fortune on my "in" box where dozens of people in our office could see it. The fortune read: "In youth and beauty, wisdom is rare." There is much truth to that. So now let me tell a specific story that makes a point. When Jeffrey got busted, by DHS, I looked up the members of the House and Senate oversight committees that regulated DHS. Maybe about half the House members were from big cities or urban areas where I could personally name either male escorts or clients, or both, who live in or near the district. It is a long shot to think we could walk into a meeting with a US House member or their staff and win by saying something like this: "What the hell is this about? The Gay community is outraged about this attack! The federal agency you have oversight over is taking down an innocent Gay man. They are exposing the financial records and past times of lots of Gay men, many of whom likely contribute to your campaigns. We understand the problem you are trying to solve, but you are only going to make it worse. What the hell was DHS thinking?" Like I said, it's a long shot. But I personally thought it was worth a try. And at least we would have had a history, where we could now actually say years later that the problem was not solved. It just shifted overseas, and it is actually is therefore marginally worse. One of the members of the House oversight committee at that time was Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who represented a suburban LA district. Her Orange County district actually was and is a hot bed for the trafficking of Latin American women. So I called up a male escort I know in LA who is active in the Sex Workers Organizing Project (SWOP). A few general points. I really respect the work SWOP has done in various communities, based on things I've read. And I understand that I don't know shit about actually organizing on this issue. I was a successful lobbyist at the federal and state level, and I've worked with many Members of Congress and their staff to get laws passed. But I can't say I know the ins and outs of this issue. Finally, to avoid getting attacked again, I won't name the escort I had this discussion with. But I will say if we want to be effective, these are exactly the kinds of debates we should be having - openly. I spent an hour on the phone with this escort. And after I got off the phone I just wanted to beat my head against the wall. The basic idea I heard was that meetings with someone like Rep. Sanchez are a waste of time. Or worse, it will just give them more reason to hate us. The cops and the politicians are against us, period. They won't listen. It is useless. I'll repeat what I already said. Maybe this guy is right. I've never actually tried it, although I would have been happy to try. I can say that when FOSTA/SESTA was happening there were a few other SWOP chapters in other states that were posting online reports about meetings with Members of Congress, basically saying things like: They want to hear from us. They are listening. If you care about this issue, go meet with them now. Here's something funny, given my alleged "turning on" Ollie and Eppie. You know who the first person I called was when I got off the phone with this sex worker? Epigonos! We both pride ourselves, hopefully not too naively, on being good political whores. So I think I said something like, "Can I just whine about a phone call I just had?" And his message to me was somewhere in the ballpark of: "What the hell did you expect? These people don't have a clue what they are doing." And he was too polite to say, "Really? You really think you're going to walk into Sanchez's office and they will listen to you?" I know he doesn't particularly admire her, either, for a different set of reasons. And, as I already said, he had made it clear that he had no personal desire to get involved. So if somebody reading this wants to say I am turning on Epigonos, go ahead. In fact, I called him because he is someone I view as a smart political whore, which is what I like to think I am. And if we have any hope of doing anything, these are exactly the types of discussions we need to have. Openly, and respectfully. As it turns out, I'm now in a better position to do something in Orange County than I was a few years ago. Last year I sent $100 a month all Fall to Rep. Levin, Rouda, and Cisneros. They are all House Democrats who won close elections for US House seats, and will be running for re-election in close races for 2020. So I could tell them I'm a male escort. But I'd be more likely to say something like this: "I'm a Gay man who gave to your campaign and will give in 2020. And some Gay men would like to come meet with the Rep or his staff to talk about an issue of great concern both to Gay men and to immigrant communities that are being horribly victimized." I think something in that ballpark would be a good start. Especially if half a dozen other male escorts and professional Gay men who hire escorts who live in the district (there are many to choose from) walked into such a meeting with me. My larger point is that for anything to work, I think it would likely have to involve something like two-thirds clients, one-third escorts or sex workers. Some of that has to do with age. Older clients would be able to talk about the fact that they are not sex perverts, and they are respected and decent Gays professionals. It would also matter that they are the kind of people who vote, and give money to political campaigns. And some of it also has to do with math. I will keep repeating that this is a lot like same sex marriage at its core: we have more power than we think we have. We are present, and could be organized, in almost every Congressional district in the US. And if you look at it that way, there are way more clients than escorts in those Congressional districts. Having a federal lobby day like Survivors of SESTA did in DC last year, where "three dozen" sex workers showed up, is not going to cut it. On the other hand, I'm quite sure we could organize private meetings with Members of Congress or their staff in three dozen Congressional districts. And, eventually, in 300 Congressional districts. If we really wanted to. If we had a President saying she or he was open to decriminalization and wanted to focus law enforcement on fighting sex and labor trafficking, that would help a lot, too. Just to really drive home this point, let me tell another story that will sound like bragging, about two meetings I had with a top aide of a leading Democrat in the California state legislature. The politician I am referring to is now the Mayor of a large city, and the aide I met with was himself a Gay man. The first meeting happened during a huge lobby day about a decade ago at the state capitol in Sacramento, when we were pushing to get a law passed to move the ball along on same sex marriage. So I'm in a large hearing room with maybe 50 people, and we were supposed to be meeting with our State Senator from San Francisco. There was a fuck up, and the guy who walked in the room was a top aide to a Democratic Senator from some other part of the state. Like I said, he's Gay. And he has a partner. So he is totally on our side. But everybody is confused because we're all just volunteers on a lobby day. And we thought we'd be meeting with our Gay Senator, not this dude. So there's just this awkward couple of minutes where nobody knows what's going on. So I stood up and took over and thanked the guy for his boss's leadership, and pivoted the discussion for the next 30 minutes or so to talking about what we can all do as individuals to really light a fire under this issue and move the people who are not in the room, and who are opposed to us. It was a good discussion. And maybe it is just my dementia, but I swear to God that I recall at one point the Gay Senator's aide referred to me as "the handsome and articulate young man." So I got a call from this guy about two months later. Which is a little weird, seeing as how he didn't know my name, and I hadn't given him my phone number. He was actually calling Steven Kesslar. He did use his real first name. And we talked enough that I figured out pretty quickly who he was. I figured if we got together he would likely recognize my face, and might feel uncomfortable. So I felt like I should tell him that I knew who he was, and we'd actually been at a meeting together recently. His reaction was completely nonplussed. We got together anyway, and had a good time. So to make the point obvious, here it is. If we actually tried to organize on this issue, and went and met with Members of Congress or their staff, we have no idea who these people really are. We do know that there may have been a very handsome and muscular Member of Congress who is Republican, and secretly Gay. (At least from the pictures of him shoving his hand down some guy's crotch at Coachella). We do know there was a Republican US Senator who got busted for coming on to guys in airport bathrooms. Gay men allege sexual contact with Senator Craig I look at this way. Even in a deep red state like Idaho, we have at least one older gentleman (he's 74 now) who could make a really good lobbyist for decriminalization. Putdowns of real closet queens aside, I can tell you this based on personal experience, both as a former lobbyist and male escort. We would meet lots and lots of friends, and make lots of allies along the way. Again, I think we have more power than we think we have. We have never won by hiding in the closet. I see no reason to feel we have to hide in the closet on this issue. I feel very comfortable in my own skin, whether I am a volunteer for a political cause or someone on one side or the other of the male escort "profession". You should, too. There is no reason to be ashamed, or afraid. There is another thing I will repeat, because it is very basic to this discussion and I think needs to be beaten to death. The thing that is most easily used against us is the idea that we are breaking the law, we are perverts, this is morally wrong, this is evil, we are up to no good - blah blah blah - or any variation of those themes. Part of what we have going for is is that all those stereotypes are just wrong. To paraphrase Lucky, most people are simply not inclined to look at an "80 year old" Gay man as a criminal mastermind, simply because he likes the companionship of a handsome young college student who spends a lot of time at the gym. I don't really know what message would work on this issue, because we have made zero effort as a community to test it. I know many of the best LGBTQ organizers in the country. I know what ended up working on same sex marriage could be summarized by The Economist this way: "Hearts, not heads." Appeals to principles of fairness or "basic rights" worked okay. But what ultimately worked better was appeals from the heart. Anybody who had a Gay son or a lesbian aunt could relate to the idea that we all just want to be able to fall in love and get married, Gay or straight. Heads and hearts: What victorious gay-marriage campaigners can teach others I'm just a dumb and unprincipled whore, so I may be wrong. But I at least have a theory of how we could win on this issue. Rule # 1 of community organizing is you always have to be prepared to fight David and Goliath battles. A more intellectual way of saying that is that you have to figure out how to use the power of the system against itself. Right now, I'd argue, Elizabeth and Bernie are giving master classes on what that means. Which is why in every poll their percentage of the vote combined far exceeds what Joe Biden is getting. It's going to come down to a vote for the system, versus those who want to change the system. And the people who want to shake up the system are winning, bigly. But that's a different post. In our case, the power of the system boils down to cops who bust men who hire prostitutes, and the Moral Marys who defend those cops. And certainly a lot of elected officials, some of whom are utter hypocrites - like our President, and Sen. Craig, and the always lovely and perpetually confused Rep. Shock. I think the bumper sticker for our fight goes like this: 1) Gay men are not the problem. 2) Gay men can and should use what we learned on same sex marriage to focus the country on the real and growing problem: the massive and inhumane victimization of innocent women and children. Every year, countless women and children are trafficked, forced into prostitution or labor, raped, beaten, and even murdered. Again, read the Senate floor debate on FOSTA/SESTA. It all came down to a heart wrenching story about an underage Black prostitute who was trafficked, raped, and murdered. Shutting down Rentboy and enacting FOSTA/SESTA did nothing to solve the real problem. Arguably, they actually made the problem worse, by driving websites overseas where they are harder to control under US law. I did enough homework to know that Rep. Sanchez was a strong advocate of women and kids in her former district who were being trafficked. My guess is that the US Reps in Orange County I helped elect feel a lot like she did about this issue. What do Gay men have to do with this? Number one, websites like this one do not contribute to this national nightmare. Number two, we know a thing or two about how to move people to focus on real problems that lead to real solutions. I could go on and on and on about how brave leaders like Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila knew what it would really take. And it was no coincidence that Paul was a mastermind organizer, and Sheila was a profoundly moral woman with a heart of gold. Their genius was to know that what they had to do was empower the women and kids as best they could. You help them rat out the evil men who are raping, abusing, and even killing them. You give them T-visas. You hook them up with law enforcement and social services. That is why Paul and Sheila's Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) was and still is the best piece of federal legislation to deal with both prostitution and trafficking of women and kids. What do Gay men have to do with this? Pretty much nothing. Except that we have a self interest in not having our websites and hobbies and reputations attacked. And whether we are 80 or 30, it actually turns out that we are really decent people, who make good organizers and good allies. Like I said, I don't have a clue. But if we ever choose to fight, I for one would have a hell of a lot of fun. And I think this is somewhere in the ballpark of how we could actually win.

