MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

6 Thoughts on the Rentboy.com Bust from 1 Angry, Gay Libertarian

Do not let this massive violation of sexual liberty slide.

These are not terrorists, though some might be open to some roleplay.Rentboy.comEarlier Elizabeth Nolan Brown, who thoroughly covers sex work issues here at Reason, reported the arrest of seven employees and the shutdown of gay escort site Rentboy.com by the Department of Homeland Security, the people who are supposed to be protecting us from terrorism.

The forced shutdown of Rentboy.com is not small potatoes, not that it should matter when it comes to deciding when to fight for individual liberty. For many in the gay community, this is akin to the forced closure of Silk Road and the prosecution of Ross Albrecht. This is a huge deal and these busts should inspire rage and protests. Some thoughts and analysis:

  1. There is absolutely no pretense of pretending there are any "victims" here. Nobody is charged with "trafficking." There is absolutely nothing in the complaint that even hints at the idea that there is anything nonconsensual happening, that so much as a single human being is harmed, even tangentially, by letting men pay for sex with other men. Contrast this with the often exaggerated claims of trafficking and human slavery that are used to justify cracking down on heterosexual prostitutes, treating willing female sex workers as default victims and ruining the lives of their Johns. They didn't even bother here. These are gross guys violating New York's prostitution laws, and this is apparently something the Department of Homeland Security needs to get involved in because it involves interstate commerce.
  2. As usual, follow the money. Want to know the real reason why DHS is involved? Want to know why it took the government decades to go after a site titled "Rentboy.com"? It's on page three of the complaint against Rentboy. Between 2010 and 2015 the site had more than $10 million in gross proceeds. The feds are looking to seize $1.4 million from six bank accounts related to the raid. This money, thanks to federal asset forfeiture rules, would likely be split among the agencies involved, including the New York Police Department, who offered up their assistance in the raid even though there was probably no need for both agencies. As for why it took so long? Maybe somebody complained and that's what launched the investigation, or maybe it simply wasn't worthwhile financially for the government to shut Rentboy down like this until it had such a record of financial success. The money they seize will most certainly be showing up end-of-year reports promoting the "victories" of the agencies involved.
  3. The world is not New York City. The complaint notes that the site claims more than 10,000 men in its site database (these would be the rentboys, not the Johns) in more than 2,000 cities across the world. It claims more than 500,000 unique visitors daily, mostly in the United States. Not all gay men look like they belong in gym ads. While the increased acceptance of homosexuality has made it easier for gay men and women to come out earlier in their lives, we still have untold numbers of older gay men who came out late (or still aren't comfortable coming out at all) and didn't move to big gay metropolises like New York City or San Francisco to find love. Gay men (and women!) are still a small part of the population. It is inaccurate—even heartless—to assume that all gay men are able to find a sexual companion through conventional means. The complaint goes through all the different categories of sexual practices promoted on the site in almost lurid completeness (at one point describing what a "sex sling" is and defining "rimming"), everything from vanilla sex to spanking and S&M. Say you're a pudgy, lonely 55-year-old man in southern Illinois with a fetish for something very kinky. You're a minority within a minority. What do you do if you can't find somebody around you who shares your interest? DHS, Brooklyn's U.S. attorney's office, and a bunch of cops in New York City think you should just do without.
  4. The larger gay community and gay leaders need to jump on this and get loud, fast. We've been fighting for the right to define our relationships as we choose, not allowing the government to decide what is legitimate. Marriage recognition is just part of that fight. We are not free as long as the government is dictating the terms of our sexual interactions. I expect to see outrage from every major gay and lesbian organization at the callous disregard shown toward those men who seek to sexually connect on their own terms.
  5. Will the feds go after the other prostitutes on the site or the Johns next? Who even knows? Maybe the not knowing intended to scare people. Dan Savage wonders, "Rentboy.com is offline and presumably prosecutors have access to the email addresses, phone numbers, and the credit card information of tens of thousands of Rentboy.com customers—sex workers and their clients. Will they prosecute the men who advertised their services at Rentboy.com? And, more importantly, will they prosecute their clients? According to anti-sex-work activists and prosecutors, sex workers are the victims and their clients, the men who pay them for sex, are the criminals. The unworkable, unjust 'Swedish model' approach to snuffing out sex work—which is never going to happen—is backed by anti-sex-work activists and prosecutors." He predicts they won't go after the clients because of the political firestorm that could be involved if the feds start outing people via prosecution. But if they get away with this, they will keep going after whatever sites that come to replace Rentboy.com.
  6. Remember the names Susan Ruiz, Kelly Currie, Tyler Smith, and Melanie Hendry. Ruiz is the DHS special agent who thoroughly investigated the site and filed the complaint that led to these arrests. Currie, Smith, and Hendry are all attorneys with the U.S. Attorneys Office of the Eastern District of New York (the same office that brought us our current Attorney General Loretta Lynch). They are the attorneys going after the seven people arrested for prostitution charges. They will be responsible for destroying these lives and taking their property for facilitating sex work. One of the defendants is an immigrant who applied for a work visa, so all sorts of bad things could happen to him. If I accomplish nothing else, I want this bust to show up on Google searches of their names to show how callous and reprehensible the four of them are. Congratulations, folks. You've helped stop a lonely old man in Bolivia from getting a handjob from a hot twink! That's your contribution to American justice. Be sure to put it on your resumes!  

Photo Credit: Rentboy.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The larger gay community and gay leaders need to jump on this and get loud, fast.

    Yeah, I really thought the gay community was protected. We can't even count on identity politics to protect even some of us from government overreach?

  • PH2050||

    Identity politics is more fractious than the activists would have you believe. Case in point: Sanders v. "BlackLivesMatter"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

  • Tony||

    Yes even gay people can sometimes suffer the horrible indignities that white heterosexual men do on a daily basis.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Well, to be fair, a lot of those gays are white men. They're tainted.

  • ||

    You know John won't acknowledge your zing, Fist. Why even make it?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    My art is for no one but myself.

  • PH2050||

    Lol, totally missed the joke. Probably because I don't read much of what John writes anymore, that dude has gone off the deep end.

  • ||

    With AIDS being the problem it is in the gay community I would hope they are protected also.

