Wasn’t it more like “sugar babies,” young (very young, sometimes) women who advertised their willingness to provide companionship to generous men? Perhaps go on trips and stay in hotels with them?
Admittedly there’s a fine line between that and prostitution. So fine as to be sometimes invisible. But the dodge would be that these women are just providing companionship to generous men. More of a “mistress” arrangement.
Buying her a plane ticket would be considered transporting her, counselor.
Cipolla’s First Law of Stupidity: " Law 1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation."
From the excellent essay on stupidity found at https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity?utm_source=pocket-newtab
This essay explains why the fight against ignorance may be futile. Perhaps it is grist for a new thread.
If they are under the age of consent, it doesn’t really matter if they were paid at all, in money, in apartment leases, or in Barbie dolls.
But before dropping a wet blanket on a topic, don’t you read something about the subject, or at least skim the thread?
(Anyone picturing a lawyer walking into a courtroom and asking “So, what’s this case about? And which side am I on? Well, geez, your honor, give me a break, I haven’t had a chance to read anything. So, where do I sit, at this table, or over here with this guy?”)
Guess I’m a little disappointed. When I saw you’d posted, I was assuming we’d get a legal perspective, and I would’ve liked to hear your take on Gaetz and his situation. But not just “Ehhh, no big deal, did he really do anything wrong?”
No, there isn’t. Sugar babies are salaried prostitutes, nothing else.
Not seeing it in this thread, thank God, but can I just come in here and complain about the phrase ‘underaged prostitutes’ which I keep seeing in press reports:
Matt Gaetz was not consorting with underaged prostitutes. He was raping teenagers.
Allegedly, but I’ve been on this planet long enough to know the difference between smoke and fire. There are just moments which occur that shift the paradigm and brings context to a lot of clues* which were out there but no one really wanted to put together, kinda like the Savile story early last decade. This Gaetz story? Everyone is like slapping their heads saying ‘yeah, of course!’ no one is saying ‘no, not Matt! Not that guy!’
**
I would pay money to see the following on video:
Reporter: Rep. Gaetz, do you consider yourself to be a gentleman?
Gaetz: Yes.
Reporter: Whatever happened to “A gentleman never kisses and tells”?
I could be wrong, but if I recall correctly, legally speaking, “I thought she was 18” is not considered a valid defense in cases of underaged sex crimes. Perhaps a prosecutor would be willing to cut some slack if someone like Gaetz could establish a good faith effort to verify age and was somehow tricked, but that’s not what usually happens.
Well, IANAL, but even if sex with a 17 year-old is technically legal within a state, if someone uses interstate communications to set up a sexual encounter across state lines, and then travels across state lines for the purposes of performing the sexual act, it becomes a matter of federal jurisdiction.
Warning and 1 day suspension for UltraVires
This is pretty much trolling. Combined with the your recent warning and other activity of late I am suspending you for a day while bumping this up to the mod loop.
I’ll be adding more to this post later. Thread will reopen shortly.
ETA: Warning this morning for Breaking News Thread and lighter trolling in ATMB & GD.
I should also make it clear, this line “so I would appreciate holding off on the personal attack.” played by the troll before a personal attack, made the decision to jump to 1 day suspension easy.
I guess I have a different definition of the word “generous”.
He has also been showing off nude pictures of the women he had slept with to other congressmen. (I originally typed congresspeople, but then I realized that there was no reason for that to be gender neutral.)
Which means that there is a pretty good chance that he’s also been trafficking in underage pornography.
It’s more complicated than this. The age of consent in Federal jurisdictions is 16, not 18, (18 USCode 2243), and the old Mann Act language about “for immoral purposes” was long ago replaced by more specific language. Transporting for purposes of commercial sexual activity is a federal crime under the PROTECT Act of 2003, but consensual sexual activity isn’t necessarily. Paying for hotel rooms and airfare would probably trip the commercial wire, though, depending on how explicit the quid pro quo really was.
Thank you slash2k, for the more detailed info as to what may be involved on the federal level (really I was puzzled UV took that flip approach on a legal matter).
It is worthwhile to bring up the “legal technicalities” because that is what someone gets prosecuted and convicted for, not just for “Ewwww, What a creep”. The latter does and can jeopardize your political future and that’s more than fair game in the case of someone like Gaetz. But the law helps us understand if/why he may get or not get charged with something, and with what. And may I restate one of my constant cries in these forums, explanation is not justification nobody’s defending him.
(And all that’s entirely aside from the issue as to whether our system is going to slap the “trafficking” tag on anything involving sex & money. Plus of course if it will be enforced equitably.)
It does seem like there is a combination of many different things going down, it’s gonna be fascinating to unravel.
As to any replacement at the post, yeah, that district is safe Hard R. All you’d be cleaning up would be individual morals and mental state issues, not despicable ideological postures (and as we have seen in a couple of other seats, mental state gets a pass easily).
Well, sure. And believe me, I have nothing to say in defense of that loathsome little shit Matt Gaetz.
But (and I realize that the allegations against Gaetz involve federal charges of transporting a minor, and I don’t think prostitution really comes into it) it’s perfectly legal for a man to set a woman up in an apartment, pay her rent, give her lots of “gifts” and have sex with her. It’s not legal to offer her a bunch of cash for a sex act. As far as the law is concerned, those are different things.
Of course, as far as reality is concerned, there’s not that much difference, except that one woman has better business model.
Dunno if this counts as ‘good’, but notice the name ‘Cuomo’ has disappeared from the front page. As if, no matter how bad Dems are, Repubs can always outdo them.