You are more than welcome, @Lucky. You know me. Always trying to help out a friend. I checked with Elizabeth, and she is quite pleased to let you have the last word, too. She did say that if she does decide to move forward with the talk about decriminalizing prostitution, she would welcome a debate about that on this website, as well as other male escort websites. As opposed to focusing the discussion on a much more boring topic, which is what a horrible, selfish, unprincipled, wildly unpopular, unsuccessful, ugly, small-cocked, old, and tragically stupid male escort I was. Oh, and super long-winded. (I mean, I'm just going for honesty here, okay?) I'm with Elizabeth. Hopefully someday we can have a discussion about why or how to push for decriminalization. (And between us, guys, I'm gonna go with the idea that Elizabeth, who is 70, still counts as a young firebrand.)

I know you are doing your level best to drag this further into the gutter. So before somebody else steps in and says, "Hey guys, get a room. Or at least get an alley," how about if we just end it at that? The discussion about decriminalizing prostitution is going nowhere. To go back to the subject the OP started this thread about, you've proven my point, as far as I am concerned. Warren and Sanders voted for FOSTA/SESTA, as did every other Democratic member of Congress running for President. I see no particular reason to wish or hope they would be the champions of decriminalizing prostitution. More important, were they or anyone running for president to actually embrace such a position, that would raise this question: are any of us willing to "jump in the trenches with them" (my words) or be "activists" (your way of putting it)? It seems pretty clear the answer is NO. The history when this has come up over a period of years is pretty much: NO! Plenty of good people, including people I have built close friendships with and respect, are simply not willing to fight. You've now explicitly said you don't want to be an activist. Your answer is: NO! I actually don't hear anybody saying they want to be an activist. That's fine. I respect that people get to decide what they will fight for for themselves. If Sanders or Warren did announce tomorrow that they wanted to decriminalize prostitution, I'm saying loud and clear I am willing to jump in the trenches and fight with them. I would hope that this website and Guy's website would be a good place to organize such activism. Or, for that matter, if Rentmen was shut down next week, or Daddy or Oz were arrested next month, I would hope the same. You've now made it clear that your response will be to take out your verbal AK-47 and start firing it at the guys like me, who are willing to jump in the trenches and fight. Geez, thanks Lucky. Bernie and Elizabeth, if you are listening, my advice is you might want to give this one a pass. Focus on health care and corruption in politics instead, I'd say. In closing, and in a gesture of good faith and comity, I would like to show my warmth and affection for you, Lucky. I would like to award you a well deserved honor, given your reputation for cooperation and courage in our community. Please accept my nomination for you as the recipient of the 2019 Eric Swalwell "Pass The Torch" Award For Political Courage. In my view, this thread proves you have earned it.

I get it that for some reason you are extremely dedicated to taking a thread about decriminalizing prostitution - in which I have tied in efforts to defend Rentboy or turn around FOSTA/SESTA or protect Daddy's website or this website, as well - and turn it into a character attack on Steven Kesslar. Good for you, Lucky. You're not particularly good at this, Lucky. You can go check out the years-old threads on the Rentboy bust and the organizing and legal defense efforts on Daddy's when that was happening, and read some of the vicious personal attacks that were aimed at a whole bunch of clients and escorts that defended Jeffery and Rentboy. Some of them were really mean. So I get the idea. You don't engage the substance of the issue. You do turn it into a personal attack. That is what you are doing. I edited this out of my long-winded post above, but this is a good place to say it. One of the unsung heroes I admired in the Rentboy debacle was Kurtis Wolfe. I think he gave more to the Rentboy defense fund than anyone, including me. But he didn't try to organize anyone, or make a public case for Rentboy, as far as i know. He just gave. In retrospect, that was probably a really smart thing to do. Because he was probably smarter than me, as far as realizing that he'd just get attacked for wanting to help. There's a couple logical fallacies in your argument that I feel like I have to address. The less important one is that not every person here is 80 years old. And for that matter, last time I checked, people who are close to 80 are running for President. And I am retired, too, from escorting. Which means, like many people, I have more time to do things I care about. The only thing you said that I strongly agree with is that "not everyone is an activist." Bingo! Which is, yet again, the reason I dragged Ollie and Eppie into this. They are great guys But they are not activists. That is one of my basic points. In order to decriminalize prostitution or defend Rentboy or Rentmen or Daddy or Oz, people who hire escorts would have to decide whether they are willing to be activists - or, in my lexicon, to jump in the trenches and fight. You obviously are not the type. That is your call, and I respect it. But it is a legitimate matter for public discussion on a website like this, and on a thread like this. The fact is, as I stated already, the Rentboy shutdown and FOSTA/SESTA created huge amounts of concern among many clients and escorts. I'll repeat again. People were talking both publicly (on websites) and privately about whether websites like this or Daddy's would be shut down, or whether people like Oz and Daddy would end up in jail. Or even whether or how we could have pool parties or hire escorts, for that matter. Don't blame me for what happened, or attack me for the fact that I tried to do something. Or that I listened to the very large group of people voicing those concerns. I will say it again. If all those people spoke up - even in private - I think we have way more power than we think we have. But I respect that people have the right to speak for, and decide for, themselves. I gather you think these kinds of discussions are inappropriate. And that escorts should be seen, but not heard. We completely disagree. The more important logical fallacy is that you are saying you should be able to attack my character - as a person or friend, not an escort - all you want, and I should not be able to defend myself. You can attack me for being a disloyal money grubbing whore, but I can't defend myself by saying I was trying to be a loyal and empathetic friend. Even if we were talking about actual escort activity, nobody - Hooboy, Oz, or Daddy - agrees with that dumb idea. I never had anything other than about 90 glowing reviews as a paid escort. But when escorts got trashed, they always had the right to defend themselves. The thing is, though, your character attack on me wasn't about something I did as an escort. Perhaps you thought it was, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You accused me of "turning on" former clients, when I was in fact trying to organize and rally close friends around attacks on our community. Those are two completely different things. In your effort to paint me as a disloyal money grubbing whore who "turned on" Ollie and Eppie, by asking them to donate money to the legal defense of websites they looked at every day - or whatever else you think my crimes are - you failed to mention a few things. For example, you failed to mention that I hosted the party for several years - at their request. I was not paid to do so, and so of course I don't regard it as part of my paid escort activity. So you seem to want to argue Ollie and Eppie are these wonderful human beings who hosted or bought food or alcohol for pool parties, that I am turning on. And I am a disloyal money grubbing whore, because I hosted or bought food or alcohol for pool parties. Sorry, Lucky, but that dog don't hunt. I would not regard hosting a pool party and buying lots of tequila or serving margaritas as this awesome example of community service. Mostly, it was a hell of a lot of fun for Ollie, Eppie, and Kessie. I'll say it again. I wish all of you many, many more years of such fun. I think the fundraising I did for Daddy or Jeffrey was a better example of things I did to try to give back to the community or fight for my community. But your attack characterized Ollie and Eppie as these wonderful community servants, and me as a disloyal money grubbing whore. It is untrue, unfair, and mean. During the years this happened, the three of us we were peas in a pod, doing something we all really enjoyed that lots of people appreciated. And now you are trying to piss all over that. I could go into way more detail than this, but I see no reason to. When I stopped and thought back about what I did, and why I did it, it actually made me feel very good. So thanks for that, Lucky. But if you don't feel like I should have to talk about this, I completely agree. So stop mischaracterizing what I did and attacking me. Then I won't have to bring up facts to defend myself from your ignorance. I said earlier in this thread that I assumed your attack was based on ignorance. Maybe you thought Oliver was paying me to host the party. I don't know what you thought. I brought up the fact that he was sick and I invited him to stay at my house for a month and get well to defend myself from your claim that I am money grubbing escort turning on former clients. Again, that is untrue, unfair, and mean. After I informed you, you should have known better, and just dropped it. Apparently, you won't. So now I am more inclined to think this is not about your ignorance. This is simply about you being mean. This does not surprise me, Lucky. One of the two years I hosted the party, you appeared briefly at my house, as best as I recall. If memory serves, I approached you to welcome you to my house and the party, and maybe ask you if you wanted a drink. You did your grumble grumble grumble, bark bark bark thing. You made it clear you were there to pick up your partner, and you didn't want to be at a party to which Daddy has been invited. Perhaps you had noticed he was having a really good time. So you just sort of pissed in my pool a little (rhetorically, not literally), grumbled, barked, and left. I could go on about several more examples like this, where I felt like the victim of your grumbling and barking, that I did not really appreciate. If you keep attacking me, I will keep defending myself by doing so. If your goal was to deflect this thread from a serious discussion about how we might work together to decriminalize prostitution, or how we might even defend the kind of websites you claim to care about, you have succeeded Just like the guys who attacked any clients or escorts that donated to or defended Jeffrey and Rentboy. Congratulations. The threats are still quite real. I will repeat what I said above. There is an active thread on Daddy's website right now about how DHS and the Feds appear to be targeting other escort websites. A former client and friend who will be staying at my house next month (as a friend, not for money, so please don't attack me again for having good friends who used to be clients) made a very intelligent comment about how Rentmen has perhaps exposed themselves to risk by virtue of the "poor" job they do of checking on their advertisers. That's the kind of thing that got Rentboy in trouble. So as much as I very much hope that the waters stay very calm, me wishing that does not make it so. Sorry. I will thank you again, Lucky. Adam started a thread about an issue that I feel strongly about. He has made a series of well-intentioned comments about something that I obviously believe should be a matter of concern to this community. All you have done is come out with your ax swinging, to engage in personal attack and stop discussion. You've made it very clear to me that I have no interest in trying to organize with guys like you. So thank you for that.

Oops. Sorry. Me and my verbal diarrhea. I hadn't looked at Guy's website for several months. Obviously from the post above I just did, in regards to commenting on a thread relating to the 2020 pool party. After I hit the "post" button, I went back and looked again, and noticed a long thread based on A WSJ article about how DHS and the Feds appear to again be targeting certain escort websites based on trafficking concerns. I won't repeat the content of the WSJ article or the thread, since it's all over there. I will comment on it, since there's several points that are both sad and funny. 1. As predicted, the bad guys - or the alleged bad guys - just moved their websites overseas, to places like Cyprus. Why am I not surprised? Isn't this what everybody predicted? 2. Because of this and many others reasons, trafficking and horrible things have not stopped. They just shifted. Again, just like everybody predicted. I cited Paul and Sheila Wellstone's federal anti-trafficking law in the post above. If we ever want to deal seriously with trafficking as a nation, that so far has proven to be the best tool to do it. Meaning make it as easy as possible for the women and kids, mostly, who are being trafficked to fight the men who are trafficking, exploiting, raping, abusing, or killing them. Trump's policy is essentially to do the opposite: he has turned the women and kids who are being trafficked and exploited into the enemy. 3. It does not appear that any Gay websites are under the microscope, at least for now. But another one of my former client/current friends made a cogent comment about how Rentmen does a "poor job" verifying the identity of advertisers. This could ultimately expose them to concerns about trafficking, which is what DHS used to take Rentboy down.