  • Homple||

    It's a parallel to the case of the Alaskan hooker booker noted here the other day: a demonstration of equality under the thumb of the law.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Is there a coherent argument against prostitution that doesn't boil down to "Sex workers have no agency, and we know what's best for them better than they do"?

    (Yes, I realize that's government's argument for most aspects of personal liberty.)

  • Zeb||

    Is "it's a sin" a coherent argument?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    It can be, when you have couple millenia or more of people writing on your religion, you're gonna get some prime thinkers developing good arguments that hold if you accept the premise. I believe both Christians and Muslims used Aristotelian logic as a tool, and Jewish religion is tightly intertwined with law, so coherence and consistency are improtant.

  • SimonJester||

    Well, sort of. Wasn't there a case in California about sodomy that said, essentially, "Just cuz you think it is icky doesn't mean it should be illegal"?

  • GroundTruth||

    No

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Here's a coherent and more honest argument against prostitution:

    Prostitution drives down the price of sex. By charging money for a certain amount of time with a prostitute, prostitutes are making johns less interested in the lifelong financial commitment of marriage in exchange for sex. Prostitutes are available at any time, so johns can satisfy their cravings at any time which forces spouse to compete with prostitutes by offering sex more often. In addition, prostitutes can be found for any fetish, leading to spouses being pressured into offering sexual activities they might not otherwise be willing to do in order to compete on the sexual market.

  • toolkien||

    Which all be moot when artificial semen is invented and men are genetically engineered out of existence. And since women can't be in groups of three or more without turning the thing into a bitch-fest, a true libertarian paradise will be born.

  • DenverJ||

    And this is why there are only 5 female libertarians in the whole world. His job, toolkien, you're the reason (drink) that we can't have nice things.

  • DenverJ||

    "good job", of course

  • PH2050||

    BOOM.

  • Zeb||

    But an argument that is easily countered by "how is that any of your business?".

  • Libertymike||

    You are right for the most important reason; nevertheless, the "argument" sucks because, inter alia, it relies upon fallacious reasoning.

  • Person of Pallor||

    That looks like an argument for prostitution.

  • Pulseguy||

    That argument should be called 'fellacious reasoning' then.

  • SusanM||

    A phallacy of logic?

  • Libertymike||

    Why would you call that "argument" "coherent"?

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    It's good old fashioned protectionism.

  • LarryA||

    By charging money for a certain amount of time with a prostitute, prostitutes are making johns less interested in the lifelong financial commitment of marriage in exchange for sex.
    If the only reason a man gets married is for sex, he's doing it wrong. Commitment isn't a cost of marriage, it's a benefit. Particularly if you want an heir.

    Prostitutes are available at any time, so johns can satisfy their cravings at any time which forces spouse to compete with prostitutes by offering sex more often. In addition, prostitutes can be found for any fetish, leading to spouses being pressured into offering sexual activities they might not otherwise be willing to do in order to compete on the sexual market.
    Or the wives can say, "You want love, honor, and cherish in sickness and health, I'm here. You want the weird stuff see a pro."

    And, of course, you're presuming that wives won't be interested in paid companionship.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Of course, since wives feel no need/inclination to love, honor, cherish, etc., all that's left is sex, and you might as well use the less ultimately costly option.

  • John C. Randolph||

    So, the solution of course is to cartelize prostitution!

    Oh, wait...

    -jcr

  • Win Bear||

    Prostitution drives down the price of sex. By charging money for a certain amount of time with a prostitute, prostitutes are making johns less interested in the lifelong financial commitment of marriage in exchange for sex.

    So what?

    In addition, prostitutes can be found for any fetish, leading to spouses being pressured into offering sexual activities they might not otherwise be willing to do in order to compete on the sexual market.

    So what?

  • Peter Nelson||

    I agree so what

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Yes, there is an argument against prostitution that doesn't boil down to that, but it isn't one that the people who believe it can make publicly, and it (so far) only applies to heterosexual prostitution.

    If men can buy sex from female sex-workers, why on God's green earth would they put up with the whining, sex-adverse, opportunistic scolds that the Feministas are trying to turn all middle-class-and-higher women into?

  • Bubba Jones||

    I thought that is why men choose to be gay.

  • timbo||

    Ha

  • PH2050||

    "If men can buy sex from female sex-workers, why on God's green earth would they put up with the whining, sex-adverse, opportunistic scolds that the Feministas are trying to turn all middle-class-and-higher women into?"

    I thought this is what In League was stating, in a tongue-in-cheek way, but apparently they were serious.

  • JFree||

    The fact is that the main laws against prostitution in the US historically were based on vagrancy (mainly re street hookers), STD's, and pregnancy. Even Comstock based his arguments mainly on STD's and pregnancy. The 'immorality' was because of the view that people were lured into situations where long-term problems of pregnancy and STD's were ignored whenever the person's focus was on the short-term thrills of getting their rocks off. Not so much that the purpose of sex was solely procreation or that sex itself was a sin (that was mainly a strawman created by opponents of Comstock).

    It is no accident that marriage, prostitution, abortion, and pornography were all linked together as a single political issue (with alcohol/prohibition at times). On one side were the 'civil law' folks who thought that government needed to provide an 'acceptable' solution (civil marriage) and regulate/ban/license the 'unacceptable'. OTOS were the 'common law' folks (aka free love) who didn't accept that there was a legal basis for government to do anything until after someone is harmed.

    Reality is that the second gay activists decided to go for gay marriage; they chose to side with Comstock and the civil law side. Now apparently they are instead worried about some pudgy old guy into kink. Well guess what. That pudgy old guy into kink now has to get a government license even if he just wants someone to visit him in hospital. Bit too fucking late now.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I expect to see outrage from every major gay and lesbian organization at the callous disregard shown toward those men who seek to sexually connect on their own terms.

    Oh Scott, I have some bad news for you...

  • Christophe||

    To be a libertarian is to be perpetually disappointed.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Sad to say, I have to agree with you...

  • pan fried wylie||

    *I'm disappointed to say, etc etc

    It's like you're not even trying.

  • ||

    Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain

    Enjoy your daily nut punches, bro.

  • Doctor Whom||

    The organized LGBT community is full of people who are prudes, statists, or both.

