Indiscrete question about how many boys you have had a day?

[AdamSmith]

1 hour ago, SolaceSoul said:

Some legal options already exercised in similar cases:

Shutting down websites. Demand for federally required documentary evidence of legal age requirements of subjects in pornographic images under USC 2257. Securing warrants for the IP addresses of individual offending posters. Closing down back accounts of suspected offenders. Arrest warrants. Extradition.

 

How do US agencies effect those actions when the actionable compute servers are located in Thailand?

Concrete examples of past cases, s’il vous plait.

[SolaceSoul]

1 minute ago, AdamSmith said:

How do US agencies effect those actions when the actionable computer servers are located in Thailand?

Is every ISP that logs on to this forum domiciled in Thailand? 

[AdamSmith]

6 minutes ago, SolaceSoul said:

Is every ISP that logs on to this forum domiciled in Thailand? 

If the US govt has the resources, much less the competence, to track down the ISPs of individual users here, you grant the US government far more ability & competence than just about every other observer on the planet would do. 

[SolaceSoul]

1 hour ago, AdamSmith said:

If the US govt has the resources, much less the competence, to track down the ISPs of individual users here, you grant the US government far more ability & competence than just about every other observer on the planet would do. 

It doesn’t require anyone to track down the ISP of every individual user here — only the ones who have posted certain remarks that it believes are violative of federal laws.

It isn’t very different from how federal investigators can ultimately bring charges against posters who make terrorist threats on anonymous message boards or admit to hacking info banking systems on 4chan. 

[AdamSmith]

2 minutes ago, SolaceSoul said:

It doesn’t require anyone to track down the ISP of every individual user here — only the ones who have posted certain remarks that it believes are violative of federal laws.

It isn’t very different from how federal investigators can ultimately bring charges against posters who make terrorist threats on anonymous message boards or admit to hacking info banking systems on 4chan. 

Examples documented & prosecuted? I know of none.

[Riobard]

8 hours ago, SolaceSoul said:

Some legal options already exercised in similar cases:

Shutting down websites. Demand for federally required documentary evidence of legal age requirements of subjects in pornographic images under USC 2257. Securing warrants for the IP addresses of individual offending posters. Closing down back accounts of suspected offenders. Arrest warrants. Extradition.

 

I am so sold on SolaceSoul's ace and well-intentioned and non-censorial admonishments. I do not require hard evidence of prosecution and sentencing. 

This is not slipping out an expletive "motherf....r" at your home BBQ within earshot of your neighbour's backyard child, which is a morals offense in some jurisdictions. 

A personal disclaimer is timely for me: I interpret this Board/forum to be merely an acceptable erotic entertainment website. Any content beyond the legally acceptable parameters of decorum that I have posted has been fictional, big-talk bullshit, referred to trade only in the abstract colloquial comparative sense, no different from the trope of financial support based on nonegalitarian capacity within any conjugal interaction. All for joke value, shock value, to while away the ennui of too much free time, to try to impress, also partly out of an academic non-voyeuristic interest in the capacity for people to fabricate accounts of life experiences. I do not seriously take at face value anything written that might be misconstrued as condoning being a recipient of erotic favours in exchange for utilities. My behaviour here is no different from any acceptable fanciful fictitious account of an absolutely normative aspect of human nature. The Lady Chatterley's Lover playbook. Herein, the provisional deniability stamp forthwith delineated as LCL, not be confused with the ubiquitous LOL.

LCL

[SolaceSoul]

6 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Examples documented & prosecuted? I know of none.

I really don’t have the time or the energy to play your little game.

Operation Delego targeted and prosecute the 72 charged defendants and more than 500 additional individuals around the world for their participation in Dreamboard – a private, members-only, online bulletin board that was found, according to prosecutors,  promoting pedophilia and encouraging the sexual abuse of very young children, in an environment designed to avoid law enforcement detection.

The sweep called “Operation Innocence Lost” used Congressionally-approved FBI funds to combat child human trafficking to, among other things, cast as wide a net as possible scourge websites and message boards for users that posted about sex with minors.

The Review Board — a message board designed like this one where men reviewed and posted details about sex workers and became an online community of buyers — resulted in the investigation, arrests and prosecution of dozens of mostly professional, upper middle class men in the Pacific Northwest. Police got search warrants to go after their email accounts and the ISP addresses that linked their pseudonyms to their real names.