A postscript. If anyone is actually reading any of this stuff. You can tell where people are at on this issue just by doing a word count of two different threads on two different websites. On this website, and on this post, you have a whole bunch of words. But they are mostly written by one person. Me. And, thanks, Adam. I've won every major David and Goliath fight I have ever fought - including against Enron, the American Bankers Association, Fannie Mae, and I don't know how many huge banks. And part of why the organizations and coalitions I was working with won is because I knew a little something about planning and organizing and teamwork. That said, no one else seems to be writing or thinking about this. Which, again, is fine. If you check at Guy's forum, there is already a post on the 2020 Palm Springs Pool Party. I did not literally do a word count. But I'm pretty sure there are more words posted on that thread than there are on this one. Except, on that thread, it's by a whole bunch of people who've been coming to the pool party for years, and who are already really excited about planning the 2020 version. Good for them. I'll repeat what I said above. I hope the waters stay calm for a very, very long time. Have fun guys. I actually had a long part two to my long ass post on decriminalization, believe it or not. As I said, I spent a few days updating myself on what has been happening recently on decriminalization. I knew a group called Survivors of SESTA formed, and was going to have a national lobby day last Summer. Around when that happened, I looked around to see if I could find any news reports about what happened. I couldn't. The last of the three articles I posted above, about the fact that ALL the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates in the US Senate and House supported FOSTA/SESTA, reported that the national lobby day was attended by "three dozen sex workers". I've both organized and attended lobby days at the federal and state level that drew in thousands of activists. If anyone has a question about why we're not winning on these issues relating to male escorts and websites like Rentboy, or even being taken seriously, we now have an answer. Three dozen sex workers? If 3000 escorts and their clients went and met with their Senators and Reps, that would be news. Three dozen sex workers just isn't. To really drive home the point, three dozen is less than the number of people who attend Oliver's pool party any year I've hosted it, helped organize it, or attended it. And by the way, I am happy to see it is being planned a year in advance. Here's another bitchy little secret that sort of undercuts Lucky's narrative about me. Eppie and I were the ones who pushed Oliver to announce it a year in advance, rather than months in advance. Ollie resisted a little, and then gave in. (As an escort, I knew he would. He is a bottom, of course.) Most people say the party keeps getting better, and better attended, every year. So it tells you something about what people are really interested in, and what they are willing to plan around. Pool parties? Yes. Decriminalization of prostitution? No. That is not a compliment or a criticism, just a statement of fact. My sense is that we'll revisit this issue if and when some website is shut down, or if and when some new and horrible law passes. Or maybe when somebody like President Warren or President Sanders proposes decriminalizing prostitution. But quite honestly, I'd worry about that. As far as I can tell, it is a fight very few of us want to think about, or prepare for. That leaves me personally in a happy position. I'm ready and eager to dive in - whether it's political activism, or just a warm pool.

So I take two things from that. You're a good guy, and you are not a big fan of Warren. So could I ask a really big favor? I've never lent anyone my penis, but I have been known to lend out my pinkie from time time. Could I borrow your pinkie? That way I can actually ask for two pinkie promises from Elizabeth. (I promise one of them will be to decriminalize prostitution, if she's elected.) I know. I know. It's very selfish of me. But since I have a reputation as a greedy whore, anyway, I figured I might as well use it to my advantage.

Thanks for posting that, Adam. That's a wonderful video. Since I'm being characteristically verbose on another thread, I'll try to be uncharacteristically brief here. Warren's message of unity and jumping in the trenches together actually fits nicely with the themes I was pushing on the other thread. I love that she even gives a shout out to how the LGBTQ community changed America. Part of what is working is she refuses to go negative. It's implicit rather than explicit in this video. But she didn't take Colbert's bait and go after Biden. The media has been going on and on about how there is going to be a showdown between Bernie and Elizabeth. The last debate they went on and on about how there was going to be a showdown between Elizabeth and Joe. She just keeps being positive and inspiring, and tells us how she wants to bring people together and lead. Castro, on the other hand, tanked after he attacked Biden. There's a big lesson there. She is winning the hearts of America. One selfie and one pinkie at a time. Elizabeth Warren's selfie with my daughter went viral because pinkie promises mean something