  • Hugh Akston||

    More to the point I think the larger goal of the movement is to move gayness into the mainstream, and prostitution is still seen as a deviant perversion.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Remember the fight over home HIV test kits?

  • Hugh Akston||

    I don't actually, but I can image. The idea of people having sex outside of state-sanctioned contexts seems to drive people in this country insane.

  • grrizzly||

    I remember that PrEP was controversial.

  • ||

    I remember that PrEP was controversial.

    Was?

  • grrizzly||

    Aren't they already proposing subsidies for PrEP in San Francisco?

  • ||

    The SF gov doing something hardly takes it out of the realm of controversial.

    OT: are you going to be in LA this weekend? Reason has some kind of happy hour to meet THE JACKET while he's in town. I was going to fire off an email later to see if people might want to go. Playa is a maybe and Los Doyers is intrigued by the idea of free booze.

  • grrizzly||

    I'm in LA from Saturday to Labor Day. Probably I'll be able to make it.

  • ||

    August 28, 2015

    Two Hours of Happy with Reason.com's Nick Gillespie
    Reason's LA HQ
    5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.

    This Friday, all your libertarian dreams might just come true! Join Reason.com Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie for happy hour and lots of conversation at Reason's Los Angeles headquarters. In fact, we're so excited to see Nick here in the City of Angels that we'll make it TWO full hours of happy--plenty of time to discuss populism and weird hair in presidential politics, the war on freedom of speech on college campuses, the infamous subpoena fiasco of 2015, and wherever else the conversation takes us.

    Shoot, it's Friday not this weekend. Bummer.

  • GroundTruth||

    We have a winner!

    Now that the gay crowd can marry, look for free speech and free thought to be verboten in PTown, Key West, the Castro, etc.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Say you're a pudgy, lonely 55-year-old man in southern Illinois with a fetish for something very kinky. You're a minority within a minority. What do you do if you can't find somebody around you who shares your interest? DHS, Brooklyn's U.S. attorney's office, and a bunch of cops in New York City think you should just do without.

    Yes, that's what they think: gay or straight male, you must go without. If you don't want to, you are a villain. It'll be interesting to see what happens next - if women prostitutes are always there against their will to serve Patriarchy, what about male prostitutes? Do they get the same condescending treatment of "we'll re-educate you so you understand" or will they go join the Johns in jail?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "For many in the gay community, this is akin to the forced closure of Silk Road and the prosecution of Ross Albrecht. This is a huge deal and these busts should inspire rage and protests."

    I think this bust is as big a deal as any of those cases, and I think it's as big a deal as the everyday prosecution of the drug war, the everyday imposition on our Second Amendment rights, etc.

    I guess the question is--is it any bigger of a deal than those everyday violations of our rights and liberties?

    I don't suppose I'm the only one who feels burned by the gay rights movement. I'm not gay but was as vocal a supporter of gay marriage as anybody--only to see the gay rights community turn around and stab libertarians in the back over accommodation.

    There are so many Christians who support gay marriage. Why does it seem like gay rights activists only care about rights when someone is coming after them specifically? It would be one thing if they were merely looking the other way when the government came to violate other people's rights--but gay rights activists seem to be egging the government on.

    I'm not black, but opposing the drug war because it's racist is as good a reason as any.

    I'm not a drug user, but supporting the right of individuals to procure marijuana for themselves in a safe environment makes plenty of sense to me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not gay, and it would be a whole lot easier to continue to stand up for the rights of--specifically--gay individuals to make choices for themselves if gay people and gay rights activists weren't so hypocritically hostile to the right of non-gay people to make choices for themselves.

    Honestly, I don't think gay rights activists give a shit about rights. I think they just care about gay people--right or wrong. And if I've got a limited number of causes to lend my attention, support, and financial resources, I'd just as soon that went to fight for the rights of people who aren't openly hostile towards the rights of anyone who isn't gay and gets in their way.

  • Doctor Whom||

    I wouldn't give them the credit of saying that they just care about gay people. When actual rights for actual gay people (especially gay men) conflict with bigger government as its own reward, don't bet they'll favor the former.

  • Tony||

    Many gay people are liberals because the only group that skews otherwise are heterosexual white men. Figure out why that is first.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Some real binary thinking there, shitlord.

  • GroundTruth||

    Being intelligent, financially stable, and gay is a good recipe for becoming a libertarian.

  • Brian||

    Because liberalism appeals to weak pussies?

  • Tony||

    No, that is necessarily conservatism. Or is it to be strong and manly to be afraid of everyone different from you?

  • Brian||

    Because nothing says strong and manly like needing the paternal government to take care of you and protect you from everyone and everything, no matter what happens.

  • Pulseguy||

    The feminist movement began as an equality movement but morphed within a few years into a women's advocacy group - always for a woman, no matter what she did, if it was against a man. Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis because he cheated on her. She was a feminist icon!

    Can you imagine if some guy cut off a woman's clit because she cheated on him?

  • GamerFromJump||

    "Can you imagine if some guy cut off a woman's clit because she cheated on him?"

    The feminoids can't even be asked to defend women who actually DO have this done to them as a matter of course. Brown overrides female, so those girls need to just suck it up.

  • JFree||

    I'm of the same opinion. I don't give a flying crap about gay issues anymore.

    Shit on your friends once shame on you. But I'm not into cuprophilia.

    You all did want the state to validate your relationships. Well guess what. You got what you asked for - you just don't like the outcome now. Waah waah waah.

  • ||

    You all did want the state to validate your relationships. Well guess what. You got what you asked for - you just don't like the outcome now. Waah waah waah.

    What does this even mean? Gays have been subject to the same laws as straight people and probably more frequently enforced throughout modern American history. Now we're just asking for it because gay marriage?

    Grind your social issues ax harder, bro.

  • ||

    the same morality laws

    EDIT BUTTON

  • Win Bear||

    So you are saying you don't have a problem with the state fucking over every gay man and woman simply because a bunch of left wing activists, who happen to be gay, pursue politics you don't like. All that proves is that you engage in the same kind of oppressive and collectivist thinking as progressives, you simply belong to a different tribe. But then we knew that already.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Why does it seem like gay rights activists only care about rights when someone is coming after them specifically?

