[ezl]

so the real reason why prostitutes use linked in isn't to FIND new clients or to create networks of whores on linked in -- it's to verify that their clients aren't cops.

in a lot of places, prostitution is illegal, and clients and "service providers" alike are worried about the repercussions of getting caught. some are regular people who are trying to make money, or like their side alter ego, but don't particularly want their friends or family to find out.

getting busted is scary for both parties. in order to protect themselves, they resort to ID verifications of sorts and a variety of other practices to help them increase the odds that the person they're spending their time with is not an officer of the law.

a busy linked in profile, business cards, and a drivers license that all point to the same person is a pretty good sign that that person ACTUALLY has the job they claim and they're not a cop.

source: i love hookers.

[adamors]

> whores

Can we at least call them prostitues if sex worker is too PC for HN?

[loup-vaillant]

Funny, I didn't notice the negative connotation here. But maybe that's because of sentences I heard lately:

"Hey, what's the problem with being a fucking whore?" (Street whore¹ in Dexter –forgot which episode.)

"I have a lot of respect for whores." (witness in a radio documentary —quite moving, by the way.)

[1] I swear I mean no disrespect.

[kbenson]

I wonder what they call themselves, and what they would be comfortable with if it wasn't used in a derogatory way.

I can imagine if I a few co-workers worked at a horrible oppressing conglomerate, perhaps Veridian Dynamics, and we referred to ourselves as "drones" to denote our feelings, if management said we were no longer allowed to use this term, it would not be uplifting, it would be yet another instance of management oppression by taking away another form of expression.

This example is, of course, extremely contrived, and I can see positives in removing a term from popular use as it may shift attitudes, but I wonder how that compares with the negatives to the group itself.

[n0mad01]

thou shalt call things as they are, everything else is political correctness bingo

-- gandhi

[jiggy2011]

So there are people who are paid by the government to have sex with hookers and then arrest them?

[ezl]

best job ever. just kidding. obviously, no law enforcement officer has ever engaged in sexual activity with a sex worker. that's just historical fact.

No actual sex has to happen for a crime to be committed.

Solicitation is a crime. just agreeing to submit or receive payment in exchange for sexual activity is the crime.

So law enforcement officers can set up situations where they get sex workers to agree to do things in exchange for payment, then they're busted. Confirmation through linkedin, place of business, business cards, referrals, calling clients' mothers, etc can be used to mitigate the risk that their counterparty is a cop.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/solicitation-o...

[dalore]

Sarcasm is difficult to convey over text.

[dsr_]

Especially since a quick Google will confirm that police officers often end up taking an unexpected retirement after complaints that they didn't pay for their sex.

For example, http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/03/29/boston-detective-arre...

[ChuckMcM]

Yes it is, there was a great piece in the Sunnyvale Sun (a local paper) about the months and months the Public Safety department spent investigating a local club to determine if there was any illegal activity going on. I thought the reporter perfectly walked the line between 'serious' and 'yeah right.'

[larrys]

"a busy linked in profile, business cards, and a drivers license that all point to the same person is a pretty good sign that that person ACTUALLY has the job they claim and they're not a cop."

It would seem almost trivial to create a believable linkedin profile that could fool anybody. I get linkedin requests all the time from people who I don't know who are trolling to build up a profile.

And "business cards"?

[ezl]

i don't think anyone is under the delusion that it is foolproof.

Obviously, cops can fake all that stuff. But if you're just an average sex worker, the law probably doesn't have it out specifically for you, and it's a lot lower hanging fruit to just go for the careless sex workers who don't even verify.

The amount of time/effort they would have to spend (while not necessarily a lot) wouldn't be justified by the probably non-existent increase in the total busts, unless they had an axe to grind against a specific provider for some reason.

source: i moonlight as a male prostitute. and i disappoint a lot of women.

[loup-vaillant]

Wait a minute: does the lack of quotes after "source:" mean you are speaking from personal experience? (Genuine question. At first, I though you were citing the title of some book.)

[gutnor]

I guess a clue is that male prostitute generally have male client, not female.

[larrys]

"wouldn't be justified by the probably non-existent increase in the total busts"

Interesting thought. Almost similar to why cops don't do a better job of trapper speeders. And why they don't even catch speeders they sometimes just lurk in plain site to slow down traffic.

[cheez]

> source: i love hookers.

Describe how you got here!

[ezl]

was being facetious on both "source" entries, though i do know/have known both escorts (female) and people who have seen escorts (male)