P411, a similar members-only site, was infiltrated by law enforcement and members cooperated with authorities to turn in other members suspected of sex trafficking and facilitating prostitution.

There are others, but as I mentioned, I’m not here to play silly games with you. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[SolaceSoul]

57 minutes ago, Riobard said:

I am so sold on SolaceSoul's ace and well-intentioned and non-censorial admonishments. I do not require hard evidence of prosecution and sentencing. 

This is not slipping out an expletive "motherf....r" at your home BBQ within earshot of your neighbour's backyard child, which is a morals offense in some jurisdictions. 

A personal disclaimer is timely for me: I interpret this Board/forum to be merely an acceptable erotic entertainment website. Any content beyond the legally acceptable parameters of decorum that I have posted has been fictional, big-talk bullshit, referred to trade only in the abstract colloquial comparative sense, no different from the trope of financial support based on nonegalitarian capacity within any conjugal interaction. All for joke value, shock value, to while away the ennui of too much free time, to try to impress, also partly out of an academic non-voyeuristic interest in the capacity for people to fabricate accounts of life experiences. I do not seriously take at face value anything written that might be misconstrued as condoning being a recipient of erotic favours in exchange for utilities. My behaviour here is no different from any acceptable fanciful fictitious account of an absolutely normative aspect of human nature. The Lady Chatterley's Lover playbook. Herein, the provisional deniability stamp forthwith delineated as LCL, not be confused with the ubiquitous LOL.

LCL

This might be a wise move for you. Vertical stripes probably wouldn’t look so good on you, anyway. 

[Riobard]

52 minutes ago, SolaceSoul said:

This might be a wise move for you. Vertical stripes probably wouldn’t look so good on you, anyway. 

True that. A zebra on all fours is no less a predatorial gangbang target in the pen ... by that, I explicitly mean NOT a juvie detention facility, not pleasure from abuse, not the donation of alcohol swabs purchased from the commissary.

LCL

Edited August 4, 2019 by Riobard

[AdamSmith]

1 hour ago, SolaceSoul said:

I really don’t have the time or the energy to play your little game.

Operation Delego targeted and prosecute the 72 charged defendants and more than 500 additional individuals around the world for their participation in Dreamboard – a private, members-only, online bulletin board that was found, according to prosecutors,  promoting pedophilia and encouraging the sexual abuse of very young children, in an environment designed to avoid law enforcement detection.

The sweep called “Operation Innocence Lost” used Congressionally-approved FBI funds to combat child human trafficking to, among other things, cast as wide a net as possible scourge websites and message boards for users that posted about sex with minors.

The Review Board — a message board designed like this one where men reviewed and posted details about sex workers and became an online community of buyers — resulted in the investigation, arrests and prosecution of dozens of mostly professional, upper middle class men in the Pacific Northwest. Police got search warrants to go after their email accounts and the ISP addresses that linked their pseudonyms to their real names.

P411, a similar members-only site, was infiltrated by law enforcement and members cooperated with authorities to turn in other members suspected of sex trafficking and facilitating prostitution.

There are others, but as I mentioned, I’m not here to play silly games with you. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t mean to play games. This forum posts about paid encounters with of-age consenting providers.

Not underage and/or trafficked victims.

So I don’t see the comparison.

[SolaceSoul]

37 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

I don’t mean to play games. This forum posts about paid encounters with of-age consenting providers.

Not underage and/or trafficked victims.

So I don’t see the comparison.

Oh, Jeez.

Most of those websites / boards listed above also focused on paid encounters with legal age consenting providers. And a few of those cases were BEFORE FOSTA-SESTA — which is a much more strenuous federal law! NOW, all it requires is a finding that the website or message board “facilitates prostitution” in order to fall under the heading of sex trafficking! 

“Facilitates” is a very broad definition. The word means “to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.); to assist the progress of (a person).”

This says nothing about the legal age requirement; however, it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) take a genius to surmise that suspicions of child sex facilitation would make law enforcement harassment or the threat of investigation far WORSE. Therefore, when referring to sex or the sex trade, why even use colloquialism like “boy” that could easily be interpreted literally? 

 

[Riobard]

3 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

I don’t mean to play games. This forum posts about paid encounters with of-age consenting providers.

Not underage and/or trafficked victims.