    That's activism in general. And I don't know if it's fair to tar an entire group because of the loud few who claim to represent them. (Which I do all the time; that's how I know it's not fair.)

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you see what I wrote about being a Caucasian non-drug user?

    Libertarianism is about seeing past the identity of the person in question and standing up for their rights.

    I stand up for the right of terrorists not be tortured not because I'm a terrorist but because that's my right not to be tortured that the government is violating.

    I'll stand up for the right of gay individuals--because that's my right to make choices for myself regardless of the fact that I'm not gay, too. But maybe I prioritize that fight to somewhere in line after we take care of those people who aren't openly hostile to other people's rights.

    I'm never going to applaud injustice, but...did gay people think denigrating the right of other people to make choices for themselves wouldn't have any negative impacts on them? That's not a rhetorical question. If that's what they thought, then this may be a good thing. Maybe they need to check their gay privilege.

    Maybe coming to realize there are negative consequences to denigrating other people's right to make choices for themselves has some good qualities to it, too--especially if they come to understand that those negative consequences can and do affect everybody, including gay people, too.

  • SimonJester||

    This is the problem with "weak" libertarianism, isn't it?

    Too much of libertarianism is taken up by people who say, essentially, "I want what I want -- it isn't that bad, and who are you to tell me I can't have what I want?!" I call it weak because, behind the disguise of "I want what I want" you will see a statist who is perfectly willing to give another the shaft as long as s/he gets his or her life-choice of choice.

    This is true of drug users who want THEIR drug legal, but have a big F-you if your drug isn't theirs. ("Pot should be legal, because I like it, but heroine is terrible and should be against the law!"

    This is true of businesspeople who want THEIR preferred contracts to be legal, but have a big F-you if your contracts aren't like theirs. ("I want to be able to pay my employee $2/hr, but I regulating YOUR industry is great!")

    This is true of most "alternative lifestyle" (do we say that anymore? Or is it too 90s?) folks, who want to have their relationships the way they want them, but have a big F-you for folks with other idea of relationships. ("A woman should be able to marry a woman. But three women is just ick. So it two men and a woman. Or three men and four women and a series of well cared for terriers. Only my lifestyle should be legal.")

  • SimonJester||

    (PS, I am not accusing you, Ken, of weak libertarianism.)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Do you consider yourself an activist or an advocate? If you're an activist, then congratulations. You're the exception that proves the rule.

  • Win Bear||

    Libertarianism is about seeing past the identity of the person in question and standing up for their rights.

    Yes, and just like liberals and progressives, you do that opportunistically, when it suits your own non-libertarian political agenda...

    but...did gay people think denigrating the right of other people to make choices for themselves wouldn't have any negative impacts on them

    ... and you demonstrate it again right here.

    Maybe coming to realize there are negative consequences to denigrating other people's right to make choices for themselves

    Well, you should know, since that's exactly what you are doing. You whine and complain about your rights being trampled upon, while maintaining your right to trample on other people's rights.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    I'm not gay, but I was very active in the gay-rights movement for years. Then movement started to feel worried that shrill predictions from hysterical conservatives that gay marriage would lead to legalized polygamy might deter legislators. Suddenly gays were falling all over themselves in their rush to distance themselves from the taint of non-monogamy, desperate to prove to heteros that all they really wanted was to be good little gay monogamists under the law. At that point, I said "fuck it" and gave up on the community. As far as I was concerned, gays and non-monogamists should have made natural allies. For gays to step on their non-monogamous brethren in their haste to secure their own legal perks alienated me permanently. After that, I figured if they were able to work it out on their own, good for them, but I wasn't going to waste any more time and effort on it.

    Now Obergefell v. Hodges is in the books, a plain reading of which makes legalized polygamy a virtual inevitability. The conservatives and religious wingnuts were right all along, even if their motivations were meanspirited. Gays did nothing to advance liberty by stabbing other minority groups in the back. All they succeeded in doing was possibly pushing up the inevitable a few years. Maybe they think the prize was worth the cost, but I think we all lost out in the end.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    Then the movement started to worry that the shrill predictions by hysterical conservatives—"Gay marriage? What's next? Legalized polygamy?"—would start to gain traction and deter legislators from throwing their support behind legalizing gay marriage.

    That's what I meant to type.

  • BearOdinson||

    I don't think polygamy is an inevitability, even though I would agree that it is perfectly logical based on the SCOTUS ruling. Only because the Nazgul will simply say come up with some bs about "compelling gov't interest" in keeping people in couples, or some such.

    I have been vocal that anyone who supports same-sex marriage should support all sorts of non-monogamous marriages as well, since the only reason that "2" is a magic number is because there are two sexes. And actually, I am all for plural marriages. Partially because it isn't anyone's business who I contract with or how many people I choose to contract with (as long as everyone involved is in the know). And because I am a bit of a kinky SOB!! (Hotwifing!!)

  • SimonJester||

    Compelling gov't interest?

    Sure, that one is easy -- inherritance taxes. You can pass your assets to your spouse without any taxes, and only pass on your 5.x million estate tax exemption. However, imagine if 3 people can pass this on to a 4th? Of line marriages? Keep bringing in younger folks ever few decades to pass along the assets? Uncle Sam wants his, and he ain't gonna make it easier on anybody to avoid the tax man.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    Uncle Sam wants his, and he ain't gonna make it easier on anybody to avoid the tax man.

    Just as a parent can split up his estate among one child or ten children, I see no reason why it would be any more complicated to split an estate among one spouse or three.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Spouses do not pay inheritence taxes. If you have something like a line marriage, the estate may never be subject to estate taxes because the marriage may be theoretically immortal .

  • Libertymike||

    There is no Rule Against Perpetual Pussy.

  • Cloudbuster||

    With any large estate, this is all handled through trusts and corporations. Nobody with any really large amount of money lets the government get a huge chuck of it.

    Who it really hurts are small farmers and landlords who didn't have the wherewithal to protect their holdings. Having to to liquidate a significant part of your land holdings as inheritance tax can destroy a farm, or reduce the profits from a rental operation to insolvency.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    Oddly enough, non-monogamy isn't a kink for me. It's not a sexual fantasy for me and don't get any sort of special erotic charge out of being with more than one woman. I just happen to be super relationship oriented. Where some guys enjoy tossing back beers with their buds, I prefer the company of adoring women.

