• hogunner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    172
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Alleged prospective sex buyers in this scheme first had to respond to a survey and provide information online, including their driver’s license photos, their employer information, credit card information, and they often paid a monthly fee to be part of this.”

    Wait, what? (͡•_ ͡• )

    That should make the prosecutors jobs much easier.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      101
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Wow, imagine willingly providing that information to what you know is a criminal organization. The people who signed up are obviously a major security hazard to whoever they work for.

      • Phlogiston@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        105
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah. This is the real issue here.

        Sex work should be legal and the morality discussion here is about people lying to their spouses and if anybody is being forced into sex work… all interesting topics.

        But anybody implicated in this situation needs all security clearances and access dropped because they are high risk morons.

      • hogunner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        100%. I wouldn’t even give all that information to my online pharmacist and I need some of those medications to survive.

        • Lem Jukes@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah my employer don’t need to know fuckall about what meds I’m on.

      • cuibono@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Seriously. How dumb do you need to be to be in an actual high ranking (government) position and willingly give up all that info to an even slightly shady organisation? Never mind an illegal prostitution network you are sure is both illegal and easily blackmailable.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Say something is exclusive and idiots will do anything to get in.

          Facebook got so huge because at first you had to be in college to be on it. After a couple years they opened it up to everyone and pretty much everyone signed up.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The ease of prosecuting is directly proportional to how wealthy and influential the accused is.

      Remember, it’s a legal system … not a justice system … you can easily distinguish the difference by how wealthy you are (or are not)

    • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Could be a honey pot. Either the guys running it wanted to use the info to blackmail the clientele or sell the info to foreign intelligence

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m guessing it was that one P411 website or whatever. That site has been in the news in the past. It baffles me that people would willingly comply with such invasive identification requirements for something that’s illegal. I get the idea behind it is to try and prove that you’re not a cop/murdery type of criminal in order to protect the sex workers, but… yeah, lol.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not really, because the people who made the survey are probably smart enough to not include anything about exchanging money for sex. Basically, there’s nothing illegal about filling out a survey about who you are and what are your likes or dislikes. There’s also nothing illegal for someone to pay another person for their time.

      So no mention of exchanging money for sex and it’s incredibly hard to prosecute.

      • hogunner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No idea if you’re right or not but that’s not what I meant. I meant they don’t have to hunt down the johns, the johns already provided all the possible info the prosecutors would need to find them.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          How exactly does that help? It’s not like they are going to do stake outs on these guys. It’s not enough probable cause for any type of warrant or anything.

          It would help support a case if you already had one, but as an entry point it’s all but completely useless, if not actually completely useless.

          Which is why they won’t release the names, because doing so would open them up to lawsuits. All risk no reward.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I think what the person above was implying is that having your name on that list is not de-facto evidence of participation. I’m sure the DOJ has more than just that one piece of evidence if they’ve already made arrests, because sex workers in America are nothing if not extremely careful about how they conduct their business to avoid exposing themselves or their clients to law enforcement stings.

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Hell, if they’re actually smart, they have red herrings in the list that muddies who is actually a client

        • tookmyname@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Are Johns (and sex workers) even worth prosecuting? I think the DOJ is interested in a organized prostitution ring and it’s leaders, involved in conspiracy and money laundering, not a few dudes paying for (adult) sex.

          I don’t think they’ll waste their time.

    • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Criminals and criminals masquerading as religions love to get blackmail on their clientele/members, it’s probably the more lucrative part of their enterprise, and it keeps those members/clientele loyal, because who wants their nasty ass secrets leaked out or sold to their enemies?

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      None of that’s illegal, aside from the card info it’s actually a lot of the things a trustworthy sex worker will be asking you for as a background check before agreeing to meet you.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Selling is legal, fucking is legal, why isn’t selling fucking legal?

      – George Carlin

      • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        10 months ago

        Seas he also the fella that said “Getting paid for sex is illegal… UNLESS YOU RECORD IT!”

        • vrek@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          For years I’ve contemplated the idea if I came into a bunch of money if starting a porn studio where the customer is an actor/actress in the porn.