Thanks, Lucky and Adam. Sometimes I write to clarify things that have been stirring around in the back of my mind. Sometimes - like on this cluster of issues around decriminalization and federal attacks on rentboys - they've been stirring around for years. This thread definitely put me in writing mode. I spent the last few days reading dozens of articles to update what I know. And then I thought it through by just writing. So trigger warning: I'm going to go on and on and on. Maybe even somewhat rationally. (But I sure hope not viciously, or regrettably). If you don't like it, stop reading. Or feel happy, because you guys put me into this special mood. My intention in commenting on this thread was to try to get a read on whether there is any real interest from people who post on this website to actually do something about the decriminalization of prostitution. Bottom line: if there is, I haven't heard it yet. Like I said already, I spent years going around and around on variations of this with Daddy/Guy and a bunch of escorts who wanted to make a difference. As well as other people I was close to, like Oliver and Epigonos, and a whole cast of other characters. That included a bunch of related things. Like helping raise money to defend Jeffrey after the Rentboy bust. Or asking friends and others in our community what, if anything, they cared to do to either fund or - if need be - defend Daddy/Guy, and his websites. Or simply whether or how to continue the pool party without Guy's website to support it, if in fact the Feds came swooping down on him, like they did on Rentboy and Jeffrey. Anyone reading this has every right to disagree with me, but I believe these are all appropriate and important things to talk about. In the long run, I think it is very clear that our interests as Gay men are served best when we think and talk openly about our challenges. Like the fact that we are Gay. Or we want to be able to get married. Or we want to be able to hire a male escort. And to me, the politics forum of an escort website seems like a very appropriate place to do that. I know for a fact that Daddy spent a lot of time thinking about this. Because I was one of the people who thought about it with him. I've only met Oz once, and he can speak for himself. But my guess is he might have given a thought or two to what would happen if his website were shut down, and he found himself in a jail cell. Of course, the idea that we could have a President Warren or Sanders who would actually even give lip service to decriminalizing prostitution is a very different thing than shutting down male escort websites. That moves the ball from defense to offense. After a period of years where everything has been mostly bad news, from the Rentboy attack to FOSTA/SESTA to Trump, I would love nothing more than to actually see a Democratic President move to decriminalize prostitution. Or even just start a serious debate about it. My reason for going on and on about the same sex marriage fight is this: I think we actually know a lot about winning as a community. We have more power than we think we have. What you added to the mix, Lucky, basically by attacking my character, was a second positive thing. Of course, I don't think your intention was to make me feel good, Lucky. While this is not what you said verbatim, I think your point is I'm the kind of guy who turns on my friends. Actually, it was worse than that. You didn't even use the word "friends". Again, this isn't what you said verbatim. But the basic idea I took away is you think I'm a greedy and/or unprincipled whore, and I turn on clients like Ollie and Eppie after they stop paying me money. (I assume this kind of alleged behavior is what mvan meant when he used the word "vicious".) Geez, thanks Lucky. And I mean that. One of the things I like about you is that, like me, you are willing to be blunt and just put it out there. Which was, in fact, my point in talking about Epigonos and Oliver and Daddy. I have no problem whatsoever talking about what I and others were and were not willing to do relating to attacks on our community, and the websites tied to it. I'm not being quite as blunt as you. But it seems like we agree that you should just put it out there. Beyond that, while your persona is grumble grumble grumble, bark bark bark, I have always viewed you as a passionate and principled fighter - again, I think like me. So I assume where you are coming from is that you care about Oliver and Epigonos (and perhaps even Daddy), as do I. If my female intuition is correct, good for you. That said, you are completely wrong in your character attack. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. And what you said is insulting. (For the record, I would not say "vicious" though. I think you're a sweetheart underneath the bark, Lucky - just like Bernie, for example). Your attack did lead me to take a mostly pleasant trip down memory lane, relating to Oliver and Epigonos and Daddy/Guy and the pool party. Some of this stuff I haven't thought about for years. And reflecting on about five years of events made me feel good about a series of decisions and actions I've taken over those years, relating to friends and community. Some of my memories are probably ones Ollie or Eppie would prefer I keep to myself. So I'll mention only a few things as I ramble, mostly to rebut your ignorance. I can also relate the whole cluster of issues I just named back to what Adam actually started this thread about: meaning what Warren and Sanders are up to right now. I love what Elizabeth and Bernie are doing. Here's how I tie it all together. The question and the challenge Warren and Sanders are both raising is this: what does it mean to be part of a community that gets in the trenches and fights together, for things that we care deeply about? And Lucky's post at least partially dovetails on that: what does it mean to be a friend who has your back, as opposed to turning on you? On the issues Warren and Sanders are prioritizing - like political corruption, universal health care, middle class stagnation, and corporate greed - a big part of their point is that we all need to jump into the trenches and fight. And millions of people are saying they will. That could mean donating money (I have), volunteering (I will), or just being one of the millions saying, "I am with you. I will vote for you. I believe you have my back, so I'll have your's." That's also, by the way, how we won same sex marraige. My analogy above was that millions of powerless ants like me jumped into the trenches together, and fought and won. That's how I think about this cluster of issues from the Rentboy bust to the decriminalization of prostitution, as well. I know I could have been much shorter and simpler and way more PC, Adam. I could have simply said, "Ain't it a shame. Warren and Sanders should make decriminalization a priority, and be talking it up more. Shame on them." But play that out. Here's a pleasant thought. What if either one of them actually wins? Or what if we have a President Pete? As a Gay President, he could say that Gay men should be able to both marry the man of their dreams, and hire the escort of their choice. Wouldn't that be nice? And then they can call in Daddy, our Fairy Godfather. And he will waive pixie dust and chant chants and - presto! - prostitution will be decriminalized. I just had an orgasm writing that. I hope some of you guys did, too. In truth, though, it is actually more of a wet dream. So dream on. Adam, I interacted a lot with you for years on Daddy's website. You're hardly a political neophyte. So I don't think it's a shocker to you or anyone that even if they wanted to be leaders on the issue of decriminalization, Warren or Sanders would need a huge number of followers behind them. Leaders are in fact defined as people who have followers. So who are the followers on this issue? Who will jump into the trenches and fight for decriminalization? You? Me? Anybody? Nobody? If the answer is nobody, sorry. We lose. So then let's just not even bother. And let's not expect Warren or Sanders to start a fight we can't win. That's exactly why I think it's relevant and appropriate to say on a website like this that in my experience, possible leaders - like Oliver and Epigonos, among others - made it very clear how they feel. Their answer was: not me. I won't fight. If that means the website and the party go away, I'm okay with it. It was fun while it lasted. And sorry, Lucky, saying this is not turning on them. I made a point of calling the question with them, to their faces, when the three of us were peas in a pod, planning and executing the pool party together for several years. I anticipated their decision, and respected it. I'm glad they were clear. And I posted about it on Daddy's at the time. I actually thought it was a really important discussion to have. And by the way, I was not alone. Especially after the Rentboy bust, there was lots of open talk about how maybe in a year there would no longer be a review website, or a Boytoy. Maybe this would be the final pool party. Maybe Daddy would be in jail. I get where the reactions were coming from. I also made a point to ask people I respected how they felt. And I listened. I used a phrase in an earlier post that was almost a verbatim quote. One of the guys who has come to the pool party for years said something like this: "At times like this, the best thing to do is keep your head down, and hope the storm passes." This was a conversation among a small group. And when he said that, everyone around him was shaking their head "yes" in agreement. The bumper sticker went like this, in my mind: "Be afraid. Be very afraid." There's a variation of this theme that I think is also important to talk about, that came from several Gay men who'd had more experience in political activism. Their point was that if we fight, sometimes it can backfire and leave us even worse off. One good example of that is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Bill Clinton definitely stirred up a hornet's nest. His intent (in his words) was to help Gays that got him elected. But it ended up, in the view of many Gay activists, doing more harm than good. We were not prepared for the reaction. And we (and Clinton) lost badly. So I think that's relevant to Warren and Sanders and a President Pete, too. Assume one of them will win in 2020, and pick a fight over decriminalization. Isn't now the time to be thinking about what it actually would take to win? Why start a fight that we can't win? I see several reasons to feel optimistic. We've come a very long way from Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The fact that we can even think about the idea of a President Pete means that maybe now you can have an openly Gay Commander In Chief, who wants to jump in the trenches and fight for his country. You can definitely now have an openly Gay man fall in love and marry the man of his dreams. And both can be highlighted on the cover of TIME, because one of them jumped in the trenches and is running for President. Here's one happy way to think about that, for those of you who watched the last Democratic debate. We're now at Please Ask, And I Will Tell. Mayor Pete was asked a question about resilience. And he hit a grand slam. He spoke emotionally and powerfully about fighting for his country. And through that experience coming to terms with the fact that it was time to come out and tell the world he wanted to marry the man of his dreams. Mayor Pete is a one man university on something we learned fighting for same sex marriage: open your heart, and you move people. I'll repeat what I said earlier. We didn't win the battle of the year, or decade, or century. We won the battle of millenia on same sex marriage. We overcame thousands of years of oppression and discrimination grounded in things like religion and culture. And we did it by getting in the trenches together and fighting. And we fought, fiendishly (or was it friendishly?), by opening our hearts. And by the way, these exact same concerns were all part of the same sex marriage fight. I was not present on the ground floor on same sex marriage. I didn't really start volunteering a lot until 2008, when we lost the California initiative. But even then, which was sort of late in the game, there were still many Gay men saying this would backfire, and make things worse for us. Well, sorry. They were wrong. Others say we only won because of the lawyers and the judges. They argue organizing didn't matter, because we won in court. But guess what? Some of the lawyers and judges themselves point out we only started to win most of those court battles when we reached the tipping point, when a majority of Americans actually supported same sex marriage. I'd actually turn that around. If there had been a massive uprising when Rentboy was attacked, and everybody came out of the woodwork and ranted and marched and said this is political oppression against Gay men, Jeffrey might never have gone to jail. Judges are politicians, too. You of course know that, Lucky. I think what we do, or don't do, matters a lot. On same sex marriage, we moved the country from massive opposition to overwhelming support. But it started out small, even weak. So my point was not and is not to "turn on" or beat up Oliver or Epigonos, or anyone that comes to any pool party or chimes in on any escort website. My point is that we ought to be clear about whether anyone is actually willing to do anything. If Oliver and Epigonos would rather jump in the pool than the political trenches, that's their call. I told that to them when they said, "Nope. Not me." As I said above, it's not like Daddy/Guy wasn't thinking about this, and didn't get the message, anyway. I'm quite sure he was thinking about it. I'll repeat what I said in a prior post. He talked a great line, at least one on one. He was not afraid of going to jail, and he'd fight like hell. But actions always speak louder than words. So I couldn't help noticing that immediately after the Rentboy bust, he started to take a whole set of defensive moves. The review website split from the forum, he changed his identity to Guy, and things just got way more conservative. I heard almost constant bitching and moaning for a long time about how the reviews got watered down so much that they were basically useless. And sorry, Guy, if you are reading this. I may not be the best organizer. But your instincts are anti-organizing. You like to keep things secretive and small, so you can control them. That's exactly the opposite of what organizing is. The thing all the best organizers I've ever worked with have tried to do is start a huge fire, and hope it rages out of control. You know you might win when it gets to be so big and hot that you can barely control it any longer. (See Trump election, 2016, for an excellent recent example.) Good organizer or not, though, I'm pretty sure Guy was smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall, anyway, and cover his ass. And I don't blame him. At the margin, I helped him do it. Being a good former lobbyist, I actually read the entire US Senate floor debate on FOSTA/SESTA. If you don't think talking to US Senators matters, take a few hours and read the debate. (Remarkably, this post is like a short Trump tweet by comparison.) Because it's as if the whole issue boiled down to one person: a female underage prostitute who had been trafficked and murdered. The dead girl's Mom was a very effective lobbyist. Her daughter was probably mentioned over dozens of pages, by Senator after Senator. She became the poster child for why we needed the law. So the fine print of Guy's website now has language that specifically says it is the kind of website FOSTA/SESTA was never intended to hurt. At least according to people like Sen. Schumer, who argued the bill would of course never hurt websites that support "harm reduction" communities, for example. So Guy's website is now all about "harm reduction". And if the worst case scenario ever happens, and he gets busted, Guy will hopefully just need help paying for a good lawyer. And that lawyer can go to court and argue, among other things, that a whole bunch of US Senators said FOSTA/SESTA was specifically never intended to hurt websites like his. At least according to the actual words of the Senators who voted for the bill. If all people want to do is keep their head down, that works for me. And I'll say it again. I don't blame Guy - or anyone - for focusing only on defense. Just make sure you can pay for a really good lawyer, Guy, in case you need one. And that leads to the most painful set of points I want to make about jumping in the trenches and fighting as a community on this issue. What the fuck was that whole Rentboy thing about? Other than the last few days, I haven't thought about it for a long time. And it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I never met Jeffrey, who ran Rentboy. I never advertised on Rentboy. And I never made a dime off his website. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for me to say, "Jeffrey who? And why do I care that he was busted? Really? Who gives a shit?" I called Daddy years ago when he posted one of his frequent pleas about his financial difficulties. I asked him if he wanted help, and he said yes, thanks. I ended up working with him to raise pledges that I think (or at least hope) added up to tens of thousands of dollars over a couple of years. The reason is simple: I felt like I owed him. The website Hooboy started, and that Daddy and Oz both sort of continued, was very, very good to me. I felt like I should do what I could to give back. I'm pretty sure Daddy was able to build a few years of relative financial stability and move from a small apartment to a larger one in part because of the efforts I initiated. If true, I feel good about that. And more importantly, any good that happened was because of the underlying generosity of many of us who hang out on his website, and pledged to give $25 or $50 or $100 or month, or whatever. Including Oliver and Epigonos. Epigonos, to his credit, had always made it a point to help out Daddy for years. So partly I was actually just following his lead. That's not the same as winning same sex marriage, or decriminalizing prostitution. But it is something to be proud of as a community. And it goes back to the same basic theme Warren and Sanders are pushing: what are we willing to get into the trenches and fight for together, as a community? And if part of your point about me, Lucky, is that I am a money grubbing whore who made lots of money whoring, I'll happily plead guilty to that. I'm proud of it. And I'm proud to talk with any US Senator or anyone in the world about it, and argue that's why we should decriminalize prostitution now: Leading male escort Steven Kesslar argues the Department of Homeland Security’s raid on Rentboy.com has made America more dangerous Daddy was my editor on that article. And I actually had a series of articles half written, and at least one commitment by a major Gay media outlet to publish them as long as I wrote them for free. But when it became clear the Rentboy thing was a political non-starter that was actually dividing us and freaking out friends and clients of mine, I figured: what's the point? That said, I think we have a boatload of great arguments just waiting to be made. I'd be quite happy to see us make them. Directly. Like to United States Senators. My college professor, friend, and mentor, Paul Wellstone, and his wife Sheila, were behind the most effective anti-trafficking law ever passed by the US Senate. So if somebody wants to call me a big old whore, I'll gladly take the bait and go off very eloquently to Chuck or Bernie or Elizabeth or whoever about how we need to follow Paul and Sheila's lead if we really want to help all the innocent women and children and laborers who are trafficked and abused and raped and even murdered every year. Ten Years Later: Remembering Senator Paul Wellstone When I took my trip down memory lane, I actually was amused with myself that I took what i did that far. If other people in the community were willing to fight, I would have gone much, much further. Blame it on Paul, who I learned to be a passionate and loud political whore from. My Rentboy experience actually started when I got a call from another escort, who said he was putting together a group of "respected" escorts (okay, so I guess there is such a thing) to raise money in Jeffrey's defense. Would I be willing to be part of it? To me the ask was Community Organizing 101. When your community is under attack, you defend it. Period. What I found very sad was the level of vitriol and venom leveled at anybody - including all of us escorts - who actually wanted to defend Jeffrey and Rentboy. One thing I thought about a lot at the time was this: why did so many people who spent so much time looking at and hiring off Rentboy turn their back on Jeffrey the minute he got busted? And we know one obvious answer, of course: fear. To their credit, Epigonos and Oliver were not two of those people. They both gave money to defend Jeffrey. But even that was awkward. I could tell they didn't really approve of the effort. But they were doing it because they were my friends. Eppie basically told me that. So good for him. But even with them, I had to wonder: why is this so difficult? I can't tell you the number of times I was over at Eppie's place and he called me over to his computer. He wanted me to look at the photos of some escort on Rentboy that he had hired, or wanted to hire. So it seemed like asking him to defend Rentboy should have been a no brainer. And I know that money was not an issue. Lots of you guys happily pay a small amount of change every month to subscribe to one kind of porn website or another. And it goes without saying that most are willing to pay for rentboys themselves. Or are in a position to contribute because they are rentboys. So why is this so hard? The NRA, for example, seems to have an easy time spending gazillions to defend the right to own AK-47's. I personally don't see how defending the hiring of rentboys is worse than defending the right of gun owners to use weapons of war to kill lots of people. I'm with Beto on this one. Hell yeah, I'd much rather take away the old men's AK-47s than the hot young muscle guys on the escort websites. I would actually love it if some sociologist could comment authoritatively on what that Rentboy thing was about. But, upon reflection, I personally think it boils down to identity politics. I know a certain conservative I won't name who used to call me all the time, to rant about how he had had quite enough of Black Lives Matter, and all this racism stuff, and trigger warnings, and the whole seeming cluster fuck of "identity politics". I look back at that now and realize there was a whole lot of that going around. And I should have figured out all that could, and in fact did, lead to a political party that fell in love with someone like Donald J. Trump. Well, guess what, folks? I think the identity politics formula works both ways. There's an identity politics to the people I know who hire escorts, too. They tend to be of a certain generation. Lots of them are Gay liberals. But many of them tend to be conservative. Many of them are still closeted. So they are mostly not the type that see themselves as Gay activists. They are not going to march through West Hollywood like I did to oppose the Rentboy bust, or speak to the media. For all these reasons and more, they actually would be the perfect people to go meet with their Congressperson to talk about the decriminalization of prostitution. They could present themselves as moderates, Republicans, former school teachers, former government officials. Again, it was exactly when people like that starting speaking up - both publicly and privately - about the importance of same sex marriage that we actually started to win. Will that happen? Probably not. I think it's an identity issue. That's a picture frame I think many older guys who hire escorts would have a very hard if not impossible time seeing themselves in. It is still a very weird thing. I suppose you could argue I turned on a client and friend by wanting him to have the back of a guy who ran an escort website he relied on constantly. But that seems wrong. I suppose you could argue guys who used Rentboy constantly to hire turned on me, as well as our community, by finding it so challenging to support an effort to stand up and fight for our community. But that seems wrong, too. Like I said, I'm still not sure I have words for what happened. But I don't really think anybody turned on anyone. I think it's more emotionally honest to say people felt like they were being pushed to be someone or something they just couldn't be. I definitely think we were unprepared. And I think it was clear that many people felt the whole thing was very painful. And very, very conflicted. And Adam, if you think we want a President Warren or a President Sanders or a President Pete to be advocating for the decriminalization of prostitution, for all the reasons I stated in the last paragraph, we ought to be thinking and talking about this right now. The 2020 Democratic Candidates Who Voted in Favor of SESTA/FOSTA We would absolutely need to talk about identity, meaning who we are and what we stand for. And we would need to talk about what we are willing to get in the trenches and fight for together - as friends, or as a community. If nobody really wants to do that, fine. But then we're right back to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Which is a perfectly fine policy, thank you, if all you want to do is discreetly hire a rentboy. It's not okay if your goal is to decriminalize prostitution. If we don't want to talk and organize, then I mostly agree with Eppie and Ollie. It is probably simply wiser not to fight at all. So unless I am missing something, it is also probably wiser to give Warren and Sanders a pass. Why would anyone want them to start a fight we can't possibly win, because we won't get in the trenches and fight with them? Better to just keep our heads down, and hope they leave us alone. Thank you again, guys. This has been enlightening. If there's going to be any more efforts on this issue, I concluded long ago that Guy's website is probably not a particularly good place to talk about it, or organize it. I'm getting the feeling that this is not the place, either. Mostly what spending a few days thinking about this reinforced for me is that I'd be perfectly happy to be in the trenches with President Warren or President Sanders or President Pete, fighting for a bunch of other things. Like the right of people who were unfortunate enough to get cancer (my brother died of it a few years ago) to continue to get health insurance. That sort of thing is why Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of The House again. I'll be happy to continue to work and give money for that. Maybe people who hire escorts just want to keep their head low and avoid any trouble. And maybe that actually means neither one of us have much of anything to offer right now, Lucky. Maybe nobody wants to be barked at, and nobody wants to fight or defend anything. Maybe they just want to jump in the pool, and have fun. Having hosted the pool party for several years, and having had a great long ride as a happy hooker, I can certainly appreciate that. And if that's true, have fun guys. Hopefully the waters will just stay calm for a very long time.