    That being said, I do have a wife for whom threesomes are a major kink. She thinks threesomes are just the most awesome thing since at least the invention of cocks and boobs. She'd happily have a threesome with a new chick every night if Midwestern women were more open minded (and attractive: kinkiness seems correlated with obesity around here).

  • ||

    Fat chicks who can't normally get dick are sometimes more willing to eat pussy if it also means they get dick.

    Not a complicated issue.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You should see the Midwest, though.

    Even check Midwest people in Disneyland or somewhere.

    Morbid obesity in that group is the norm.

  • Ken Shultz||

  • ant1sthenes||

    It appears as though fatness correlates inversely to distance from Mississippi.

  • Pulseguy||

    My wife is the same! She and the neighbourhood women are always demanding a threesome with me. I actually had to buy my wife a strap-on to get some peace. We are in the golden age of television right now. I don't have time for this constant parade of different women and my hungry wife.

    Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one with this problem.

  • Win Bear||

    Now Obergefell v. Hodges is in the books, a plain reading of which makes legalized polygamy a virtual inevitability.

    The SCOTUS decision means that an existing law that applies to two adults needs to apply to two adults regardless of their sex. How does that imply that laws must be created for marriage between three adults?

    Gays did nothing to advance liberty by stabbing other minority groups in the back.

    Yes, every single homosexual in the country got together to stab minorities in the back! Of course! That makes sense!

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    Susan Ruiz, Kelly Currie, Tyler Smith, and Melanie Hendry. Congratulations, folks. You've helped stop a lonely old man in Bolivia from getting a handjob from a hot twink! That's your contribution to American justice. Be sure to put it on your resumes!

    ^That's how you should write it up, Scott, with their names in close proximity to their accomplishment so the full text appears in a cursory googling.

  • PH2050||

    Congratulations, folks. You've helped stop a lonely old man in Bolivia from getting a handjob from a hot twink!

    Nothing. Left. To. Cut.

    Susan Ruiz, Kelly Currie, Tyler Smith, and Melanie Hendry. Ruiz is the DHS special agent who thoroughly investigated the site and filed the complaint that led to these arrests. Currie, Smith, and Hendry are all attorneys with the U.S. Attorneys Office of the Eastern District of New York

    Looks like we have new contestants for Woodchipper Island! (spoiler alert: they all die and never make it off the island)

  • PH2050||

    *Survivor: Woodchipper Island

  • ||

    There's a special place in Hell where their woodchippered bits, intermingled with those of Preet Bharara and his minions, can be placed to burn forever. I will break my vegetarian habit just this once to roast weenies over the flames. Seems somehow fitting.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    I will inform my colleagues they have new guests.

  • PH2050||

    Lol!

  • Ice Nine||

    Ya know, I'm fervently in support of decriminalizing prostitution but I do believe that I would like to outlaw the referring to prostitutes, hookers, whores and harlots as "sex workers" for Christsake.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    You forgot courtesans!

    Also, I always saw it as
    prostitute - occupation
    whore - character trait

  • ||

    You know the difference between a bitch and a whore ?

    A whore will fuck anybody and a bitch will fuck anybody but YOU.

  • DenverJ||

    Hey! That's my joke, give it back!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Sterling Archer: Oh my God! You killed a hooker!

    Cyril Figgis: Call girl!

    Sterling Archer: No, Cyril! When they're dead they're just hookers!

  • SimonJester||

    What would you prefer?
    What name, thinks you, defines them?
    Can they pick their own?

  • pan fried wylie||

    Erotic Consultant.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Conslutant?

  • Ice Nine||

    I'm not in the defining business; Merriam and Webster are.

  • SimonJester||

    A)
    It was a hiku.
    Nothing more and nothing less
    Blossoms gently fall.

    B) Sex Worker is, as I understand it, the term they generally prefer for themselves. I, personally, reckon they can name themselves whatever the hell they want and ask their advocates to respect their language. It is a way to support sex workers. Or, at least, that is the idea.

  • Pulseguy||

    Have sex for money
    It is a lot of fun, but
    you might go to jail

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    +1 Cherry Blossom reference in Haiku.

  • electrotectic||

    It's non-obnoxious, non-angry, non-whiny, non-inflating, factual, sober, and not a euphemism. It appeals.

  • Zeb||

    Seems like an accurate and neutral term. Though it is broader than just prostitutes, so sometimes you need to be more specific.

  • Not a Libertarian||

    If I give her an extra fifty, call I call her a whore?

  • ||

    Maybe there are some/is a politician(s) on the john list who needs to be taken out ?

  • ||

    Say you're a pudgy, lonely 55-year-old man in southern Illinois with a fetish for something very kinky.

    HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT MOST OF MY FAMILY?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Look Jimbo, for the umpteenth time, we get that you grew up wearing a gimp mask and that the only toys you had to play with were old nipple clamps and butt plugs. That explains, though it certainly doesn't excuse, a lot about you as a person.

  • ||

    *sobs* It's true, it's all true!

  • Win Bear||

    Odd that you even know what a "gimp mask" is... (I had to look it up)

  • ||

    The huger the government is, the more scumbags will inhabit it, the more power those scumbags will have, and the bigger chance one or more of those scumbags decide to set their sights on you or something/someone you care about.

    We've seen it with raw milk, or artisinal toys, or gay escort services now. We have a government with untold amounts of money and power of a heretofore unimaginable size and scope. This is uncharted territory, people. Even the Soviet Union didn't have this kind of reach. No society in the past was ever capable of supporting this tremendous parasite class.

    There will exponentially be more and more of this.

  • Conchfritters||

    No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

  • Cloudbuster||

    My daughter read Animal Farm in her tweens or early teens, and got the point immediately. Why is it so hard for most people?

  • Jerry on the sea||

    Based on my investigation, I have learned that a sling, also known as a "sex sling," is a device that allows two people to have sex while one is suspended and a rimchair is a seat resembling a raised toilet seat designed so that the anus is accessible while someone is sitting on the seat. I have also learned that "rimming" refers to the touching of the tongue to the anus.

    It's good that DHS has its priorities...urh...straight.

