Warren open to decriminalizing Sex Workers

[AdamSmith]

On 6/24/2019 at 4:12 AM, AdamSmith said:

Again, to agree:

When a thing looks like something, it almost always is that thing.

Side note. Strikes me that I am plagiarizing here from the philosopher Wittgenstein, who put it far better:

’A thing is what it is, and not something else.’

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

[stevenkesslar]

On 6/21/2019 at 11:33 AM, TotallyOz said:

We all change our positions over time. I want prostitution legal but taxed. What two adults do is up to them.  I am glad the online newspapers are gone as they were trafficking in underage. The way around that would have been to have things legal and big penalties for anything underage. I miss them as I found great guys there. But, they were not regulating themselves very well. When I ran a NYC agency, we kept anything underage out of the business. The newspaper rags were not doing that and were not trying hard to do that.

Anyway, I'll take Elizabeth on her word. What do the other candidates have to say on this? 

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.

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by stevenkesslar
typo

[TotallyOz]

9 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

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.

 

Steven,

A very well worded post and I liked your bottom line.

I am glad that you and others stood up for Jeffrey and Rentboy. I don't know the full result of all of this but glad that he had people sticking with him.

There was a great group in NYC years ago that was active in the legalization of prostitution. I do forget the name but I attended a few meetings back then. It is hard to get people really involved in this issue which is very prevalent in our society. Owning an agency years ago, I know so many guys that became Lawyers, teachers, accountants, doctors, etc. because the money they made from escorting allowed them to make a path available that was not available to them before.

[Lucky]

Prostitution is not legal? Oh, oh.

[RockHardNYC]

21 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I was one of the leaders of the effort to raise money for Jeffrey's defense.

If I were down and out, I would want Steven Kesslar's support. We are all human and capable of making misguided decisions at certain points in our lives.

Much like Hooboy's review site, I enjoyed Rentboy when it first hit the scene. The coding and user interface were not perfect, but at the time, the site was better than anything else.

Then Rentboy decided to upgrade. The business became about maximizing profit to the detriment of the user experience. The new coding was a disaster. Ads were everywhere, and the user experience sucked. With 30 pages of guys, I could never seem to get past page 10 without the software shutting down and revealing its bugs. I remember asking myself, "Where are the profit dollars going?" Up someone's nose? Into someone's ass? They certainly weren't being spent on making the user experience the best it could be.

Then, as a favor to an escort, I read Rentboy's TOS for escorts, every word, and I was appalled. There's only one word to sum it all up: GREED. I started to wonder if Hurant actually had contempt for escorts. I advised my escort friend to create his own website and build a reputation by word of mouth.

Edited July 2, 2019 by RockHardNYC

[Latbear4blk]

On 7/1/2019 at 1:02 PM, stevenkesslar said:

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.

 

I am also following SWOP, right now they are in an effort to reach out to male prostitutes or former prostitutes, but they do not seem to have a place for clients like me. I like them.

Part of the problem with activism for decriminalization is visibility. Let's not forget that the coming our movement was probably;y what made the biggest difference in the fight for gay rights. When people saw how many we are, and how far away from their stereotyped we often are, they started to change their preconceptions. As long as clients continue to hide, the fight for sex workers right will continue in their exclusive hands. My long term plan is coming out as a John once I am retired from my teaching career. 

Have you ever thought of running for a local office, @stevenkesslar? California and Palm Springs look like friendly spots for a candidate focused on a sex positive agenda and sex work decriminalization. I am very ignorant of American history, but I do not think someone has ever ran before under such a platform. It would be an interesting experiment that could give us the chance to make our argument louder and stronger. 

[stevenkesslar]

9 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

Have you ever thought of running for a local office, @stevenkesslar? California and Palm Springs look like friendly spots for a candidate focused on a sex positive agenda and sex work decriminalization. I am very ignorant of American history, but I do not think someone has ever ran before under such a platform. It would be an interesting experiment that could give us the chance to make our argument louder and stronger. 

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.

9 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

Part of the problem with activism for decriminalization is visibility. Let's not forget that the coming out movement was probably;y what made the biggest difference in the fight for gay rights.

 

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.

[Latbear4blk]

14 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

...

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. 

...

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.

Well, I do disagree. When the first homosexual activists came out of the closet, they were a minority and they built alliances with those still not ready to go public, and got their help to lobby and advance their agenda. This is not different. The beginning will be hard but hopefully once the ball is rolling more and more people would be willing to go public. I like to envision it in the broader picture of fighting for a more sex positive culture.

[Riobard]

The trick will be to make strange bedfellows compatible bedfellows in a reality where a particular position to shoot for on the gradient from Prohibitionism to Decriminalization may be more realistic or appropriate for MSW versus MSM, or vice versa.

Technically, Decriminalization is a long shot at the outset for a nation state in which Prohibitionism currently reigns because it is the most relaxed, extreme, and has minimal precedent globally. 

It would be fallacy to assume or expect gay men to lobby any more than hetero men for punter advocacy simply because a drive for LGBTQ rights including marriage equality exists and worked. That wave is not so surfable here. 

The analogous argument here for legal equality, apart from protecting women and self-determination, is to have what particular other countries have, not what the majority of nationals have (as in legal union). However, the American sentiment is not so predisposed to mirroring other nations. Where Prohibitionism exists globally, the USA thought of it first. 

It would be misguided to pursue an offshoot of sex work legitimacy pertaining specifically to gay men because the leaders and charter challengers risking visibility and putting themselves out there have been, and will continue to be, predominantly female sex workers. It makes the most sense to support that movement because whatever shift in the legal framework occurs will likely depend on that rising up continuing to gain momentum and will (sadly) perhaps benefit the male-to-male faction comparatively more. Piggy-backing on the hetero without confounding decision-makers with the sexual orientation piece may be prudent. 