I'm glad you found something I wrote informative and interesting. There's about 20 years of context and friendships and relationships embedded in the post, which might not be clear. So I feel like I should correct what may be a wrong impression. I don't think any of this has to do with people who "met" online. Unless you mean somebody who read one of like 90 very favorable reviews of me and hired me for 15 years or so, during which time we became close friends. So, for example, one of the friends referred to here is someone I've travelled with throughout Mexico at least twice a year with for 15 years or so. Another friend is someone I have known for about as long, and invited to stay at my house for a month when he was recovering a serious illness. None of these are things I would even remotely describe as "something vicious or at a minimum, regrettable." Not to me, at least. It's more like 15 years of friendship, compassion, and empathy. Again, at least to me. This will be followed by a much longer post which might provide more context. There may be something regrettable going on here. But if that is so, it is between Lucky and me. And we didn't meet online, either. And my sense is whatever is going on between Lucky and me is based on ignorance, which appears to relatively recent, and relatively minor. Anyhoo, thanks for your thoughts and glad to know I said something interesting.

My my my. Aren't we in a surly mood today @Lucky? Lest we lose sight of it, the OP of this thread seemed to want to make the point that two progressive candidates running for President, Warren and Sanders, are "scared" and "just playing the trumpet themes". My point is that if the LGBTQ community wants decriminalization of sex work, we'll have to fight for decriminalization of sex work. Period. Anyone who thinks these things happen in a vacuum absent any activism or political pressure is entitled to their opinion, and their politics. But then we just completely disagree. I note that Adam has avoided every direct question I asked him about actual grassroots involvement of escorts, the men who hire them, or the LGBTQ community in general on the issue of decriminalization. His point, restated two or three times, I think, is to criticize Warren and Sanders as the "progressives" in the race for not getting way out in front on this issue. I'm not even sure what the logic of singling out Warren and Sanders is. I mean, I could construct an argument that as the only out LGBTQ man in the Presidential race, Mayor Pete is being "scared" for not saying anything in defense of Gay men hiring escorts. But I won't, since I thought the useful thing to talk about would be our own potential for grassroots activism. So I'll repeat what I said above to Adam: Lest anything I said be taken as critical of the LGBTQ community, let me also lift up and stress a point I made implicitly above. I've fought and won lots of David and Goliath battles in my life, as a paid community organizer. The fight I am proudest of, by far, is the same sex marriage fight. And on that one, I was a volunteer organizer doing things like training door knockers and doing phone banks and raising money. To really underscore the point, I'll say it this way. I was a fucking powerless ant. You could have stepped on me and crushed me, because I was nobody and nothing. And that was the beauty of it. The reason we won same sex marriage, I think, is you had millions of powerless ants and their ant allies running around pushing and nagging for change. Any Gay man who ever had a conversation about this with anyone who was undecided or opposed to same sex marriage should feel proud. Because you played a role. LGBTQ folks came out of the woodwork. And about half the volunteers I organized with were Straight people who had nothing to gain, but had Gay sons or lesbian aunts or just thought this was the right thing to do. My favorite quote of all on the issue was Jeb Bush, who at one point said something like this regarding same sex marriage: "Thousands of years of religion and culture are being swept away overnight, and I just don't get it." I thought that was exactly right. He just didn't get it. And it was not that we won the battle of the year, or the decade, or even the century. We changed millenia of oppression. And we mostly did it, I think, because millions of little powerless ants like me, all over the US and all over the world, were willing to push and nag and appeal to people to open their hearts. If anybody has taught the world how to create change in my lifetime, I would lift up the LGBTQ community first and foremost. We were relentless, positive, heartfelt, and successful. So my point is that we - Gay men - of all people should know what we have to do, if we want to create change. I can't tell you how proud I am to be part of the LGBTQ community that did this in my lifetime. If you want to interpret what I said about Oliver and Epigonos (or Daddy/Guy, I would add) as "turning on them," go ahead. You don't know what you are talking about. But you've done this before. It's the way you seem to like to bark. In fairness, there was the time Oliver and I took you to a medical appointment years ago, and you were dripping with sarcasm when you said something like, "Thank you, Steven, for taking time out of your busy day to help me." Your point, of course, was you wanted to make it clear that I was going along for the ride because I was, in fact, on the clock with Oliver. Oliver wanted to help you, and I was being paid. So if you want to bark, go ahead and bark. It's fair. I think it's also fair and factual to point out that they didn't want to lift a finger to do anything on issues like Rentboy, or FOSTA/SESTA, or decriminalization. They did make a few donations, because I pushed them to do so. One way I'm taking this is that Adam doesn't want to do anything, either, other than knock Warren and Sanders. Like I said, that's just fine. I know you have a history of activism, @Lucky, so you can speak for yourself regarding what, if anything, you might think or do on this issue. This is, of course, not a criticism of anything and everything Oliver or Epigonos (or I) have done relating to the pool party. (As you know, I hosted it for two years, at the request of Oliver and Epigonos, since Oliver almost died one year and could not host it himself. He rather enjoyed staying at my house for free for a month recovering, since his treatment required he spend most of that Winter at home. The month he stayed with me at my house as my guest was "off the clock", by the way. I viewed it as the type of thing loving friends do for friends, and Oliver was extremely grateful.) So, no, I'm not "turning on them". Oliver in particular has made the pool party a huge success. Good for him. I think I made it clear that his view (same with Epigonos) is that if politics were to get in the way of a website like Daddy's or this one, and that ended the websites and the party, that's okay with them. They won't organize, or fight. I think that is a fair decision for them to make, and a fair thing for me to say openly. I'm quite sure most people who attend the party feel the way Oliver does. I know that, because I've asked them. They'd rather see the websites and the party end than get involved in anything political. Which is, of course, their choice. One final thing I should say to put this in context. In the course of my escort career I ran into maybe about half a dozen escorts who were either organizers or political operatives - like who worked for a Mayor or Congressperson or something. And I've had clients that were political activists, or elected officials. So I know this makes me an odd duck, in that I have a perspective and a whole bunch of experience that I bring to discussions like this that other people just don't share. My natural instinct on an issue like this is to think, "Can we do something about this? What can we do? How have past efforts to do something worked out?" Frankly, most people's instincts on things like the Rentboy shutdown or FOSTA/SESTA or decriminalization is to keep their heads down, say and do nothing, and hope the storm passes. I concluded a while ago that Daddy's website wasn't really a place that wanted to have discussions like that. Thanks, @Lucky and @AdamSmith. You've now made it clear this isn't a website to have a discussion like that, either. My bad.

Okay. Thanks for requoting from the article, Adam. I'd read it already. So now I read it again. Actually, one way to read it is that Sanders and Warren are going out there further than 99 % of all other politicians. Meaning they are kinda sorta maybe signaling that they could kinda maybe sorta be for decriminalization. At some point. Maybe. That's way further out there than Trump, who mostly wants to avoid being viewed as a criminal for paying off Stormy Daniels. Is your point that they should be balls to the wall on this issue, and make it their priority? Whether the people they want to vote for them agree or not? And the other question, if you want to go there, is what about the LGBTQ community? You seem to be arguing, implicitly, that this is really the responsibility of Sanders or Warren, or elected officials in general - at least the ones who call themselves "progressives". You didn't say a word about us. I think most people would agree that social change begins with activist groups who push their priorities. Want civil rights? You need MLK, and lots of people behind him. Want same sex marriage? You need HRC and EQCA and lots of nagging homosexuals. Want Donald Trump? You need the Tea Party and racists and birtherism whack jobs crawling out of the woodwork. If your point is simply to slam Warren and Sanders, fine. Let's just leave it that. If your point is you want actual change and debate and legislation, where do you think that comes from? What role does the broader LGBTQ community, or escorts and the men who hire them, play in that effort?