  • pan fried wylie||

    I just want to know how much it cost them to learn what 2mins on google could have accomplished.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    This feels like a desperate act from a desperate organization. When you waste millions in salaries, you must produce a deliverable or your budget will be cut. Scott's right, this was all about money.

    As we know, the removal of Silk Road made room for many smaller, possibly more nimble, security-intensive sites. It's 100% certain the removal of rentboy will clear the way for smaller, more nimbler, more secure sites of like business.

    This was another example of antitrust - vice edition.

  • Fisting Ethics||

    Boot-on-Neck Putin style against easily targeted groups and individuals where the government can look like the good guy against the creep of moral desecration is a natural function of the state - not at all contrary to its core mission of self-preservation, tax farming humans, expansion, and seperating the rulers from the ruled. To your point, yes this was a part of the slight of hand to bamboozle people into thinking government is providing a useful service.

  • ||

    What, a gay escort service has been shut down?! I knew the DHS was necessary! I feel safer now that this gay menace has been shut down! We need a wall to keep these gays out and let's build those gulags! Murika, fuck yeah!

  • SimonJester||

    We need a wall and we'll get all the Gayz to build it! Yeah! (The butch girls can do the labor and the girly boys can do the interrior decorating.)

    /trumpthumprumpbump

  • John Galt||

    There's room for everyone under the big tent city political prison tent!

  • ||

    And we'll use the Mexicans as slave masters!

  • PH2050||

    No way dude the gays are already here as sleeper cells and they're buying guns and they're gonna get their gay European friends to help overthrow the government and install a Gayarchy. If you don't vote for Trump that means you want your wife given to gay dudes. Not sure what they'll do, other than probably make her look super hot or something, but they're definitely a menace.

    Trump 2016! Why settle for a lesser evil stupid?

  • ||

    They'll be her bestest BGF and improve her decorating skills.

  • Fisting Ethics||

    I see the marching hammers.

    Are there any queers in the theatre tonight? Get 'em up against the wall!
    That one in the spotlight, he doesn't look right! Get him up against the wall!
    And that one looks Jewish... and that one's a coon! Who let all this riff raff into the room?
    That one's smoking a joint! And that one's got spots! If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot!

    /Pink Floyd or the FBI, you pick

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    Wait, you mean gay prostitutes aren't terrorists?

    The mind boggles!

  • ||

    Maybe one of them had a Ron Paul bumper sticker or something. You never know who the terrorists are these days.

  • John Galt||

    Considering both party's establishment members' hate for ole Rand; could be.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Something about terrorists prefering to enter by back door?

  • DenverJ||

    Swiss missed it, so:
    < narrows gaze

  • John Galt||

    One thought on Rentboy bust: Someone didn't get their buy-off-a-powerful-politician payment in on time. tsk-tsk

  • SimonJester||

    Yep, I wonder about this. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a spurned lover somewhere behind all this.

  • John Galt||

    Maybe in the highest of offices.

  • Not a Libertarian||

    I read this as Maybe in the highest of orifices

  • Fisting Ethics||

    This is why WE need Trump! He has bought and paid for politicians on both teams - nobody knows the problem of cronyism better and so nobody else can solve it. Thank God, the Bible, and Hillary for a man like Trump to lead us poor stupid people into a promised land where brown people aren't stealing our jobbbzzzz.

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    In the earlier thread, people were asking what gay man would use this service.

    I guess we found our answer.

    I'm just playin' you Scott. You have that sweet Kochtopus money. You don't need the internet for call girls boys. I assume that there is a very high end, exclusive service that handles such things.

  • PH2050||

    Man, did you ever fall for his ruse. He's Meegan Kelly's top White Knight! Sucka!

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    Bro, everyone knows that all White Knights are just beta cuckservative faggots.

    Checkmater, mofo!

  • PH2050||

    Godammit

  • ||

    What, you are getting paid by the Kochtopus? Why are you here?

  • Bubba Jones||

    I guess they should have called it "borrow man" to avoid the appearance of paying for sex with minors.

    Did rentboy pay taxes on those millions? If not, then I'm not sure why I should be sympathetic to what is essentially a tax enforcement.

  • ||

    You know, it's a very difficult task to create a libertarian. Good news is once you've created one, there's no going back for them. But if anyone is capable of creating a libertarian, it's government. Once the seed of discord has been sewn, all you need to do is swoop in and guide them in the right direction, lest they fall into the leftist trap. You probably have about a 5% chance of success. Be diligent libertarians. Carry on.

  • ashliedriscoll||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.homejobs90.com

  • Rhywun||

    follow the money

    Normally I would agree - but by NY klepto-standards, this is couch cushion money.

  • Ron||

    I get it. Now that gays can marry the gay married couples no longer approve of gay prostitution.

  • SimonJester||

    I think there is some truth to this.

  • SimonJester||

    I think there is some truth to this.

  • Rhywun||

    Maybe the not knowing intended to scare people.

    This rings a bell.

  • *GILMORE*||

    First they came for the gay whores, and I said, "Hey now, take it easy already"...

    ...because I felt like I should be able to keep my options open....

  • PH2050||

    Lmao! Damn that was good.

  • Hadley V. Baxendale||

    "We've been fighting for the right to define our relationships as we choose, not allowing the government to decide what is legitimate. Marriage recognition is just part of that fight. We are not free as long as the government is dictating the terms of our sexual interactions." Wait a second, please. The gay community demanded that the government decide whether homosexual marriage should be recognized (more accurately, demanding that the government issue marriage permits to gay couples before they can call themselves married). The gay community did allow the government to decide what is legitimate -- the government still says polygamous marriage is illegal. The US Supreme Court has ruled indirectly that government may still dictate the terms of sexual interactions. Hence, the government is doing exactly what the gay community demanded -- that nose of the government in the tent sucks -- ask a polygamist.

  • Cloudbuster||

    That line of thought is waaay too complicated for your typical prog activist.

  • Cloudbuster||

    I'd really like to understand the jurisdictional issues with this. I don't understand how DHS is involved in this at all. I suspect it falls under the FYTW clause.

    Need more woodchippers.

  • Nick W B||

    Putting aside for a second the serious questions about whether or not prostitution should be legal or whether or not this is a deliberate target against the gay community...
    What the royal fuck is the Department of Homeland Security doing with an anti prostitution team? Are we worried that the terrorists are switching strategies from blowing up buildings to blowing fat lonely gay men?

