Patriots owner Robert Kraft charged wih soliciting prostitute

killermike wrote:

[quote]was he though??? wrote:

[quote]killermike wrote:

There's nothing wrong with getting your dick massaged. What is wrong is doing that with a victim of human trafficking. That is what makes Kraft's crime significantly worse.

Kraft did not do any putative "trafficking" that was done, so pillorying him is merely publicity chasing. But "trafficking" and the rest of the pileup of silly charges all imply that people offering services all over all the cities of the modern world can somehow be controlled and forced to commit acts against their will, all while being paid billions in tips and at the same time informing their customers of their age and illegality.

Big government feeds on making everybody a criminal. Noosing the super bowl winner for chasing happy endings at age 77 is a gigantic publicity coup for frothing puritan feminists. That's all it is.

2 BBCs + Stranded Teen wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You believe that every "john" should question a prostitute to determine her background and living conditions? The person Kraft was with probably doesn't even speak English.

Are you being ironic here? That's low-hanging fruit in figuring that someone isn't here legally or of their freely given consent. If he didn't know then he didn't want to know. But given the circumstances, he probably knew and that's precisely why he was there.

+1

You said it much better than I did.

Looking at you wrote:

Not an Oscar but.... wrote:

The SKOSSY award typically goes to a post in one of the political threads however you've managed to branch out today's early leader for the Special Kind of Stupid award aka SKOSSY.

Congrats. You're going to be difficult to beat.

Congrats on your incredibly lame post! Looks like you've got everyone beat for stupidest post of the year.

Don't double down with a different name. You're only eligible for one award per day. BUT....there's good news.....

....you can try again tomorrow!!!

As always...good luck.

joedirt wrote:

Pretty much every person in the sex trade is there because of addiction or trafficking. People don’t choose this as a career.

Nope. Obviously things like addiction and trafficking are common. But you are simply incorrect in your "pretty much every person" assessment. I know someone who is currently working a more "legitimate" job but who used to work as an "escort". According to her at least half of those in the trade (or at least in her circle within the trade) were pretty together, not drug addicts, not enslaved, . . . pretty much doing it for the money and the thrill. Some even met their future spouses this way according to her.

The human experience is fairly complex. Simplistic "nobody does this or that of their own free will" statements are almost always wrong.

George Gilder wrote:

killermike wrote:

[quote]was he though??? wrote:

[quote]killermike wrote:

There's nothing wrong with getting your dick massaged. What is wrong is doing that with a victim of human trafficking. That is what makes Kraft's crime significantly worse.

Kraft did not do any putative "trafficking" that was done, so pillorying him is merely publicity chasing. But "trafficking" and the rest of the pileup of silly charges all imply that people offering services all over all the cities of the modern world can somehow be controlled and forced to commit acts against their will, all while being paid billions in tips and at the same time informing their customers of their age and illegality.

So you're claiming the victims in sex trafficking are raking in billions?

Not an Oscar but.... wrote:

Looking at you wrote:

Congrats on your incredibly lame post! Looks like you've got everyone beat for stupidest post of the year.

Don't double down with a different name. You're only eligible for one award per day. BUT....there's good news.....

....you can try again tomorrow!!!

As always...good luck.

One of the classic stances of the loser in an argument - making false claims about the other poster! Ranks right up there with stealing someone's handle when you can't deal with the humiliation of having your ass handed to you. Are you up for stealing this handle next?

Let me put it to you gently. I am not the same poster that you responded to originally. I just noticed how vapid your reply was.

I'll also do you a big favor and invite you to make a rational argument for why the post of the first person you responded to should be considered stupid.

Go for it.

Well Sorta wrote:

2 BBCs + Stranded Teen wrote:

Are you being ironic here? That's low-hanging fruit in figuring that someone isn't here legally or of their freely given consent. If he didn't know then he didn't want to know. But given the circumstances, he probably knew and that's precisely why he was there.

+1

You said it much better than I did.

The guy is a billionaire and you would expect him to use expensive call girls. Why would he prefer a trafficked prostitute? The likely answer is that it was too late to arrange for call girls that night so they decided to to drive 20 minutes to a local place. You guys are implying he gets off on visiting $79 trafficked prostitutes and prefers them over far more attractive call girls.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Well Sorta wrote:

+1

You said it much better than I did.