So I don’t see the comparison.

Adam, I think the comparison is high, but you have put the variables or arbitrary binaries on a gradient ... eg, underage is worse, female is more vulnerable, trafficking is worse than consensual, skype is less creepy than motel, etc. Fair enough.

There is some variation along these gradients or continua in terms of labelling of offense, prosecution pursuit, conviction, sentence, etc. However, the fine or incarceration outcomes are variable and we cannot assume a logical stratified set of consequences along the multiple continua.

We cannot treat this as stealing a Swatch versus Rolex. 

Moreover, the rating of paradigm success to justify the law will likely hinge as much on high volume of "lesser" offenses as on occasional front-page-worthy splashy high-impact offenses. 

The ultimate aim is to reduce the purchase and sale of services by shifting the pressure from three domains (consumer, 3rd party beneficiary, seller) to the first two domains. 

It pays to catch on and catch up with strategic measures to reduce risk. They are not difficult. Legislation is usually crafted in clear enough terms to plan and behave below the threshold of culpability. 

[Tartegogo]

On 8/2/2019 at 3:34 PM, SolaceSoul said:

I am over 40 and don’t refer to sexual partners as boys. Sorry.

Also, there is a big difference between someone using the term “boys” with a group of adult guys they are already familiar or friendly with (“hanging out with the boys”, “having drinks with the boys”, etc.”), and staying, in clear language and in print, “having sex with boys”.

Well then it is a dialectal difference. No reason to be sorry about it.

I don’t pretend not to understand when Americans use the wrong word, even though they do all the time.

[Riobard]

2 minutes ago, Tartegogo said:

Well then it is a dialectal difference. No reason to be sorry about it.

I don’t pretend not to understand when Americans use the wrong word, even though they do all the time.

We are not quibbling, for example, about whether "I tapped that" means intercourse or getting someone's attention.

We are discussing some central easily interpretable differentials based on age, trafficked or not, gender, degree of informed consent, and purchased or not via money or other utilities/considerations. 

[AdamSmith]

4 hours ago, Riobard said:

Adam, I think the comparison is high, but you have put the variables or arbitrary binaries on a gradient ... eg, underage is worse, female is more vulnerable, trafficking is worse than consensual, skype is less creepy than motel, etc. Fair enough.

There is some variation along these gradients or continua in terms of labelling of offense, prosecution pursuit, conviction, sentence, etc. However, the fine or incarceration outcomes are variable and we cannot assume a logical stratified set of consequences along the multiple continua.

We cannot treat this as stealing a Swatch versus Rolex. 

Moreover, the rating of paradigm success to justify the law will likely hinge as much on high volume of "lesser" offenses as on occasional front-page-worthy splashy high-impact offenses. 

The ultimate aim is to reduce the purchase and sale of services by shifting the pressure from three domains (consumer, 3rd party beneficiary, seller) to the first two domains. 

It pays to catch on and catch up with strategic measures to reduce risk. They are not difficult. Legislation is usually crafted in clear enough terms to plan and behave below the threshold of culpability. 

Your careful thoughtfulness about these issues and their numerous contexts are very valuable in having an informed think about these certainly alarming developments in the body politic.

But I don’t understand how under-age vs of-age, and trafficked vs voluntary, are ‘arbitrary’ binary gradients.

I do agree that political, and voter, sentiment are today going crazy, dangerously so, over these things.

[tassojunior]

11 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

I don’t mean to play games. This forum posts about paid encounters with of-age consenting providers.

Not underage and/or trafficked victims.

So I don’t see the comparison.

SESTA does not limit to underage. That is already very illegal. And it actually does not limit to blatant prostitution as that is also illegal. Backpage is a harsh example and it was before SESTA. The idea of SESTA is to curtail porn as well as escorting online as much as possible because the thinking is the more porn, the more prostitution (not my idea).Right after it's passage Google cleansed a lot of sites, including taking my nude photos of my #1 (35 yr old) off my Google Photos, to be lost forever. SESTA overcomes the foreign server problem with charges against anyone in the US and also by allowing civil suits.Why it hasn't been used yet is a mystery.   

