November 6, 2008 | 5 Comments

Sex Workers Get Slammed, Eliot Spitzer Gets Off

It’s a sad week for sex workers: not only was Proposition K, a San Francisco initiative that would have decriminalized prositution, soundly defeated; but now Craigslist is cracking down on their erotic services section, requiring “vendors” to verify their identities by providing a valid credit card to pay a small listing fee. Meanwhile, Eliot Spitzer won’t be facing federal charges for his episode of gov love. Isn’t justice great? (time.com + nytimes.com + gawker.com)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Author:Lux Alptraum

View all posts by Lux Alptraum →
  • drunkexpatwriter

    Who do they consider a vendor? I’m paid to write Craigslist ads for male and female escorts and more often than not phrase them in such a way that it’s subtle. If a girl writes that she’s looking for “tuition help” is Craigslist going to list her as a vendor. If a rent boy writes that he’s looking for “artistic donations” will he be listed as a vendor?

    If so, won’t all these people simply post their ads in Casual Encounters now and then bring up the money issue once the dude responds?

    It just seems to me that there are a million ways to get around this that would be awfully hard for Craigslist to enforce.

  • Brian47

    Wait, sex workers post elsewhere other than the Erotic Services section? I guess I didn’t do enough research! I always felt searching the erotic services section was the most direct option, without reading between the lines or playing games in the other sections in order to reach the same result. Obviously, I am out of the loop… :)

  • Brian47

    Also, Craigslist reported they would charge $5 to $10 for each ad? Wow, that is steep. I guess there is still backpage.com and cityvibe to rely on, but I kinda feel that that is a hefty per-ad fee to charge…

  • MalzyWheels

    So much for “net neutrality.”

    Actually, I heard or read somewhere recently about a couple of friends who were busted for hiring prostitutes. When their court date came, they put up the defense that each guy paid for the services of the others lady friend. Of course, the prosecution went ape shit, saying that it did not matter who paid because it was still sex for money and that was prostitution. The judge, however, agreed with the defendants, saying that (in that jurisdiction I guess) prostitution was defined as two people entering into a money transaction for sexual favors, and since, in this case, the person buying the sexual favors was not the recipient of said sexual favors from the person they bought the favors from, it did not constitute prostitution.

    So the moral of this story is to use the buddy system when in need and go double dutch. Just make sure that you don’t get stuck with the bigger tab. ;)

    Just another example of the hypocrisy of it a all. Is it better to pay a person for sex outright, or is it more moral to take them out on an extravagant date and have them feel obligated? Sounds crass, but think about it.

  • Brian47

    I know, as others stated when you look at the issue completely objectively of 2 consenting adults agreeing to have sex, whether actual dollars are involved or an expensive night out, what difference does it make? Would it be better if escorting was the person’s primary career but only for supplemental income? How many times have both sexes put out for gifts, or out of guilt, or revenge or whatever, but regardless it was not in the context of a loving, monogamous, church-approved relationship (or whatever the hell is supposed to be the standard and make sex valid)?