POSTING PICTURES OF SEX WORKERS WHO DO NOT ADVERTISE

[Latbear4blk]

I am opening this thread because I think we are kidnapping @BiLatin's with the controversy around posting pictures. I have been trying to quote some relevant posts in here but realized I do not know how to do it, and I have no time to be finding out. My apologies.

I wanted to reboot the topic. My stand on the issue is evolving and being myself a frequent poster, I find it very relevant. Please, let's try to keep name calling out. I myself did not do a good job in the thread I am referencing, and am trying to restart and do better here.

In few words, I left that thread when some friends were highlighting that posting pictures of boys, with or without consent was exploitative, considering the socio-cultural-economic power gap between the hirer and the hired one. One friend pointed out, in my opinion correctly, that it could be hypocrite to condemn as unethical the posting pictures practice considering it is exploitative, when the very act of hiring in that context shares that nature.

It looks like we are facing here an ethical dilemma. I am specially interested on what @SolaceSoul has to say about this.

[SolaceSoul]

I posted my remarks in the other thread. I don’t feel I need to copy and paste. Refer to them here:

 

[Latbear4blk]

12 minutes ago, SolaceSoul said:

I posted my remarks in the other thread. I don’t feel I need to copy and paste. Refer to them here:

 

Yes, you did, but I did not want to continue this in a thread about something else.

My problem with your last response is that it seems you are assuming too much on the asking for verbal consent situation. When I do it, I make sure they understand what I am asking for. I show them in my phone my website and these forums, and I offer them extra money for allowing me to do it. I mean, that used to be my practice.

Now I am moving away from verbal consent. For instance, I have not taken any pictures of the GPs I have been with in Salvador. I did offer them a session of pictures for money, and explain to them that they will have to sign a written agreement and allow me to take a picture of their IDs as prove of their legal age.

I think you may also being assuming too much about the ability of Cuban boys to understand or not the situation. 

 

[SolaceSoul]

3 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

I think you may also being assuming too much about the ability of Cuban boys to understand or not the situation. 

 

You are being incredibly naive, to put it politely. Do you not understand what could happen to Cubans who are identified (or even misidentified) in their government’s definition of pornography (which is still strictly prohibited and strongly enforced in Cuba, both creation and possession)?

[SolaceSoul]

1 hour ago, Latbear4blk said:

My problem with your last response is that it seems you are assuming too much on the asking for verbal consent situation. When I do it, I make sure they understand what I am asking for. I show them in my phone my website and these forums, and I offer them extra money for allowing me to do it. I mean, that used to be my practice.

Now I am moving away from verbal consent. For instance, I have not taken any pictures of the GPs I have been with in Salvador. I did offer them a session of pictures for money, and explain to them that they will have to sign a written agreement and allow me to take a picture of their IDs as prove of their legal age.

 

I understand that you’re not a US citizen or resident. However, the U.S. federal law 18 USC 2257 REQUIRES that anyone filming, photographing or producing anything that could be considered pornography (adult content) MUST have valid photo identification and date of birth of each subject proving they were at least 18 at the time of filming, written agreement of authorization from each subject, and said notice of where and who keeps these records must be prominently affixed or displayed on the photos or videos. This is true if the images were taken or displayed domestically or internationally, and whether or not they are for commercial use or not. Newsflash: ANYTHING posted on the internet meets the legal standard for interstate or international commerce, for the purposes of federal laws.

In other words, by US federal law, you, any blogger, the owner/operator of this BoyToy website, or anyone who posts, by posting nude genitalia or sexually explicit images of sex workers, faceless or not, are considered pornographers — and MUST comply with the law. Punishment, especially in the Trump / Pence era with the new FOSTA / SESTA law, can be severe:

“Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2257 are punishable by huge fines and up to five years for the first offense and ten years for each subsequent offense.  Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2257A are punishable by fines and up to one year in prison for each offense.  It is also illegal to aid or abet another party’s violation of any of the 2257 Regulations.”

The proof of age verification / records requirement is usually the one that the Feds take most seriously. Play at your own risk, but ignorance of the law is no excuse (unless your name is Ivanka Trump).

Edited December 28, 2018 by SolaceSoul

[Riobard]

Commercial sex advertisers where we visit are also not embellishing their photos and service descriptors with testimonials, for example, like this (not [sic]): "this boy hungrily sucked me then could not help getting extremely excited, though explicity ativo, riding my dick, moaning with eyes rolling back, and exploding a huge load of milk all over my pecs and face".

Such narratives are best left to the genre of erotic fiction, outside the purview of real-life 1-on-1 performative labour accounts. 

Here below are some sobering excerpts from Cuban and Brazilian criminal defamation law, I assume substantially different from the tort-based equivalents to which we are accustomed. The Brazilian application of insult law is, by the way, not at all restricted to citizens, occurs regularly, and is rather open-ended. 

As such, if not willing to respectfully prioritize local legal customs and covering your ass when abroad, in favour instead of a somewhat naïve centric view of personal prerogative to impose your foreigner standards of free speech, I suggest that you cozy up to your destination consulates and Amnesty International ahead of time, contractually piggy-back on local licensed porn entities, and brush up on how prison in Latin America makes the fictional TV Oswald Pen look like a DisneyWorld vacay.

And a solid budget set aside for legal representation, translator services, and related hustles, etc. 

Why put yourself out on a limb in this way for the sake of a few transitory jollies? Why expose yourself and your hires to the damage-control-resistant caprice of photo dissemination and subsequent embarrassment or worse? Why endure the anxiety of your passport scans not coming out squeaky clean? 

And good luck persuading a local magistrate concerning your take on informed consent. Sorry, you are no more than a faggoty cockroach in that type of judicial setting. 

In Brazil, you had better hope that your hire mitigates your crime by formally reciprocating a denigrating slur. And you should redact BBC references. Feel free to add more suggestions. 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Riobard
Minor addendum; spell

[Riobard]

*explicitly (splng)

[Latbear4blk]

I am naive indeed. I thought it was possible to pose a moral dilemma. I thought I was clearly expressing my lack of certainty when discussing the boundaries and intersections between respect for privacy, sexual exploitation, power, social class, etc., etc. etc. . I thought this place was a place where we can discuss whether something is right or wrong, beyond legality or illegality.

However, I see the point I was trying to make was totally missed. 

[Riobard]

The ethics of right/wrong comes down to beneficence (do good), non-maleficence (do no harm), autonomy aka self-determination, and distributive justice. I think that the legality references in this discussion are easily traceable to ethical principles and, in fact, concretize the more philosophical aspects of morality.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Riobard

[SolaceSoul]

24 minutes ago, Riobard said:

beneficence (do good), non-maleficence (do no harm)

I think you might mean “benevolence” and “non-malevolence”.

[Riobard]

20 minutes ago, SolaceSoul said:

I think you might mean “benevolence” and “non-malevolence”. 

No actually, they are close cousins but your terms are more related to character trait theory whereas mine are well-known terms in ethics and morals theory. I suffer from extensive exposure to applied research ethics.