[AdamSmith]

3 hours ago, tassojunior said:

SESTA does not limit to underage. That is already very illegal. And it actually does not limit to blatant prostitution as that is also illegal. Backpage is a harsh example and it was before SESTA. The idea of SESTA is to curtail porn as well as escorting online as much as possible because the thinking is the more porn, the more prostitution (not my idea).Right after it's passage Google cleansed a lot of sites, including taking my nude photos of my #1 (35 yr old) off my Google Photos, to be lost forever. SESTA overcomes the foreign server problem with charges against anyone in the US and also by allowing civil suits.Why it hasn't been used yet is a mystery.   

Thank you. I had been completely out to lunch on how dangerous this new legislation is.

Now watching closely how EFF et. al may fight back, & with what success

[SolaceSoul]

6 hours ago, tassojunior said:

SESTA does not limit to underage. That is already very illegal. And it actually does not limit to blatant prostitution as that is also illegal. Backpage is a harsh example and it was before SESTA. The idea of SESTA is to curtail porn as well as escorting online as much as possible because the thinking is the more porn, the more prostitution (not my idea).Right after it's passage Google cleansed a lot of sites, including taking my nude photos of my #1 (35 yr old) off my Google Photos, to be lost forever. SESTA overcomes the foreign server problem with charges against anyone in the US and also by allowing civil suits.Why it hasn't been used yet is a mystery.   

It seems that (per usual) non-Americans understand what’s going on in the USA more than most Americans.

i would add to your post that “the idea of FOSTA-SESTA is to curtail porn as well as escorting online as much as possible because the thinking is the more porn, the more prostitution and the more sex trafficking.”

The anti-porn, anti-sex work activists have successfully convinced U.S. politicians from both parties (the law passed overwhelmingly bipartisan!) and the influential parts of American society than porn and sex work are equivalent to human trafficking. Thinking people understand that this is sex panic, hyperbole and overreach, but we currently don’t live during a thinking, science-based, research-based body politic. We are living during a reactionary one. Studies have shown that legalized and regulated prostitution reduces harm to sex workers and clients, and lessens sex trafficking because it brings potential victims out of the shadows. Yet, here we are, anyway.

As for why the law has not yet been used — it HAS been used already. It has been used to force websites and message boards to shut down. It has been used to seize banking assets of sex workers and webmasters / bloggers accused of “facilitating prostitution”.

[tassojunior]

4 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Thank you. I had been completely out to lunch on how dangerous this new legislation is.

Now watching closely how EFF et. al may fight back, & with what success

 

1 hour ago, SolaceSoul said:

It seems that (per usual) non-Americans understand what’s going on in the USA more than most Americans.

i would add to your post that “the idea of FOSTA-SESTA is to curtail porn as well as escorting online as much as possible because the thinking is the more porn, the more prostitution and the more sex trafficking.”

The anti-porn, anti-sex work activists have successfully convinced U.S. politicians from both parties (the law passed overwhelmingly bipartisan!) and the influential parts of American society than porn and sex work are equivalent to human trafficking. Thinking people understand that this is sex panic, hyperbole and overreach, but we currently don’t live during a thinking, science-based, research-based body politic. We are living during a reactionary one. Studies have shown that legalized and regulated prostitution reduces harm to sex workers and clients, and lessens sex trafficking because it brings potential victims out of the shadows. Yet, here we are, anyway.

As for why the law has not yet been used — it HAS been used already. It has been used to force websites and message boards to shut down. It has been used to seize banking assets of sex workers and webmasters / bloggers accused of “facilitating prostitution”.

First, I am in the USA, in the heart of the beast in DC. Almost a life-long resident. But it's Silicon Valley that should be most scared by this law. 

No one has been charged under the law yet and we were hoping they would have been by now to get a Supreme Court review. The law is retro-active, which is clearly unconstitutional, and the court can either take out that clause or overturn the law totally. Overturning would be nice if it died a quiet death but unfortunately it's more a "moral crusade" championed as much by Democrats as Republicans. Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, both D's,  are the chief authors and proponents.

I'm surprised also that offshore sites like RentMan haven't been charged. My suspicion is that the government knows the law is unconstitutional from being retroactive and so doesn't want to use it. But it's just being there has transformed Google, Apple, Masseurfinder,  Tumbler, Facebook etc into being very strict censors. It has the potential, if upheld, to get not just escort talk off the internet but porn. 