One challenge for the gay players will be to reconcile with a possible (initially, anyway) shortfall in progression, a one-step shift to Neo-abolitionism (aka Nordic Model), that drives workers underground to protect clients, a situation far riskier for female than male sex workers.

Abolitionism, essentially Neo- plus punters' impunity, is perhaps the level to realistically aim for in the longer term for a country with a huge population. That shift in the legal framework reduces the gender discrepancy in safety. 

Regulation is costly and unwieldy. New Zealand has the population of Alabama, not much more than Nevada. The larger the country, it seems, the greater the risk of being chopped up jurisdictionally as opposed to uniform Decriminalization. 

Abolitionism, while appropriate to maintain as a concept but problematic where the loaded term "slavery" buttresses the Criminalization argument, leaves wiggle room to combat trafficking. You have to leave in something that keeps most groups happy. 

If the legal framework shifts to Legalization and Decriminalization, fine, but I am not sure regulation will be of any use to gay commercial sex. We see a trend towards private ad- and app-based in places like Brazil with a longstanding gay brothel history. I am not sure a regulated brothel model would fly in North America. Moreover, it would be localized, likely state-specific, and leave many punters in the lurch. 

 

[Latbear4blk]

That we need to follow the lead and support female prostitutes is out of question. Of course we must. My analogy using the role played by gay visibility in gay rights movement was intended to be applied to all Johns visibility, not only to the gay ones.

I agree moving from where we are now is not going to be easy, but we already have some (like SWOP) already starting. I am trying to find a place with them or something like them, and follow the lead of female prostitutes in their fight.

[Riobard]

13 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

That we need to follow the lead and support female prostitutes is out of question. Of course we must. My analogy using the role played by gay visibility in gay rights movement was intended to be applied to all Johns visibility, not only to the gay ones.

Fair enough. The right to sexual autonomy is the one piece that applies to all providers and clients alike. I do think, though, that the widespread negative attitudes towards Johns and the conflating of buying sex with exploitation and with pedophilia, particularly in terms of views of gay men's role and MO in prostitution, will militate against visibility. NAMBLA is not your friend on this issue, and they may want a place at the table, helping to fuck it up. 

The message "we want to do what we want with our bodies" is a one-note argument pitted against deeply ingrained moral attitudes. 

A cursory look at strategic focus does not seem to highlight the value of punters' out-ness, and organized John self-advocacy is unlikely to galvanize society into taking action for fairness. 

Right-to-work in chosen field, protection and de-stigmatization of commercial sex workers, and pummelling misinformed well-meaning policy makers with academic data-driven educational material appears to be the approach favoured by advocates and their supporters, rather than putting the spotlight on the ickiness of sex. 

The placard "stay out of my business" or "all sex is good" does not require much intellectual effort and does little to disabuse do-gooders of the false assumptions that promote criminalization or neo-abolitionism. A coordinated effort to reach out individually to lawmakers, your consituency politicians, etc, with well organized and succinct credible data to shift their viewpoint is more challenging but likely to best hit the mark.

There must be a way to contribute that helps you suck up remaining in the shadows. 

I think there is scope for absorption into SWOP, DecrimNY, etc, without raising anxiety that putting a face to punters will detract from the current momentum. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Riobard

[Riobard]

PS: I mention NAMBLA not because anyone here referred to it, but because man-boy love advocacy has bled into societal views of gay sex and likely into attitudes about gay men purchasing commercial sex.

I also forgot to mention that there is some evidence that attitudes towards prostitution change for the better once it is legalized. Therefore, the nonsexual advocacy focus does not rule out that a general shift in society being more sex-positive follows. 

[Latbear4blk]

1 hour ago, Riobard said:

Therefore, the nonsexual advocacy focus does not rule out that a general shift in society being more sex-positive follows. 

I agree in general with everything you said. I just think that probably we need a switch to a more sex positive culture before making significative progress towards accepting sex work. I can only picture the fight for Sex Workers and clients' rights within the broader context of a huge sex education effort. We are not going to achieve much on acceptance of gay sex without first making sex more acceptable and deserving of celebration and public conversation.

[Riobard]

45 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

I agree in general with everything you said. I just think that probably we need a switch to a more sex positive culture before making significative progress towards accepting sex work.

At the risk of sounding contrarian, the relationship is not particularly robust. 

Sweden's neo-abolitionism is regressive. Feminism has the potential to override sexual liberalism when it comes to commercial sex work.

Prostitution is not illegal in many nations that would be considered to be sexually conservative. 

[Latbear4blk]

2 minutes ago, Riobard said:

At the risk of sounding contrarian, the relationship is not particularly robust. 

Sweden's neo-abolitionism is regressive. Feminism has the potential to override sexual liberalism when it comes to commercial sex work.

Prostitution is not illegal in many nations that would be considered to be sexually conservative. 

Sounding contrarian is fine. I like respectful disagreement, and this is a topic there is no much conversation about.

[stevenkesslar]

On 7/3/2019 at 2:15 PM, Latbear4blk said:

Well, I do disagree. When the first homosexual activists came out of the closet, they were a minority and they built alliances with those still not ready to go public, and got their help to lobby and advance their agenda. This is not different. The beginning will be hard but hopefully once the ball is rolling more and more people would be willing to go public. I like to envision it in the broader picture of fighting for a more sex positive culture.

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.

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by stevenkesslar
spelling

[Latbear4blk]

5 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

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.

 

 

When I retire I am gonna move to Palm Springs to spank you and get you elected.