  • Win Bear||

    YouTube has an explanation on the relationship between terrorism and gay sex:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuEK9gSUbWw

    From the recruitment video: "Are you a sexually frustrated young man? Get lucky with a bomb up your butt! What social loser wouldn't like to take one in the ass for Allah?"

  • John||

    They go after straight prostitution all of the time. I don't recall the gay community giving a shot. Given that, why should the straight community care about this? Fuck em. As long as prostitution is illegal, the law should apply to everyone. This is long over due really.

  • *GILMORE*||

    Tell me more about this "straight community" John, and their uni-vocal attitudes about everything.

    I myself am only 65%. the rest is Discosexual

  • John||

    so the law should not apply to gays? Didn't we just have a big case about how the law should apply equally to them? Think of this as DHS affirming gays as equal under the law. Just like gay marriages are equally legal, gay hookers and Johns are equally illegal.

    I see this whole thing as very gay affirming.

  • Rhywun||

    Johns are equally illegal

    One can dream.

  • John||

    Don't worry Rywyn. I am a straight white guy. That day is coming.

  • *GILMORE*||

    I get your point about "equal treatment under the law"... but where is DHS stepping outside its traditional mandate to bust plain old 'straight' hookers?

    The point here seems to be that the Feds have stepped into an issue that tends to be the purview of local law enforcement, and is mostly ignored (except when it is street-level)

  • John||

    I work at DHS. They have been going after straight hookers under the guise of stopping human trafficking for years. Yeah it is bullshit. But it is no worse bullshit because they for once went after gays.

  • ||

    As both Shackford and ENB noted, trafficking doesn't show up in this complaint at all. You could certainly argue that law enforcement uses trafficking as a figleaf to clamp down on the sex industry, but DHS apparently isn't even bothering with that now.

  • Rhywun||

    *whoosh*

  • John||

    And gays have marriage now. What do they need whores for? Aren't they all married loyal suburbanites now?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Christ you are a fucking dick.

  • Win Bear||

    And gays have marriage now. What do they need whores for?

    You obviously aren't married.

  • Domina Elle||

    BAM!!

    Come on people! We must fight back! It isn't going to get better. It's going to get worse thanks to new federal anti trafficking legislation which has given state's financial incentive to do these raids! It is an attack on the sexual privacy rights of ALL consenting adults in the United states. There must be a legal challenge to set a much needed precedent limiting the reach of the state in these very private parts of our lives!!! It's going to take a legal challenge and lo and behold there is one such challenge RIGHT NOW! The esplerp.org case challenging the state of California. If won NINE states could be impacted! What consenting adults do in private even consensual sexual commerce should be established as protected by the constitution! Echoing Lawrence VS Texas And other important cases! We need support! We have an excellent legal team headed by Louis Sirkin himself. It's just going to take dedication and funding! PLEASE SUPPORT THIS HISTORICAL CASE to establish sexual privacy rights for all consenting adults!!! http://Litigate2emancipate.com!

  • SusanM||

  • phenryinohio||

    For the third time... What in the hell does Homeland Security have to do with rentboys in the US? Explain or drop charges please.

    Or just do the right thing...fire the DHS, every last one of them, and charge them, the AG and its branch offices with being pimps for the Executive Branch. After all they are supplying and unknown number of men, women and trans people to the Courts to be bent over and screwed without consent.

  • John||

    Human trafficking. It is a joke. The only good thing is that since this is finally effecting the sacred homos the right people might start to care. As long as they just go after low status straights, nothing will change.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "For the third time... What in the hell does Homeland Security have to do with rentboys in the US?"

    They were casting around for a mandate (hur hur) and someone from Congress sent them a message saying "Assholes. Your only job is to stop dudes from blowing other dudes up". Unfortunately DHS' fax machine cut off the last bit.

  • DenverJ||

    Nice!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    What's the lad in the photo supposed to be? I can't tell what he's wearing. OR NOT WEARING I SHOULD SAY.

  • Not a Libertarian||

    I think he is supposed to be a tight end

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    His cleats aren't even laced up. Who's going to pay for something like that if they can't even get the details right?

  • Arthur45||

    I believe the issue is that prostitution is illegal. Gays always lok to blame there problems on
    folks who practice normal and healthy sexual behavior, although one can argue that homosexual behavior does not qualify as sexual at all. Libertarians pride themselves on believing that they can judge when behavior is harmful or not (they cannot) so it's no surprise that they see nothing wrong here. Perhaps if they were selling sex with barnyard animals Libertarians might have aproblem. Naaaaa.. libertarians suck

  • electrotectic||

    With a friend like you, who needs enemies?

  • Not a Libertarian||

    I had a look at the Towleroad website, which is as mainline center-left gay as one might find

    http://www.towleroad.com/2015/.....ing-video/

    And no comments were supportive of the raid (yet)

    Many made comments as to why America could not be more like Europe and have legal prostituion (disregarding the European move to criminalize "the buying" of sex)

    One commenter made the wierd statement that this was a move to secure the servers to protect the reputations of closeted conservative Republicans (a move made by the U.S. Attorney under this Administration?)

    And one user of the site is clearly upset that his data could be leaked.

  • John||

    Isn't prostitution ENB's beat? Scott never wrote about it before.

  • Not a Libertarian||

    Well how often are male whores in the news.

  • John||

    You mean Scott only cares if it affects his identity group?

  • *GILMORE*||

    Sometimes you're a dick because you have a point to make, john, and sometimes you're just a dick for no apparent reason.

    Editors hand out stories to the writers; scott covers the 'gay' beat. When things overlap i presume they flip a coin/arm-wrestle/consult a ouija board/just give it to whomever has less going on.

    you seem to toss this "identity group" thing out there like a slur, when just above you're moaning about the interests of "straights" as though you think that is some kind of coherent 'interest group' with similar monolithic concerns. Do you have a point? or do you just plan to endlessly recycle your displeasure whenever Gay/Mexicans/Weed topics get covered...?

  • John||

    Straight s are not an interst group. That is the entire point.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Dark John, how much more damage do you need to take before you reveal your final and most terrible form?