          We have a building and several “sets” with cameras recording, customer picks their “partner” and “set” and “shoot the porn”, after they are done the video is burned on to a dvd(or blue ray or potentially put on a private file server).

          The customer isn’t paying for sex, they are paying for the video.

          Pretty sure it would have a ton of legal push back and I would need a lot of money for the lawyers to fight the cases.

          But 1. Safer for everyone imvolved(it’s video taped so you won’t beat/hurt/kill the other party) 2.technically legal just like shooting porn

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            This is actually a great idea for couples! The issue of course would be to make sure that the couples are actual couples.

            You could have them sign a release indicating that it’s a “photo studio”, and you can have different prices: one for commercial use ($5,000 per hour) and one for private use ($100 an hour, and you’re not allowed to commercially distribute the DVD.)

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      The underlying assumption is the same as in abortion: that women can’t be entrusted with agency over their own bodies.

    • Hillock@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because one of the biggest issues with sex work, human trafficking, gets worse with legalization. Studies across Europe have shown that countries that outlaw prostitution see a decrease in human trafficking victims while countries that legalized or decriminalized it see an increase.

      Unlike with drugs, you don’t just create a way to increase the supply. A very small minority of women actually want to engage in sex work. And the few who do, usually envision the high class escort lifestyle. But working in a brothel charging $100 per client isn’t something many want to do.

      But legalizing prostitution increases demand. Which makes it more profitable for criminals to utilize human trafficking to fill that demand.

      https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/

      One source of it.

      It also doesn’t help at all with protecting victims of human trafficking. Victims of human trafficking are already protected. But they don’t step forward because of threats against their own well being and that of their families. Something that doesn’t change just because their work technically is legal now.

      Which leaves a small percentage of people who fall into financial hardship and consider prostitution as a method of overcoming said hardship. For them that might slightly improve their situation. But that still means exploiting vulnerable people and isn’t people engaging in sex work because they want to. And it’s even questionable if people in these scenarios would follow the legal way.

      So while initially it might seem like legalizing it solves a lot of issues, it is more difficult than that.

      • Furedadmins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Us laws regarding sex work are firmly based in puritanical values not out of any concern whatsoever regarding trafficking.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Thanks for the data. I think the issue here is not that legal prostitution creates problems, but rather the government bodies being incompetent at protecting the victims, then.

        There are other industries in which people “sell their bodies” for profit (the military and construction come to mind), and if those can be quite regulated, why can’t prostitution?

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          We all sell our bodies for profit. To be fair though, wage theft is the most common form of theft. We’re all prostitutes and we’re almost all being taken advantage of, and we’re in a system where we can’t really get out.

        • ExLisper@linux.community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          government bodies being incompetent at protecting the victims, then.

          My guess is that it’s just more difficult to control prostitution than it is to control construction work. Construction happens in the open, you need to get tons of permits, multiple companies are involved, inspectors check everything regularly. It would be difficult to force some people to work on a construction site without anyone realizing. But how are you going to make sure that each sexual intercourse in some strip bar is ‘legal’? Are you going to put inspectors in bathroom stalls? How can you check every cash transaction? It’s pretty much impossible. You can monitor the sex work that’s advertised and happening ‘in the open’ but there will always be some grey and black market for it. And the ugly stuff will happen there.

      • crackajack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I reckon that even though sex work is legalised, and still caused issues, the problem is that there is no government regulation. It’s one thing to say by the government that they won’t prosecute sex workers, but if it’s not regulated and abuse still happens then nothing changed for all intents and purposes. Best analogy I could think of is like allowing food factories to manufacture food, of course. But if there is no regulatory watchdog to monitor and test to make sure food factories are not putting random and dangerous stuff into food, then legalising an activity is pointless.

        Basically, the sex industry having been legalised by many countries is unofficially a libertarian set up. Yeah, the government exists and allow sexual transactions between agreeing parties, but they’re hands off on how the practitioners in the industry would conduct business. There is no government agency for sex workers to complain to if they’re abused. I know people would ask, how exactly would the government regulate sex? That, I will leave to policy experts.

        Edit: wording

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because one of the biggest issues with sex work, human trafficking, gets worse with legalization.