The Republican Party Is Doomed This is a transformational moment. Do the Democrats understand how to take advantage of it? I think Stan Greenberg hit the ball out of the park with this article. At least I hope he did. We'll find out in a little more than a year whether what he writes about is a dream come true, or simply wishful thinking. For those of you not familiar with him, Greenberg is a center-left Clintonista pollster. Greenberg worked for Bill Clinton back in the 90's. Him and his wife, U.S Rep Rosa DeLauro (D-NJ) worked hard to help Hillary in 2016. Like helping her on debate messaging against Trump. And sponsoring private town halls with constituents to help Hillary think about how to address the real economic pain of working class voters without seeming like she was trashing Obama and the Obama economy. My point in saying this is that Greenberg is no lefty dreamer. But I think like many of us, after the frustration of 2016 and everything that has followed, it has changed his perspectives both on what is possible, and what is necessary. I agree with his fundamental premise: now is the time to think big, and fight for big changes. Thinking big may in fact turn out to be the only way to win and really take back power. The whole article is great, but here are the core ideas from the article that really resonate for me: There's been a whole bunch of articles in the last week saying CNN did Trump a favor with their climate change town hall. Because it got every Democrat - even Biden - on record as being against cheeseburgers, or cows, or airplanes, or whatever. That's of course an oversimplification. Which is what Trump is good at, and will use in 2020. And you can go down the list of every other major issue and suggest that the best way for the Democrats to win is to play it safe and propose nothing that sounds like real change , or that actually moves people. I just don't buy it. Greenberg is right that Democrats won back some Trump voters in 2018, and can win some back in 2020. If we want to do that, I think we have to go for it, just like Trump did in 2016. There is another great article Greenberg wrote a few weeks back which is more backward looking. I think it is a great companion piece to the more forward-looking and hopeful article above: The Tea Party–Trump Decade The Republican electoral sweep of 2010 set up a decade of anti-democratic destructiveness culminating in Donald Trump. But the tide’s about to turn. There's a lot of good history and analysis in this article, too. But the main idea I took out of it is that it sort of boils down to 1 million people. Which is to say that, starting in 2010, about 1 million Tea Party types dug in and started to take over. And it was not fundamentally that they wanted checks and balances and compromise. They wanted obstruction. They wanted to stop Obama in his tracks, and block everything him and the progressives around him were trying to do. My experience is that this happened organically, and gradually. I know this like I know what it feels like to fuck or cum, because for years my life was full of right-of-center clients who fit into this profile. And what took me a while to figure out is this paradox. To a one, they hated the Tea Party, which they viewed as a distortion of their Republican Party. And to a one, they gradually sounded more and more like the Tea Party, until they actually sounded worse than my stereotype of what Tea Partiers sound like. Examples: Obamacare is evil. Obama is evil. Obama is a traitor. We should have killed the pro-democracy protesters in Egypt. We should have bombed the fuck out of Syria, just like we bombed the fuck out of Iraq. Susan Collins is a RINO and people like her should be thrown out of the Republican Party. They are not really Republicans. It very gradually dawned on me that the sentiments of the hard core Tea Party types were taking over the hearts and minds of people that I thought I knew: lifelong "moderate" Republicans who spoke the language of compromise, bipartisanship, and comity. Trump's birtherism and racism wasn't really the cause of what happened in 2016. It was the symptom of something that had started much earlier. He gave voice to what had been going on since Obama was elected. I think Greenberg is giving voice to the reaction that has been building since 2016. And his math matters. What I took away is that it took about 1 million Tea Party types to fuck up US politics for a decade. If you read his whole article, that's actually overstating it. The true number may be closer to 250,000 people - predominantly old White men - who joined local Tea Party groups and marched and worked to get obstructionists elected. One Republican stated the goal was to make anything close to Obama sound like Ebola. In a nation as big as our's, 250,000 or even a million is not that many people. What these two articles helped clarify for me is that it's going to take maybe 1 million "progressives" to turn this around. And it's going to go way, way beyond one candidate, one election, or one issue. The articles reinforced where I've been headed anyway. I want to be one of those 1 million people. Because just like it took the Tea Party the better part of a decade to clog everything up and make government impossible, it's going to take 5 to 10 years - hopefully - to make government work again on the things people care about. Even if the Democrats take The White House, the House, and the Senate in 2020, there is no question that the Tea Party types will go back to resistance, obstruction, and destruction. It is what they know, and what they are good at. These days, my sense is that they don't even harbor the illusion that they are about compromise anymore. That is why Trump is their perfect spokesman. He just wants to crush anyone or anything that gets in his way. In my mind, it follows that the Democrat that wins will be the one that inspires, organizes, plans, and compromises. I don't think the Democrat that wins in 2020 will be the left wing mirror image of Trump. He or she will more likely be the opposite. We're seeing that already. There's the Bernie dreamers, the Elizabeth planners, the Mayor Pete thinkers. They are talking about big ideas, and real change. They are the ones, so far, who are lighting fires and capturing hearts and minds. They are thinking big. About half the challengers I gave money to in 2018 won. The largest groups were moderate Democratic types who swept California and Orange County in particular. So as much as I love AOC, the reality is she won't get past Square One unless she convinces people like Rep. Harley Rouda, a former Republican who ran and won as a Democrat in Orange County, to come along. The people that I gave to that lost? Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Amy McGrath - the pilot and warrior from Kentucky who is married to a Republican veteran, and will challenge Mitch McConnell in 2020. It remains to be seen whether moderate women in places like Kentucky, or Missouri, or North Dakota are ready to dump Trump and ditch Mitch. One Republican I know very well used to love insisting that Claire McCaskill was one of the most liberal members of the US Senate. In fact, she was one of the most conservative Democrats - not far apart from Susan Collins, who was one of the most liberal Republicans. I think what the Republicans have proven over the course of a decade is there is no room for moderation or compromise left in their party. But I don't hear that from the Democrats, at all. Not even from the AOC types. And certainly not from all the women from the suburbs who took the House in 2018. Like Greenberg, I'm hopeful. Worst case scenario is it's like 2004 all over again. Somebody who should lose will barely squeak by. But even if that's true, it will actually be like 2004 all over again. It will set up the Republicans to get clobbered to shit in 2022 and 2024, just like they did in 2006 and 2008. Right now, I want to be one of the one in a million who takes back power and fights for progressive change in 2020. How about you?

If you are looking for an oversimplistic way to think about this, @AdamSmith, here's my suggestion. Look in a mirror. The person you see is the person to blame for why Bernie or Elizabeth (not to mention just about any other politician) will NOT take a stand on decriminalization. I have a long history on this. When Rentboy was attacked, it amazed me how many people I knew very well that looked at Rentboy just about every single fucking day, but would not lift a finger or give a penny to actually support Jeffrey. There were plenty of decent arguments made about how Jeffrey fucked up and brought it upon himself by (fill in the blanks). But pot, meet kettle. These people making these arguments were people who hired escorts all the time, and looked at Rentboy as a daily ritual. And they are going to blame it on Rentboy for being Rentboy? Come on! Same thing with FOSTA/SESTA. Other than the most flaming lefty sex workers, nobody wanted to get involved. At one point I spoke with an escort who has a very solid record of sex work advocacy, and is also a really nice guy. I've marched with him against the Rentboy attack. I suggested we organize a very small group of articulate people and go meet with some of the members of the US House and Senate oversight committees which regulate DHS, which launched the raid against Rentboy. Several of those committee members represent areas (like LA) where there are lots of sex workers and folks who hire them. The basic question I had was: are they persuadable? Are they open to talking about this? This sex worker/activist's basic attitude was: why would you meet with elected officials? They are the enemy. All they will do is side with the cops. In fairness, I'd never tried such a thing. Although I spent a whole career successfully lobbying US Senators and Reps and state and local elected officials on all kinds of progressive issues. So this lefty sex worker - who strongly supports decriminalization - may have been 100 % right. But the point is that if the only people elected officials hear from is the cops and the Moral Marys, and maybe once in a while the most militant sex workers, who do you think they are going to believe? At one point when I was very involved in planning or hosting the Palm Springs pool party, I sat down with Oliver and Epigonos to discuss this. I knew very well that two mostly conservative closeted Republicans were not about to go march in protest, or even meet in private with their US Reps. My point was that if they ever shut down Daddy/Guy's website, you can kiss your pool party goodbye in a year or two. And their reaction was: so what? Other than having a party to let some escorts run around naked, we are not interested in doing a single fucking thing to advocate for our interests in this matter. Which was no surprise. Because people like Oliver and Epigonos were also not willing to do a single fucking thing to promote or support same sex marriage. As hard as that battle was, it was a very different issue, which ultimately yielded majority support. And it always enjoyed majority support and lots of activism among Gay men - at least as long as I was involved in door knocking and fundraising and activism on the issue. So why would anybody expect conservatives who happen to be closeted Gay men who hire escorts to lift a finger to help Rentboy, or decriminalize prostitution? Or even support same sex marriage? Come on! Daddy/Guy was absolutely no good on this issue. He talks a great game. He'll go to jail if need be, blah blah blah. Behind the scenes, I had to work hard to convince him that it really should be okay to post pictures of children on his website. And I don't mean child porn. I mean things like pictures of high school students at marches to end school shootings. Or a picture of a US Senator on the US Senate floor decrying gun violence, with a picture of a young elementary school boy who was killed in the Sandy Hook mass murder next to him. Daddy's point was that any picture of any minor could make him vulnerable to an attack by the Feds, since it could be portrayed as child pornography. Which is to say, he is a wimp. Come on! His basic impulse is to keep everything small and secretive, so he can control it. That works okay for maintaining his website, barely. It is toxic to the concepts of organizing and empowerment. The challenges go even deeper than that. One of my best friends and closest political associates during various periods of my life is a Straight woman who has a reputation as one of the best Gay rights organizers in the US. She is very close to the upper echelons of the US Gay mafia, who funded the same sex marraige (and other) initiatives. Several decades ago when I was a recently divorced community organizer, she was the first person in my organizing network I came out to as a Gay man. She instinctively hugged me, and basically said, "How wonderful!" When I transitioned into escorting and I moved to CA we lost touch completely. Then I started volunteering for EQCA in 2008, right after we lost the same sex marriage vote in CA. She was consulting with EQCA, so we ran into each other at some phone bank event and reignited both our friendship and started planning some local organizing strategies. So after a while I came out to her a second time - this time as a male escort. She was as polite as she could be. But it was as if I was telling her I was having an affair with her husband. It really did not go down well. Right or wrong, I had the sense that she could never really get her mind around the concept. And she is one of the most liberal, tolerant, and open-minded people I know. There is not a lot of polling about decriminalization of prostitution. So what I'm about to say may be wrong. But the polls I've seen suggest it's almost the opposite of support for same sex marriage. With that, the younger you are the more open-minded and tolerant you are. With prostitution, younger people - particularly younger women - are adamantly opposed. I've read a number of articles on prostitution (like where it is legal, in Europe for example) written by professional women journalists. While the articles were factual and objective, the bias still came out loud and clear. Again, the polling on this question is weak. But my sense is that young people, especially women, view prostitution as akin to slavery or rape. With both Rentboy and SESTA/FOSTA, the organizing attempts that were tried - like online petitions - simply went nowhere. Every successful organizing effort I ever led or worked on ultimately and organically took on a life of its own. That happened with same sex marriage. It even happened with Trump. With decriminalization, it has never happened. In theory, there is a solution to the problem. Whether you look at the small cadre of Gay men back in Harvey Milk's day that led the way, or the Tea Party people that resisted Obama and ultimately paved the way for Trump, my experience is that these things always start small, among a dedicated group of people who simply will not stop, and will not be crushed. That in itself does not ensure success. But it is a prerequisite to the possibility of success, I think. So all that is by way of saying, we should all look in the mirror. If somebody is going to lead the way and start the fire, it is going to be us. There is nobody else to do it. Certainly not Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. My money is on them for 2020. Just like Trump and Cruz ended up being the only two that mattered on the Republican side in 2016, it would not surprise me if 2020 comes down to Warren and Sanders on the Democratic side. They are lighting fires daily on all these majority issues - like universal health care, free college, a more humane immigration policy, a wealth tax, income inequality, climate change. While there are huge policy challenges on every one of those issues, there is overwhelming majority support for some type of substantial change. I think they both have a lot of balls, or courage, or leadership skills, or whatever word you want to use. (And they are not alone. I like Mayor Pete a lot, too.) But my point is expecting them to get way out in front on an issue that is probably wildly unpopular - probably especially with the young female activist types they are trying to inspire right now - is just not realistic. As a souvenir, I keep a flyer I got in my mailbox in 2008, right after Obama won and same sex marriage lost on the Fall CA ballot. It was put out by a Black evangelical group opposed to same sex marriage. It quotes Obama saying things that sound anti-same sex marriage. (Hillary and everybody else were pretty much against it in 2008 and earlier, too.) Later Obama argued that he did the right thing, and patiently waited for the American people to come along before he got out there and lit up the White House with the colors of the Gay flag. You could have a great debate about whether that is good leadership, or a piss poor rationalization. My point is, that is the way it works. If we want to move people like Warren and Sanders on decriminalizing prostitution, we are going to have to start by moving ourselves.