  • *GILMORE*||

    Aside from politics

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You've helped stop a lonely old man in Bolivia from getting a handjob from a hot twink!

    Almost all of my middle school sexual experience was basically getting a handjob from a hot twink. It's overrated.

  • Not a Libertarian||

    Typical. All the hot gay sex just wasted on a straight guy.

  • SimonJester||

    I think, but I don't know, he was referring to himself. As in, he is the hot twink in question. But I could be wrong, maybe FoE's Flag Football team had some interesting luck rituals...

  • Rockabilly||

    The terrorist is our own government.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Susan Ruiz, Kelly Currie, Tyler Smith, and Melanie Hendry...

    So the ones who set this in motion were four *women*. Interesting, that.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Since when is Tyler a woman's name?

  • ||

    Kelly is more frequently a woman's name, but it's not rare for it to be a man's name. If I had to call a Kelly I'd try to find something with the person's sex on it first if I could. Tyler I'd definitely default to it being a dude's name.

  • *GILMORE*||

    When its a Tyler Perry movie?
    http://www.diaryofamadblackwomanmovie.com/

  • GamerFromJump||

    Well, Kelly and Tyler are unisex names, so I guess Giogle is in order.

  • GamerFromJump||

    An edit button is even more in order.

  • SimonJester||

    Giogle is your Fiiend.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    In spite of its grandiose demands to be recognized as inestimably critical to the infrastructure of the American existence the exact

    opposite defines the construct of American bureaucracy.

    When those that deviate from the maddening grooves are brought low shrill hallelujahs ring from ego-engorged attorneys gliding like

    viperous saints through the various marble halls of brutality that crouch like giant stone-faced edifinces in the centers proudly built as

    stalwart obsessions to the rigid and inflexible.

    Peel back the social veneer and facade of American governance and beneath lies nothing charming as the politician's television smile or nothing disarming as an offhand New York Times article or nothing light-hearted and warm as that experienced by the giddy beating

    heart of the political evangelist as she works feverishly for party emblems.

    Above, the streams and flights of discourse twist over the weekly humdrum and mishmash and every single day tongues wag and cluck on the gears of governance with hawking simplistic repetitions between product lines on every form of media reflection.

    Beneath, the beast is brittle and mean.

    Above, the world is yet another sun.

    Beneath, the violent plodding armies strategically align to resist social evolution, the improvers, and the facilitators.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    American liberty has become a deception. A hook baited and swung into the horizon of crowds from the hand of the planners and controllers.

    This fucking election is over-flowing with fools that are wisps released from the dark cogs grinding beneath it all. Human liberty within the politician's fortress is fast becoming a pejorative. The disdain of the brilliant, flexible, and organic is evidenced every fucking time a collection of blood-thirsty tyrants unleashed from the hellish stations of oppressive legalism savage those who offer important alternative to the shunning elbows of government. Fuck these living impasses.

  • Arthur45||

    Rentboy.com pursued the veneer of respectability when everyone knew it was a male prostitution
    website and guilty also of money laundering. I'm astounded that these folks are maintaining the facade of respectability. They are scum, plain and simple, making milions off of human mental disabilities.

  • SimonJester||

    Go on. Please say that you consider homosexuality or a desire to pay for sexual contact a mental disability. Please please please please please.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I just can't really care.

    Scott can 'fume, fume, gay,gay, gay, fume, fume', but let's be realistic here.

    No matter how much we might know that prostitution/sex work should be legal, it's not right now. That means people who choose to work in the field anyway are at constant risk of arrest. They know this, as we should also.

    And look--no surprise whatsoever--they busted an online gay brothel. Shocker.

    Woman got busted in Alaska for pretty much the same thing--but Scott's gotta leap in on this one--because, apparently, the complaint was worded differently and that makes it a gay thing.

    But it's not.

    It's statists using statism to screw people however they can.

    Next.

  • SimonJester||

    Not quite. Remember, in the Alaska there is a trumped up charge of human traficking, while there isn't here. That is important. Becuase ... reasons.

  • MarkM||

    Question - anyone have a coherent theory why DHS would have jurisdiction here? Last I checked, DHS was not the FBI and was not authorized to go after matters like this. I understand DHS can go after folks involved in immigration and/or seeking benefits, so the closest theory I have is that this entire investigation got triggered by Soto Decker's H-1B visa application in 2010?

  • Pulseguy||

    All bureaucratic rules are written in such a way they can stick their noses into anything. A little bit of vagueness goes a long way.

  • timbo||

    answer - because 1984, that's why.

    They tracked that VA shooter today by his cell phone in no time.

    Now they gestapo just admits that they are watching you.

  • helen567||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • timbo||

    Funny, they never busted Barnie Frank's gay brothel.

    Perhaps these gay guys just do not understand how fascism works.

    They should have paid to paly like everyone else.
    Guarantee that many in DC would have changed the law to protect the company had they only been made aware of the services by a suitcase full of money.

  • timbo||

    American's have truly lost their sense of humor.

    The picture in the head line of this article is one of the funniest things I have ever seen and no good jokes about it. Is that guy in a 3 point football stance?

    No wonder gay people get no respect.

  • ||

    Ooh, tough one. Can men oppress men? Can gay men oppress gay men? I'd go with:

    1) by facilitating prostitution, gay men indirectly facilitate the oppression of women by heterosexual men.

    2) Gay men exhibiting a greater sex drive than women makes feminist claims to equal sex drive less plausible (clearly male homosexual sex is and has been more suppressed by society than female [including but not limited to lesbian] sex).

    3) If gay men are better at consenting to sex than women are, then the narrative of female agency and victimhood may suffer some kind of damage

    That's why the left would want to intervene. The religious right has its own reasons.

  • electrotectic||

    Dear Mr Shackford, you are 100% right. Thanks for not holding back. And it's not even my issue, so to speak. And yet, it is. Basic freedom.

  • elenasestes||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  • Nosea||

    Too bad they didn't bust the Ashley Madison site before the hackers had fun...they were (are) the equivalent of virtual pimps. If you really think about it, what is transpiring there...sex.
    There is no end to the righteous hypocrite and the ever blathered about sanctity of marriage bullshit. Honestly, 39 million people and that's not even counting the people who do it the old fashion way! That's friggin staggering (but not surprising) !

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online