        Yes, because legalizing sex work is just criminalizing sex work with extra steps. It’s very easy to see an (alleged) “rise in sex trafficking” when the legalization shuffle allows politicians to all of a sudden decide what is “allowed” sex work and what is “sex trafficking.”

        This is why shitty studies like the one you linked is so thoroughly non-credible - it was performed without the input of the people who actually know what they are talking about - ie, sex workers themselves.

        • WldFyre@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          What the fuck are you talking about?

          legalizing sex work is just criminalizing sex work with extra steps

          So what’s the solution?? You just made random assertions without any sources and didn’t suggest any alternatives. All while skimming over the very real trafficking/coersion problems unique to sex work.

            • WldFyre@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Do tell… is this the first time you’ve actually considered what sex workers themselves have to say about (so-called) “legalization?”

              The sex workers with those opinions usually are the already more well off workers who perform escort or cam services, and isn’t reflective of the bottom strata of sex worker experiences. It also doesn’t address how more common sex work leads to higher trafficking rates.

              trafficking is not unique to sex work in any way, shape, or form.

              Lol I’d love any source on this whatsoever. I’m not sure how you defend this line of thought, or why you feel this way. You don’t think human trafficking shares any of the same risk factors or conditions as sex work?

              ROFLMAO!

              LOLCOPTER

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                and isn’t reflective of the bottom strata of sex worker experiences.

                You’re going to have to do a whole lot better than hiding behind impoverished people.

                It also doesn’t address how more common sex work leads to higher trafficking rates.

                That has already been explained to you.

                Lol I’d love any source on this whatsoever.

                You need a source to tell you that labor and refugee trafficking is a thing?

                I’m not sure how you defend this line of thought,

                It’s really simple… I have no wish to demonize and criminalize sex workers - unlike you.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      My bet is on America’s conservative puritan history where anything good is bad.

      Also sex trafficking. At least that’s the argument for keeping it illegal. :(

      • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Which is bollocks anyways because illegalization actually makes things less safe for all sex workers, but especially for trafficking victims who are now legally marginalized into dark number status

    • momtheregoesthatman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Old white men elected themselves under the guise of voting (gerrymandering who?) and are too embarrassed and confused to allow women the rights they have as humans. Isn’t democracy silly.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’d say the diagram of “Why is sex work illegal” and “Why is abortion illegal” is almost a perfect circle.

      It’s about contolling other peoples’ bodies and weakening the separation of church and state.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sex work differs from most other type of work in one very significant way - it’s an industry in which capitalists cannot really control the means of production unless slavery (ie, a person can become the private property of another) is legalized and institutionalized. In other words, a sex worker - for the most part - is not as easily coerced into selling their labor to capitalists like most workers can be, and capitalists hate when people have a way to opt out of being hosts for their parasitism.

      Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.

      This is not to say that sex work is automatically a revolutionary, anti-capitalist or even “empowering” thing by itself - there are plenty of ways in which our socio-economic systems allows and enables de facto slavery without calling it slavery - but it certainly doesn’t fit into the neat class hierarchy that capitalists wants society to be trapped within.

      • crackajack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        You’re reading too much into it. The primary reason is puritan values. To be fair, the taboo on promiscuity is likely due to the lack of contraceptives and risks of getting sexually transmitted diseases. But access to contraceptives and education would lessen the risks these days. Though people are still creatures of habits so sex and sex work are still taboo for many without questioning why it has been in the first place.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          You’re reading too much into it.

          No, I’m not… in fact, I’m not even scratching the surface.

      • stella@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.

        cough, what? No, it reinforces those norms. Men in power get to have women at their beck and call.

        This isn’t a capitalist thing. Just look at how profitable the sex industry is in Nevada.

        It’s a “holier than thou” thing that we just haven’t been able to get rid of in our society.

        As much as I like calling out greed for what it is, this simply isn’t one of those cases.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          cough, what?

          You read correctly the first time. It’s a lot more difficult to entrap sex workers in patriarchal hierarchies than a housewife (for instance)… this should not be too difficult to understand.

          This isn’t a capitalist thing.

          All sex work in the world today exists under a capitalist mode of production - as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as “publicly-funded” sex work… and that is unfortunate.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as “publicly-funded” sex work… and that is unfortunate.

