August 2003

NVBModerator on relationships.

Avid Reader confesses.

Ah, poor Sherry.

pokersearch says that the Big Four in Ely is open.

CVGuy's quoted rates for NYE#2.

Kellycious checks Flyfisher's reality. Personally, I didn't know he had any.

Lady Ranchhand ask for suggestions.

Flyfisher rants.

Chay dares you.

Sidewinder's wages.

Bobbi Davis on business.

Kellycious on handjobs.

LL on Tijuana rates. He should know.

Speed Racer answers Dex on NYE#2.

Sportsman volunteers.

And this important message from Sherry.

If you live in San Bernardino County in California, then click here.

LL on legal Tijuana prostitution.

Sportsman is old!

Have you seen this?

EDITORIAL #035 :

I used to be field report editor on my old paranoia.com website and then later on the now defunct gppays.com website. Originally I had a very simple rule concerning changing or removing field reports - if a working girl wanted one of her field reports deleted, either partially or completely, then I'd do it. I did this primarily because back in the old days it was accepted that working girls didn't know what the Internet was about and didn't have access. Later, once it became clear that legal Nevada working girls knew about the Internet and did have access, I changed my deletion rules to :

1. Anonymity must be preserved.

2. No reporting of illegal activities.

3. No breaking of house rules.

If something in a field report violated any of these three rules, then I'd delete that part of the report. Of course, since I made sure that the report didn't go online with any of those violations in the first place then there should be no problems. That turned out to be optimistic thinking.

Some girls simply wanted their field reports deleted, even positive reports, and would lie any way they could to get me to delete them, no matter how stupid a lie it was. One girl, no kidding, pointed out that the report gave her hair color, and she was afraid that her relatives would read the report and guess that it was her. I offered to delete only the reference to her hair color, but she insisted that the entire report must go. It didn't.

Not so easily handled were those reports where the working girl claimed that her stage name was in fact her real name. Why any brothel would allow that is beyond me, but almost all brothels allow a working girl to use her real name as her supposedly anonymous stage name. What I usually did was change the name on the reports although most girls just wanted the reports deleted, with an agreement that I'd post no new reports on them. Fat chance - I told them they needed to change their working name.

I can go on with humorous anecdotes about field report editor incidents, but I think you should get the point. And it should go without comment why I had rule #2, no reporting of illegal activities, in the field reports.

However, I am no longer field report editor - I quit that long ago. I do still believe that there is no justification for reporting illegal activities, which puts me at odds with Voyeur who is thinking about it but has yet to do so.

In case you are not familiar with Voyeur's case, you need to read these following message threads : here, here and here. In short, Voyeur had three in-house parties with a here un-named working girl, and all were good experiences. The two of them then decided to have an off-the-books encounter, which is of course illegal. An off-the-books encounter is a party outside any brothel, without any brothel's knowledge, and no money going to any brothel. It can even be outside the state of Nevada. This is illegal, in case you're still wondering. Then, after Voyeur paid the girl in advance as she requested, she did a no-show and has ignored all of his attempts to contact her. Therefore, there are now two illegal activities in question here, the first still being the off-the-books party, and the second being theft.

Normally if someone steals from you, you just contact the police and let them handle it. Voyeur does not have this as a viable option because it was also an off-the-books party which was in and of itself illegal and if he reports it to the police then he puts himself at legal risk.

Voyeur is upset about the theft. Of course he is. But he is also interested in letting other guys know about her ripoff in case they are thinking of doing off-the-books business with the same lady. I can see Voyeur's point, but I still oppose his making her name public. I think that Voyeur should back-channel her working identity, making people either inbox him on nvbrothels.net or e-mail him privately rather than indiscriminately posting her working identity publicly. Thus far this is how he is handling it, and I hope he limits himself to it.

When I saw that Voyeur was privately e-mailing other guys about this I requested he e-mail me as well. He did so, and we exchanged some e-mail messages. I then sent Voyeur my home telephone number and he called me and we spoke at length about the issue.

Voyeur told me who the lady was. I've not partied with her, but I've met her twice and I know many guys who have partied with her and she has a sterling reputation. As for Voyeur, he has long had a lurker status going back to 1996 to my old paranoia.com website.

Voyeur also told me something that came as a complete surprise to me - another recent victim of this same lady had contacted Voyeur and relayed his information, and this second person is a friend of mine who I trust. Later, this second person contacted me and confirmed that it was indeed the same lady that stole from both of them. He tells me that he is not encouraging Voyeur to publicly post the lady's name, but that he will publicly support Voyeur if he does so.

As for why I oppose making public this lady's working name, I have several reasons. Although I support the decriminalization of prostitution, except for the relatively few legal Nevada bordellos it is totally illegal throughout the United States. Therefore, when one chooses to engage in an illegal activity one assumes the risks that go with it. If you get ripped off then there is no recourse, and the best you can do is share this information with your friends privately. Also, I try to see things through the eyes of others, and although most working girls might condemn the actions of this one lady, I think that most of them would close ranks against what they see as an attack against all of them by tricks hiding behind their anonymity accusing a working girl, by name, of two illegal acts. Bree will obviously disagree, but I see it as setting an ugly and indefensible precedent.

Both Voyeur and this second fellow tell me that there are at least two other victims of this girl out there, both of whom are friends of mine, but I have not contacted them about this. The allegations are, to my knowledge, limited to only off-the-books parties, not to her conduct within the brothel that she works. I had thought about contacting the owner of the brothel where this lady still works just as a common courtesy, but this is not my fight. What would I tell him? To kick her out?

So, lets say that Voyeur does make her name public. What should the brothel owner do? One could say that since these are things that happened outside of the brothel then it is none of the brothel owner's business. But one could also say that allowing her to work at this establishment casts a shadow over everyone who works there. People in good faith can take either side, and it is exactly that ambiguity which makes for another reason not to make her working name public.

However, making her working name public is not outing her. I am adamantly opposed to outing anyone, and will ostracize anyone who outs anyone else. Outing someone means telling the public someone's real identity, and although I oppose Voyeur making this lady's working name public, doing so will not out her.

And where does my involvement stand? Am I helping things by writing this editorial or hurting them? I hope that I am making the case here that her name should not be made public. I have privately been very critical of another poster who has shown a penchant for sticking his nose into other people's business and making himself out to be some sort of champion. I hope that I don't come across that way - I merely hope that everyone keeps a cool head on this and that things don't get out of hand.

I have to say that I have not heard the other side of the story, by the lady in question. It is not known why she took the money the way she did, all that is known is that she has refused to respond to all attempts to contact her to find out what the deal is. Sweetheart, if you are reading this, then please contact both of these gentlemen - you know who they are. They both still love you but are hurt by what you've done. Please contact them. This can all be put behind you by returning the money or (ahem) by working something out.

Be seeing you.

Bashful

Quote of the week : "Anybody who wants to know anything about themselves or their own country should spend at least 24 hours in the local jail. Especially anybody who is running for office. They should do a week.." -- Joan Baez, in an August 27, 2003 interview published in The Guardian.