Despite U.S. Economic Success, Financial Anxiety Remains This Gallup data is an important companion piece to the post immediately above. There are two things in it I find fascinating. First, these days more than ever before people's perception of the economy is hugely partisan. And that is a real change from before. If you are a Republican, it tends to be the "best economy ever" - whether it actually is or not. If you are a Democrat, you see red lights flashing. And that's exactly the reverse of what it was under Obama, when Republicans thought the economy and our very Constitution were being destroyed day by day. The Gallup poll confirms that on every measure, there is a huge link between partisanship and perception of economy reality. Of the 27 % who say they have no economic concerns, 67 % approve of Trump. And 63 % of that group are Republicans. With the 49 % who who have one form or another of "immediate" cash flow concerns, it's exactly the opposite. Only 30 % of that group approve of Trump. And only 33 % percent of that group are Republican. So you do have to wonder. Are these people basing their view of their economic situation on whether they are a Democrat or Republican? Or are they a Democrat or Republican because of their view of their economic situation? Either way, these numbers explain why and how Trump can get kicked to the curb by Warren or somebody like her. And his race baiting and immigrant bashing won't help him - even though he'll sure try as hard as he can. If only 1 in 4 Americans say they have "no concerns" about things like cash flow or health care or long term financial security, there are HUGE cracks in Trump's support that are not measured by these top line economic numbers. We certainly learned that in the 2018 midterms. Some part of that was a referendum on Trump being a jerk, no doubt. But some part of it was about health care and all this economic anxiety that lies beneath Trump's "happy talk" and the race bashing. I think this is why both Warren and Sanders are both on to something, and it is working. And why ultimately if Biden's argument is lets just go back to 2008 or 2012, it ain't gonna work. And if Warren beats Sanders, I think this is why. Sanders, to his credit, is framing this in terms of what he's thought since Ronald Reagan was elected. Like Millennials, I give him a ton of credit for consistency and perseverance in sticking to a good set of core principles. But Warren is getting better and better in framing this in terms of what is happening right now. And why it is a result of the shitty leadership we have right now. So far, she's the only one doing that. Mayor Pete and Kamala Harris are saying great stuff, but to my ears it has not really been framed around emotional, gut level bumper stickers like Warren is doing - at least not yet.

The Coming Economic Crash — And How to Stop It By Elizabeth Warren I think Warren just took another big step forward to the nomination with this. Part of what makes it so powerful is that, as the link to a Politifact article points out, she got it more or less exactly right in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 when she warned about subprime and predatory lending. And how that would push us off the cliff. Which it did. If we are in recession by next November, it's a moot point. Trump's racism won't help him a bit. But I have to assume he's hoping that he can win by flogging a supposedly good economy, and then whip his base into a frenzy on racism. Including the part of his base that isn't doing so well, and who noticed that he didn't deliver on health care or manufacturing jobs. Warren more than anyone is the candidate that seems like she has thought it all through. And this answers the question: "What is your core motivation for running? What problem are you really trying to fix?" One of the themes that has reverberated for me all year so far among pundits I respect is "choice v. referendum". So two examples. Nicole Wallace of MSNBC said that when she worked for W. the key goal in the 2004 Prez race was to make it a choice, rather than a referendum on W. She said had it been a referendum on W., he would have lost. So they made it a choice between W. and flip flopper Swift Boater Kerry, with the idea that at least you knew where W. stood. Republican Alex Castellanos has made an argument that is similar. He sees 2020 shaping up to be a "Papa Bear" v. "Mama Bear" choice election. And by that he means Papa Bear stands for a good economy and being tough (Trump) and Mama Bear stands for goodies and handouts (some Democrat). He thinks Papa Bear (Trump) will win if that is the choice. So if you buy any of that, what is interesting about what Warren is doing (unlike Sanders, or anyone else), is that she is making this a referendum on greed and corruption and leaders that are leading us down the road to ruin, just like they did a decade ago. You can integrate into that all her "Mama Bear" stuff - like student debt relief, better wages, green manufacturing jobs. She is a poster child "Mama Bear", which is both a compliment because she is tough and fierce, and a concern because I don't think Castellanos is wrong. But I think this is an important part of the core argument she would need to make, if nominated. That this isn't just about freebies or giveaways. This is about seeing clearly that we are headed toward the edge of a cliff, just like we were a decade ago, and acting now to prevent it. The "choice v. referendum" dichotomy is a bit oversimplistic. 2020, like every election, will be some of both. But I think Wallace and Castellanos are right, in essence. Trump obviously agrees, since he is trying to make this a choice between capitalism v. socialism, or legal immigrants v. invading alien hordes with all the appropriate and racist not-too-subtle subtexts. I think Warren is on to the recipe for winning. Not only by taking on the Racist In Chief as such. But also on the fundamental issue of his stewardship of our economy.

I agree on both counts. Warren is my favorite. And I think (as Glaude said in that MSNBC piece above) the internal debate is actually good for the Democratic Party. It's democracy. We have an abundance of riches. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/?ex_cid=irpromo Here's another thing that I find interesting that relates to the points about Millennials and suburban left/centrists. As of today the polling shows that in all the early states (Iowa, NH, SC) and some of the key big states (CA, TX) Biden is still in the lead. (I'm referring to the July YouGov polls.) But Warren and Sanders and Harris are all now in this pack that is not far behind. As you say, Mayor Pete is still the queer alternative, but he's off in the distance. So in almost every case in the polls in these 5 states (except SC) if you add up the percentage of votes Warren and Sanders gets, it exceeds the percentage Biden gets. And also in almost every case these four candidates get over the 15 % hurdle it takes to get any delegates in the first place. I've been saying since January that I would not discount the possibility of a ticket with both Warren and Sanders on it. In January it looked more like it might be Sanders/Warren. Today it looks more like it might be Warren/Sanders. And I know that idea is horrifying to a lot of Democrats for a whole bunch of reasons. Two East Coast liberals? Please! But my two points would be this: 1) They may need to do it to get more delegates than Biden. That's what the numbers suggest as of today. 2) There have now been several good analytical pieces written about how their bases are very different. Want Millennials? Go Sanders! Want educated center/left suburban women? Go Warren! So there is some built in conflict, but there is also some built in compliment there in terms of bringing different people together. And as much as any two candidates, they have been allies with complimentary change platforms. And frankly, to show my bias, I'd rather have Warren be the # 1 because I just think she's smarter when it comes to policy, and she's proving it every day. Of course you could say the same about Warren and Harris, sort of. The data suggest their supporters are more similar. But it would be exciting to have a ticket with two women who have great ideas, great energy, and are aggressive as hell working to take down the Racist In Chief. The way this is playing out I'm hoping that some of these things are just going to sort themselves out. They often do. Including Trump hitting the panic button and just doing dumb shit, like his racist tweets, that lay thegroundwork for his own demise.

I thought this was an excellent discussion of both the morality and the politics of where we are at with Trump's racism. Eddie Glaude, Jr. has been a voice of reason to me all through this nightmare. So his 2-3 minute rap early in this segment really resonated for me. I agree with him that this is a defining moment for America. If 2020 were about the economy, Trump might win. That's assuming we are not in a recession by November 2020. It's over a year away. But even if the economy holds up for another 16 months 2020 might be about something deeper. It might be about who we are as a country. And who we want to be. A decade ago in the worst days of the Great Recession I decided that that old adage about "as goes California, so goes the nation" may no longer be true. In 2008 or so it was easy to portray California as a fiscal mess. But now California is the 5th largest economy in the world, if it were a separate nation. It is affluent and prospering. And so I think there is reason to hope that Trump may be nationalizing what happened under Pete Wilson in California a generation ago. It's not that Californians are socialists. Duh! Of course we are not. But Wilson and the Republicans of his time called the question on whether we hate immigrants or love them. Or whether we stand for The Statue Of Liberty or the concentration camp. And with the exception of Republican moderates like Schwarzenegger, himself an immigrant, California has been Democratic ever since. The interesting thing is that in this perpetual "is California or Texas the future?" debate, Texas is now looking more and more like California as well. Kudos to Texas Republican Rep. Will Hurd, who has so far from what I can tell been the only GOP House member to speak out forcefully against this latest example of Trump's lies and racism. And I have to imagine Rep. Hurd can do this not only because he is one of the few Republican House members who are not White, but also because he actually is speaking for the constituents of his moderate and diverse Texas border district. My point in relation to what you said @AdamSmithis that, yeah, this is in part about The Millennials. But it's also about all these suburban, more center/left or center suburban people. The people in Hurd's district, and the people in all those Orange County and California suburban districts that flipped from red to blue in 2018. And Glaude nailed it once again with the fear he articulated at the end of the 20 minute segment above, which he posed as a very smart question. What exactly lies at the intersection of racism, on the one hand, and what he labelled as "greed and selfishness" on the other? To be more specific, he said, what about the educated centrists who say "I'm not that" on this toxic racist bile, but do like the tax cuts, or the deregulation, or the top line numbers on the economy? What do they do in 2020? The response to Glaude, by a pundit quoting Kellyanne Conway of all people, should be reason to worry: people almost always vote on what affects them rather than on what offends them. That is no doubt how Trump squeaked by in 2016. So I think you are of course right @AdamSmiththat the Millennials will matter a lot. And if it were just about that, honestly that is my Argument # 1 for Bernie, who inspires the Millennials. But I think who also matters even more are these more highly educated, center left, suburban types. The majority of whom seem to be women. They are who turned it in 2018. It's becoming clearer and clearer that they are moving away from Biden and toward Warren and Harris. I'm looking to see where those voters go, and what Warren and Harris have to say to them and how it is received. California (Harris) and Massachusetts (Warren) are both poster children right now for both the riches and the challenges of technocratic capitalism. They are hardly havens of socialism. So my hope is that "as goes California (or Massachusetts) so goes the nation" still holds. Wilson and his racist policies killed the Republican Party in California, and it is still dead. And the version of the Republican Party that is flourishing in New England (the Governors of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maryland are all popular Republicans) is kind of a repudiation of much of what Trump stands for. It is more like the old Party Of Lincoln Main Street capitalism. Somehow that group of voters are the ones that the Democrats needs to lock up to send Trump to the curb. They are smart, educated, relatively affluent, not socialist, but deeply offended by the Trump nightmare. The fact that Warren and Harris are the kind of Democrats that can do well in states like that gives me reason to hope that if we nominate either one of them we can win, and end the nightmare, and move forward.

