The Secret Service Hooker Scandal
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:31 pm
While this is nothing more than a silly diversion, some of the details seem a little odd to me.
The woman whose payment dispute brought this thing to light (a single mother, don't you know), claims to have provided $800 worth of services, but was only given the equivalent of $28 for cab fare.
Hmmm.
The whole episode began when a group of the Secret Service men [Why are there no Secret Service Women guarding the Prez?] went to a bar, got drunk, and took a bunch of women back to their hotel for post-drinking activities. They claim they did not know that the friendly gals were prostitutes. I assume they supposed the women were simply taken by their good looks, savoir faire and prominent bulges.
After a night of frolic, the girls asked to be paid, although it is worth noting that the aforesaid single mother defines herself as an "escort" but not a prostitute.
Now I don't have a great deal of experience with prostitutes, but I have the distinct impression that they ALWAYS insist on being paid in advance. In fact, I would hazard a guess that it would be one rare prostitute indeed who would perform her services without having been paid beforehand. I suspect fraudulent misrepresentation here. The girls went along as though it were social and voluntary, but then demanded payment. The guys, not being solicited for money beforehand, had reasonable grounds to believe that these activities were casual and consensual, and not professional services.
Would the President and his Administration be as aroused as they obviously are by this whole episode if the agents had simply "gotten lucky," en masse? Is there a non-copulation rule? And if not, what if there was a real misunderstanding about whether these women were professional sex workers?
These guys are VICTIMS! First by the gals, then by their employer - which is US!
Call the ACLU!
The woman whose payment dispute brought this thing to light (a single mother, don't you know), claims to have provided $800 worth of services, but was only given the equivalent of $28 for cab fare.
Hmmm.
The whole episode began when a group of the Secret Service men [Why are there no Secret Service Women guarding the Prez?] went to a bar, got drunk, and took a bunch of women back to their hotel for post-drinking activities. They claim they did not know that the friendly gals were prostitutes. I assume they supposed the women were simply taken by their good looks, savoir faire and prominent bulges.
After a night of frolic, the girls asked to be paid, although it is worth noting that the aforesaid single mother defines herself as an "escort" but not a prostitute.
Now I don't have a great deal of experience with prostitutes, but I have the distinct impression that they ALWAYS insist on being paid in advance. In fact, I would hazard a guess that it would be one rare prostitute indeed who would perform her services without having been paid beforehand. I suspect fraudulent misrepresentation here. The girls went along as though it were social and voluntary, but then demanded payment. The guys, not being solicited for money beforehand, had reasonable grounds to believe that these activities were casual and consensual, and not professional services.
Would the President and his Administration be as aroused as they obviously are by this whole episode if the agents had simply "gotten lucky," en masse? Is there a non-copulation rule? And if not, what if there was a real misunderstanding about whether these women were professional sex workers?
These guys are VICTIMS! First by the gals, then by their employer - which is US!
Call the ACLU!