The guy is a billionaire and you would expect him to use expensive call girls. Why would he prefer a trafficked prostitute? The likely answer is that it was too late to arrange for call girls that night so they decided to to drive 20 minutes to a local place. You guys are implying he gets off on visiting $79 trafficked prostitutes and prefers them over far more attractive call girls.

I am implying no such thing.

So much angst over a handjob.

Well Sorta wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The guy is a billionaire and you would expect him to use expensive call girls. Why would he prefer a trafficked prostitute? The likely answer is that it was too late to arrange for call girls that night so they decided to to drive 20 minutes to a local place. You guys are implying he gets off on visiting $79 trafficked prostitutes and prefers them over far more attractive call girls.

I am implying no such thing.

You gave a thumbs up to Standard Teen's opinion that Kraft "knew" and that was why he was there.

Kraft was framed, cuz hes a good friend of Trumps.

killermike wrote:

There's nothing wrong with getting your dick massaged. What is wrong is doing that with a victim of human trafficking. That is what makes Kraft's crime significantly worse.

Kraft did not do any putative "trafficking" that was done, so pillorying him is merely publicity chasing. But "trafficking" and the rest of the pileup of silly charges all imply that people offering services all over all the cities of the modern world can somehow be controlled and forced to commit acts against their will, all while being paid billions in tips and at the same time informing their customers of their age and illegality.

[/quote]

So you're claiming the victims in sex trafficking are raking in billions?[/quote]

Collectively, yes.

DeBron Lames wrote:

So much angst over a handjob.

+1

That's what's going on here. A happy ending. Kraft did not necessarily want a full-monte bodily-fluids sloppy ending or Many Shades of Grey tantrics or even Suzy Hamilton gymnastic favors. He, alas, wanted anonymity, which he might expect at an obscure mall massage storefront. But he ran into the hounds of heavenly prurience and me-too titillation.

George Gilder wrote:

DeBron Lames wrote:

So much angst over a handjob.

+1

That's what's going on here. A happy ending. Kraft did not necessarily want a full-monte bodily-fluids sloppy ending or Many Shades of Grey tantrics or even Suzy Hamilton gymnastic favors. He, alas, wanted anonymity, which he might expect at an obscure mall massage storefront. But he ran into the hounds of heavenly prurience and me-too titillation.

Yeah, keep patting yourself on your back Mr. Enlightenment. You are just soooooo hip and cool and modern.

Nope Purzz wrote:

joedirt wrote:

Pretty much every person in the sex trade is there because of addiction or trafficking. People don’t choose this as a career.

Nope. Obviously things like addiction and trafficking are common. But you are simply incorrect in your "pretty much every person" assessment. I know someone who is currently working a more "legitimate" job but who used to work as an "escort". According to her at least half of those in the trade (or at least in her circle within the trade) were pretty together, not drug addicts, not enslaved, . . . pretty much doing it for the money and the thrill. Some even met their future spouses this way according to her.

I used to know an ex-escort as well. She was never addicted to anything -- she barely drank, let alone anything else -- and certainly was never pimped, abused, or trafficked. She escorted during college and made something like $100k/year untaxed, in her spare time. Plus her clients would often buy her clothes, jewelry, etc, and one guy took her on a trip to Spain for a week. If you're a hot woman and you can deal with the implications of sex and the various risk factors it's a huge windfall for not much time expenditure. Of course these days women can probably make a very decent amount of money doing much less risky online cam stuff, so maybe escort is no longer as tempting a choice.

That's funny, I think that's the same one I knew:

DeBron Lames wrote:

So much angst over a handjob.

It was full service, not a handjob. And you might not realize it, but sex with a minor being held against her will is kind of a big deal.

coldplay wrote:

DeBron Lames wrote:

So much angst over a handjob.

It was full service, not a handjob. And you might not realize it, but sex with a minor being held against her will is kind of a big deal.

Did you actually read the case? It in fact was a hand job and there were no minors involved.

coldplay wrote:

DeBron Lames wrote:

So much angst over a handjob.

It was full service, not a handjob. And you might not realize it, but sex with a minor being held against her will is kind of a big deal.

Source it was done with a minor?