Poll: Most Americans call Trump's tweets targeting 4 congresswomen 'un-American' So is there any way to take this other than that a lot of Republicans are racists, or at least very comfortable with racism? Specifically meaning the racist comments of President Trump? Before I make the point about the poll data, let me preface it with one of my favorite lines of the week, from an article today by David Axelrod, about the upcoming debates: If you believe, as I do, that the ultimate argument against President Trump is that his gleeful, nasty and unremitting penchant to divide the country is a dispiriting and exhausting barrier to progress, the charismatic Harris could emerge as a force to heal the breach. You could take out the word "Harris" and put in the words "Warren" or "Sanders" and that would sum up my hopes for 2020. I'd much rather have 90 % of what Democrats say be about a positive message about health care, and jobs, and taxes, and making America smarter, and helping people buy homes and get good educations without going neck deep into debt. If we talk about racism, I'd prefer it to be in the sense Axelrod brings it up: isn't this just really fucking exhausting? Don't we have better things to talk about, and to accomplish? That said, the reality is that Trump really does seem to want to talk about racism, because it feeds his base. I assume most everyone here has already read that his own EEOC uses the phrase "go back to where you came from" as a textbook example of bigotry or racism or discrimination in the workplace. But of course you can say that's just because the EEOC is made up of pin-headed bureaucrats. What's fascinating about these polls is forget about the bureaucrats. Let's talk about what the public thinks. So that's kind of amazing right there. Most Democrats think it's racist to say "go back where you came from". But apparently only a plurality of Republicans agree. So this is where it gets really fucked up, I think. If you read the whole article, the 59 % breaks down this way on partisan lines. Trump's tweet is viewed as "un-American" by 88 % of Democrats, 54 % of Independents, and 25 % of Republicans. So wait ................... let me get this straight. 45 % of Republicans say it is "racist" for Trump to tell Black or Muslim or Latinx members of Congress to "go back where you came from". But only 25 % of Republicans think it is "un-American". How exactly does that work? It sounds like for the majority of Republicans, what Trump tweeted is not racist. And then for another 20 %, it is "racist" but not "un-American". Huh?

Yes, we do disagree - but about means, not ends. Here's three very important words that should be a cornerstone of any future public debate about decriminalization: "RIGHT TO PRIVACY". So I'll say it this way. If you're asking me as an escort, I'm all for a sex positive culture. Have as much sex as you want, with as many guys as you want, as many times as you want. If we're talking about politics, though, my view is almost the complete opposite. Framing this as "sex positive" does not help. I think there is a clear analogy with the battles we have fought and won. We didn't win same sex marriage by arguing anal sex is awesome, and Gay men ought to be able to marry and fuck the man of their choice. We actually kind of avoided the issue of anal sex, altogether. Even my Straight brothers don't particularly want to hear about Gays and anal sex, even though they support same sex marriage. I think the basis of a successful decriminalization campaign could boil down to the same thing: what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom. It's a private matter. Some version of that actually works with abortion. It's not that people think abortion is a great thing. It's that a majority thinks it's better to let it be a private matter, and to regulate it at the margin. (Alabama and other red states notwithstanding.) That's a philosophical approach. But I also think it ties right into a tactical, political approach. When the FOSTA/SESTA debate was happening I actually inquired around with other escorts and clients about forming a small group in the Palm Springs area to go meet with our US Rep and Senators. Palm Springs would be a great place to try to model a local organizing effort, I thought, because it's chock full of out Gay men. We have lots of Gay City Council members. So I could easily imagine a private meeting with staff of Harris or Feinstein or our US Rep with maybe half a dozen escorts and people who hire them. Meaning a handful of older, professional men who are the kind of guys who donate to or volunteer in political campaigns, but also like to hire. Like I said, Palm Springs is full of them. And maybe even a Gay City Council member thrown in to make us look credible. Like I said above, the clients I spoke with greeted this idea with something that bordered on horror. Having a private pool party with naked escorts is one thing. But dressing them up and going to talk to US Rep. Raul Ruiz or his staff? No thanks. So I just let the idea drop. As I said, I think we could be organized in lots of Congressional districts. And to me the key to successful organizing would be the idea that we don't have to have a public impact. We have to move legislators in private. Discretely. By the way, that's what the cops and Moral Marys do. They go meet in private with the legislators and tell horror stories about how women are sold or abused or trafficked. It has worked very well for them. They are on a roll. To me something like this would create a practical opening as to how we begin to fight back.

Ha! I have a substantive comment on what you said. But first let me take the vanity lap regarding your kind comment about running for office. Because it actually does tangent on the issue of decriminalization. In my 30's when I was very involved in state and local politics (as a community organizer of organizing director of non-profits, not as a government employee) the question I got asked all the time is, "When are you going to run for office?" The answer was always, "Never". So when I switched to being an escort it took a year or two to get used to the internal emotional reaction. I would not call it shame, but it was in that ballpark. First, there was the worry about getting caught. But beyond that I knew and worked with a ton of elected politicians in the city and state. So I kept waiting for the "one step removed" to play out and at some point I figured some client would out me and everybody who knew me would find out what I was up to now. I've spoken with many escorts who of course have different versions of the same concern. Fortunately, that never happened. Early in my SF days I went out on a date with a guy I met online who was this gorgeous bodybuilder. We hit it off, and he claimed I was exactly his type. But he worked in the Mayor's Office in City Hall. And I just thought this was a little too close for comfort. As in I didn't want to really tell him about my day job. So we had one date, and then I just came up with some excuse to drop it. Then maybe a year or so later I found out by coincidence, from a few escort buddies, that the bodybuilder I'd gone out on a date with was .......... wait for it ...............an escort. That was educational to me. I'm like, wait! You can work in CITY HALL and do this? WTF? Of course, it's San Francisco. Don't try that in Alabama. You are absolutely correct. One of my friends who is one of the best organizers in the country on LGBTQ issues was quoted in an article called "Hearts Not Heads" in The Economist in which she made the point that our success on same sex marriage ultimately rested on an emotional argument: we let people get to know who we are, and where are hearts are at. As opposed to an intellectual appeal to fairness or equality of other "principles". That said, I don't think the same would be necessary if we are talking about decriminalization. I don't think "coming out" to everyone is a necessary or even a good strategy. Unlike same sex marriage, I don't know that we ever can, or have to, win broad public support. If a serious effort were mounted, I think the key thing would be behind the scenes lobbying with elected officials and their staffs. And part of what would be interesting about THAT is you could, in theory, have many "respected" members of society like doctors and lawyers and even politicians and judges "coming out" behind closed doors, to elected officials or their staff. I think that would be highly effective. And it does not involve marching in a parade, being quoted in a newspaper, etc. That said, I'm still pretty sure the idea would scare the shit out of most people. But I don't think it needs to be an "I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it" strategy. Here's a cautionary tale. At one point around the time I was very involved in volunteer same sex marriage organizing I came out as an escort to the friend I mentioned above. While she is high up in the LGBTQ organizing mafia, she is personally Straight. As it turns out, she was also one of the first people I came out to as a Gay man a few decades ago. So I could do a compare and contrast. When I came out as Gay she was all pride and joy. When I came out as an escort I could tell it really confused her, and she never really seemed to feel comfortable with that. As I said in my first post, I think a lot of professional women see escorting as something in the ballpark of a form of slavery. So that was also educational. She's a poster child when it comes to tolerance on anything liberal and LGBTQ. So if she had a hard time with this issue, I'm pretty sure a lot of people would. Which is why I think if there ever is a serious effort is should be based less on public visibility or media or persuading the public, and more on having teams of people who are escorts of those who hire them go talk to politicians and their staff in private. There's a whole bunch of great arguments that could be made. But the best one is that we waste a tremendous amount of time and money playing "whack a mole", and those resources could be far better spent on many other pressing needs.

Assuming that polling is accurate, these two articles might help to put those results about young people being "uncomfortable" in context: We asked US voters about their views on transgender people. Here's what they said. The gender-fluid generation: young people on being male, female or non-binary This is wild ass speculation on my part. You'd have to focus group that 36 % or so that say they are uncomfortable with "LGBTQ" issues and ask them to explain to really find out what's going on - if it's anything other than a statistical blip. But when I first read that article the first thing I thought of is the words "gender fluid". The people who are in the middle of that, with their peers, are young people. That's why I posted the Guardian article. It is shifting the debate from "this is the way I was born" to "this is what I choose to be today". That may be causing some discomfort. One indicator is the poll data that shows a plurality think that Gays and Lesbians are "born that way". Meanwhile, a plurality think transgender people "choose to live that way". When asked to react "If your child were ......" about 40 % say they would "not be upset at all" if their child was Gay or Lesbian. About 30 % say they would "not be upset at all" if their child was transgender. My hunch is that the poll you cited, @Lucky, is measuring slightly different things as the debate changes. Five years ago we were talking about same sex marriage. Now we are talking about transgender bathrooms and whether you can be male one day and female the next. Again, the rubber on these new issues is hitting the road mostly with younger people. I would read this mostly as a sign of cultural tension and positive change. Same thing we encountered a decade or two ago when we were pushing the limits about marrying the man we love. And to be clear, none of this is intended as saying that we shouldn't be pushing the limits in different ways. The good news to me is that the lines have really shifted around comfort levels. The polls on questions like same sex marriage just keep getting better. So my guess is that if there is a reaction, it is around the "next wave" of issues. And even on those, as the polls in that Vox article indicate, the public is mostly on the side of LGBTQ issues. The bathroom issue is the dividing line today. Funny to think about that, isn't it? These days if Mayor Pete walked into a john with his husband Chasten, people would feel totally comfortable and want a selfie. It would only be if he walked into the bathroom with his transgender soldier wife that people might feel a bit freaked out. Go figure!

I strongly agree with your perspective on this, Oz. That said, I ain't holding my breath. I'll wait until someone like Warren or Harris actually gets elected. Then we'll see. Ironically, Trump is the last POTUS in the world who would act on this. If it were only up to him, he might favor decriminalization. I think we all know he certainly has a good reason to do so. But this would likely not go down well among his base. Except, of course, the portion that like to hang out in bathroom stalls. The controversy over what happened to Jeffrey and Rentboy has already been referred to on this thread, so I won't revisit it other than to say this. I was one of the leaders of the effort to raise money for Jeffrey's defense. I think it's objective to say it never really got off the ground. In part because it was surprising how much push back there was even among people who pretty much used Rentboy every day. When FOSTA/SESTA passed I sounded out people I've known for a very long time - either escorts or people who hired them - about their interest or willingness to organize and meet with members of Congress or staff locally to discuss the issue. Of course, by that time (the bill passed almost unanimously) it was too late. Regardless, and not surprisingly, there was not much interest. I followed the online postings of groups that did get involved in lobbying - SWOP (Sex Workers Organizing Project) up in Seattle had some really good online reports of what was happening on the inside. The tone of their posting was that legislators and staff really are willing to listen. I was a lobbyist in DC for six years and that flies with my experience. The simple mathematical fact is that in every Congressional district in the US, there are far more escorts (or whatever other name you want to use) and especially far more people who hire them than there are law enforcement officers or Moral Mary crusaders. So whatever public opinion says, as an organizing proposition there is every reason to think that all over the country "we" could be meeting with Senators and MOC's and our voices would be heard. Perhaps that in itself is one explanation for Warren and Harris shifting on this issue. They certainly appear to be open to talking about it. Gay men also add a whole different aspect to a discussion. It is easy to portray women escorts as helpless victims. I've read hundreds of reports and studies on this issue and younger professional women journalists in particular seem to view decriminalization as sort of like slavery. It adds a whole different spin when you get male escorts talking about how they use this as a transition job to earn a law degree, or even become a cop. Bottom line: I would not dismiss the ability to change hearts and minds on this, like we did on same sex marriage and other LGBTQ-related issues. We should keep an open mind and watch, I think.

And what the fuck do you know, anyway?