 

[SolaceSoul]

9 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

No one has been charged under the law yet and we were hoping they would have been by now to get a Supreme Court review. The law is retro-active, which is clearly unconstitutional, and the court can either take out that clause or overturn the law totally. Overturning would be nice if it died a quiet death but unfortunately it's more a "moral crusade" championed as much by Democrats as Republicans. Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, both D's,  are the chief authors and proponents.

I'm surprised also that offshore sites like RentMan haven't been charged. My suspicion is that the government knows the law is unconstitutional from being retroactive and so doesn't want to use it. But it's just being there has transformed Google, Apple, Masseurfinder,  Tumbler, Facebook etc into being very strict censors. It has the potential, if upheld, to get not just escort talk off the internet but porn. 

The new law was already challenged in court. The judge threes out the challenge on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have proper standing to sue — citing no “direct harm” by the law. These plaintiffs are supposedly appealing that ruling, but a better group of plaintiffs should re-file.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/fosta-case-update-court-dismisses-lawsuit-without-ruling-whether-statute

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/fosta-already-leading-censorship-we-are-seeking-reinstatement-our-lawsuit

 

 

 

[Tartegogo]

16 hours ago, Riobard said:

We are not quibbling, for example, about whether "I tapped that" means intercourse or getting someone's attention.

We are discussing some central easily interpretable differentials based on age, trafficked or not, gender, degree of informed consent, and purchased or not via money or other utilities/considerations. 

Well I hereby inform you all that when I use “sex with boys” on this forum, I mean guys over 18.  This is the last time I explain. I won’t bother to reply to those who pretend not to understand. 

I think we need to have a rule on this forum: assume good faith = If there are multiple interpretation of what someone says, we should assume the most charitable interpretation of what was said (“he uses a word in a different way from me”), not the worst (“he is a pedophile and a criminal”). 

I mean, look at this thread. All the OP wanted was to know how many. Now the thread is about crime. 

Without that rule, this place is toxic, which is why I am only here when I really need to.

[SolaceSoul]

34 minutes ago, Tartegogo said:

I think we need to have a rule on this forum: assume good faith = If there are multiple interpretation of what someone says, we should assume the most charitable interpretation of what was said (“he uses a word in a different way from me”), not the worst (“he is a pedophile and a criminal”). 

What you fail to understand — whether willingly or not — is that it’s not about what you mean or what other readers understand you to mean, but how it can be interpreted by outside forces and ultimately used to punish not only the individual poster, but this entire website and message board.

Especially in an era where the future of sites like this one are precarious, words need to be chosen much more wisely.

[Riobard]

Here is a true example of pretending to not understand:

Gee, Officer Krupke, The OP's question as it stands alone, based on the topic heading, pertains to how many same-gender children were carried and birthed by any one reader participating in the forum. One would expect that what would ensue would be a vigorous discussion on multiple births and the polyzygotic anomaly and rarity of the Dionne quintuplets. 

Somehow it got derailed into a review of the legitimacy of using a term loosely that might be taken out of context. Officer, did you not realize that the burden of discerning the literal from the figurative falls on you. As for your radio transmission about a guy seriously clocking another here on the scene, I surely hope that you will take the time to rule out that this is not an everyday track-and-field event. 

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Riobard

[Riobard]

[SolaceSoul]

20 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Here is a true example of pretending to not understand:

Gee, Officer Krupke, The OP's question as it stands alone, based on the topic heading, pertains to how many same-gender children were carried and birthed by any one reader participating in the forum. One would expect that what would ensue would be a vigorous discussion on multiple births and the polyzygotic anomaly and rarity of the Dionne quintuplets. 

Somehow it got derailed into a review of the legitimacy of using a term loosely that might be taken out of context. Officer, did you not realize that the burden of discerning the literal from the figurative falls on you. As for your radio transmission about a guy seriously clocking another here on the scene, I surely hope that you will take the time to rule out that this is not an everyday track-and-field event. 

 

As loquacious as your comment may be, to be very clear, the OP also stated succinctly and clearly in his original comment: “I had safe sex with many boys on a two day trip i recently made to Colombia”. This wasn’t about the colloquial use of the term “had”, but the literal meaning of “sex with boys”. It’s hard to defend that from an overzealous investigator / prosecutor post-script. “But every other reader knew what I meant!” is not a very good defense. Clearer language is much more preferable.

Edited August 5, 2019 by SolaceSoul