            You lost me.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Due to both criminalization and demonization, sex workers are prevented from performing very necessary work in our society - such as being the only people that are qualified to perform sex education, for instance - so yes… it is quite unfortunate that sex work cannot be performed as a service to the public.

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Sex education is more about the changes your body goes through during puberty as well as how reproduction works. None of that is related to sex work. Sex work is about making people feel good.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Sex education is more about the changes your body goes through during puberty as well as how reproduction works.

                  That’s basic biology - not sex education. The fact that you can’t even discern the difference proves the point.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Wait till you learn that you can be self employed outside of sex work.

        For the most parts its just christian morality still ingrained in our society.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Wait till you learn that you can be self employed outside of sex work.

          Yes, the homeless people trying to sell me trinkets at the intersection certainly seems to prove your point.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            The only self employed people you can think of are homeless dudes selling trinkets and prostitutes?

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              The vast majority of “self-employed” people are utterly impoverished people doing survival work, Clyde - please tell me you don’t buy into the “entrepreneurship” fairy tales Reagan and Thatcher spooned into your parents’ brains through the telly back in the 80s. If you believed that, you might just as well believe in magic glass slippers that grants royalty.

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                You are confusing being self employed with gig economy bullshit. There are a lot of fields of occupation where being self employed makes sense und gives you more freedom. By the way - I’m talking from own experience being self employed fore quite some time now.

    • Igloojoe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      AFAIK, it’s not federally illegal, but mostly every state bans it. As how Nevada can have prostitution.

            • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I have an MSc from a top UK university, my dissertation topic was labour abuse and work-related harm for which I received a distinction. I’m no puritan, but genuine “sex work” (outside the internet) is overwhelmingly negative for the actual workers and very few enter the industry from a position of personal or economic empowerment. This is the case to a shocking degree, even where it’s decriminalised. I’m not against it, per se, but it confuses me when people are strongly for it. So yeah, stay woke.

  • GR4VY@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m assuming they’re arresting the sex workers and not the politicians and military officials?

  • shiroininja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Anybody remember that one piece about our servicemen being involved in trafficking women overseas about three years ago that was swept under the rug?

  • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Customers are not named in the affidavit, according to the agent, because the investigation into their involvement is “active and ongoing.” these are the type of people who don’t get held accountable, ever.

    • stella@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Accountable for what? Something that should be legal in the first place?

      Do you also think marijuana users should be named and shamed?

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It should be legal but it’s not. Those are government officials with clearances which put up their Driver’s licenses and credit card information on an illegal site to bang hookers. That’s the issue.

        The “name and shame” argument is also meaningless. Take marijuana for example. If you’re a government official who is actively pushing for legalization and it comes up that you actually consume it… ok? Big news, you’re putting your mouth where your money is. Nobody cares, there’s no “shame” in being “named”. The issue comes when people are publicly against marijuana/prostitution and then engage in it. Those are hypocrites and should be shamed.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Or, you know, they don’t have any evidence that a crime actually was committed. These people aren’t morons and know that unless they are caught exchanging money for sex they are off the hook. The fact that they have their name in this group is not even remotely enough to even charge someone with a crime, let alone get a conviction.

  • toiletobserver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I’m sure they’ll be arresting and charging the politicians any and revoking security clearances any moment now…

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ah, yes, 4-star generals in Procurement retiring to gold-plated consulting gigs in the very companies from which they ordered $1000 paper clips and congressional members using insider info from some congressional comission or other they’re in for trading on their portfolios is all fine, it’s paying for sex that’s the real problem with holders of high level official positions in America.

    • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      The bribery potential of those officials violating the laws they’re publicly supporting is the problem.

        • n0m4n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Hoover amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians.

    • n0m4n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      “It sure would be unfortunate if someone was to send pictures to the family, bosses and the media.”

      The potential for being compromised and coerced into overlooking a few budget items is one path to this graft.

  • dumdum666@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I really don’t understand the way the US works in regards to „bought“ sex… on the one hand prostitution is illegal (with the exception of Las Vegas parts of Nevada) and as soon as you point a camera on the paid fucking it is called PORN and it is still a multi billion dollar industry.

    You guys are weird

    Edit: changed the Las Vegas part

    • teft@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Prostitution isn’t legal in Vegas. Parts of Nevada yes, but in Clark county where Las Vegas is located prostitution is illegal.

      • dumdum666@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Works in other countries at least. Here in Germany they just pay income tax, like everyone else. Actually they are freelancers usually…

        On the other hand, Germany is still a bit backwards regarding cannabis legalization… but we are working on it.

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Illegal income is taxed, technically, but paying that tax would also basically be a confession. That’s how they got mobsters back in the day. So there ends up not being any when you’re right and there absolutely could be good tax revenue there

          Hell, it’s not federally banned, so it’s just states not being willing.

    • MisterD@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It started a few centuries ago when this annoying group of people known as Puritans were expelled from their home country and sailed to north America.

      The natives saved them from starvation and today still impose their beliefs and values on everybody. These hypocritical laws is but one example

      • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        They were not expelled from anywhere. They wanted to impose their religious doctrine on everyone else but every government keep telling them to fuck off.

      • guleblanc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        The Puritans were a small sect, just looking for the religious freedom to punish the best majority of people who didn’t believe the Puritans’ theology. Their notion of “religious freedom” is similar to the U.S. Catholic bishops’ notion. It’s a violation of religious freedom when people can make their own choices, and don’t have to obey a hierarchy.

        • stella@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s easy to get confused because a lot of people who left England did so because they had no other prospects or no other choice, in the case of criminals or financial delinquents.

          Reading up on the founding of the US is a doozy. Essentially, all the rejects of England sailed to the ‘New World’ because there was more opportunity for them there than at home.

          The ones who had it good stayed in England.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      There are porn producers who do such a crappy job that I’d swear they only film so they have legal access to prostitution.

      • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Like 90% of OF “fan meets” are filmed fucks because it’s actually prostitution. Pretty sad they can’t be honest because some people had weir hangups hundreds of years ago

        • Zahille7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Go on any hookup app or site and you’ll see plenty of “content creators” willing to meet up and “make content.”

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      What’s weird is that loophole exists and people don’t abuse it.

      Like, I get the streetwalkers selling $10 BJs dont, but for “high end” organizations like this, just stick an old school camcorder in the room and let the John keep whatever grainy unidentifiable footage they make during the encounter.

      If you’re ever investigated, you’re in the clear. If not, then no one even has to know.

      • ubermeisters@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Pretty sure the forms required for filming adult entertainment include personally identifiable information, so no, it’s not just ‘add a camera and now it’s porn’.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nah. A group tried this in Pensacola and got busted. Can’t remember the details, but they were trying to pass prostitution off as pr0n because camera. Didn’t fly.

    • stella@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s called the “First Amendment,” and you’ll find it can be used to justify/unjustify all sorts of things depending on the current government in power.

  • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    If the girls were sex trafficked I have a problem with this, if they were free to do as they please, then I have no issue with this.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Since it’s illegal and probably secret from their wives, it opens the client to blackmail, which isn’t good for the public if they’re in government or military.

    • DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Regardless of whether someone was trafficked, folks in positions of power chosing* to disregard the law is itself an issue.

      • stella@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not really.

        I’d give 0 shits if people in ‘positions of power’ smoked marijuana while it was illegal.

        Heck, I’d support them for their civil disobedience!

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    The client list will likely go in the same vault as Epstein’s. They’re all assets now.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      They’re all assets now.

      In the age of Trump, are those really assets anymore?

      Seems like they’re moreso assets of a bygone era.

  • guleblanc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Who would have thought it. A brothel in Watertown. Cambridge I can see. What’s next, strip clubs in Belmont, Mitt Romney’s home town?

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s because when people in highly-sensitive positions of power do things that they want to keep secret, they become a security risk by opening themselves up to the threat of blackmail.

      Whether or not they should want to keep their whoring secret is a different matter between them and their families and their voters. I don’t have a censorious take on that, I’m just telling you why it’s a security risk and is newsworthy.

  • tronx4002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    In this day and age where nothing stays secret, how is it hard for elected officials not do stupid stuff like visiting brothels?