DC Madam Deborah Palfrey found dead.
- Thread starter D_Kaye Throttlebottom
- Start date
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
transformer_99
Experimental Member
Yep, she probably had some clients that would be very embarrassed to say the least when she had rolled over on them. Then there's consideration that not everyone is like Heidi Fleiss and can do a shortened sentence for good behavior and move on in a few years ?
faceking
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Posts
- 7,426
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 282
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Mavs, NOR * CAL
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
yum:She also predicted several times that she would be found dead in an apparent suicide because of all the powerful men she could rollover:
This is Debra Palfrey, in her own voice, in March of this year claiming she would never commit suicide.
This is Debra Palfrey, in her own voice, in March of this year claiming she would never commit suicide.
It's sad the the US is so backward that prostitution is illegal and women's rights to do with there body as they please are so regulated. It's sad to think that this woman may have committed suicide based on the backs of the same religious whore-mongers that hired her girls.
The comments in this thread have my thoughts leaning toward - "Humpty Dumpty was pushed." Yikes!
Hopefully, she was able to leave copies of her notes with a friend that will release them anyway. Surely she was that smart.
The comments in this thread have my thoughts leaning toward - "Humpty Dumpty was pushed." Yikes!
Hopefully, she was able to leave copies of her notes with a friend that will release them anyway. Surely she was that smart.
transformer_99
Experimental Member
OK, so what about the whore/prostitute with aids and spreading that around by unprotected sex ? Legalized prostitution, I'd like to hear the solutions for it. Maybe it's like some doctor's that practice medicine illegally. Or is it like the porn industry where aids and other std's that have to become an outbreak/epidemic before something is shut down. Somehow, if you think it thru, the risks of even legalized prostitution preclude it from legalization. Discouraging it is the only sane course of action, it's going to happen regardless, but to open the floodgates, health insurance would simply be more un-affordable without being government provided. There will still be those that abide by legislation and those that circumvent it, if only as tax-evasion.
This is wrong on so many levels. The fact is that sex workers in western countries where prostitution is legal have lower rates of infection and better general sexual health than the general public precisely because sex workers receive mandatory sexual health care and their status as sex workers is legally recognized. In the counties of Nevada where prostitution is legal, not one case of HIV transmission because of sex has been recorded since the state began mandatory testing for HIV in 1989.
The highest rate of HIV infection among prostitutes in the United States is in Miami and northern New Jersey where rates exceed 60%.
Most female prostitutes in the US do not receive any routine health care at all, do not receive HIV prevention counseling, are victims of forced sex trafficking by organized crime, and have very high rates of illegal injectable drug use. Once they're too sick to work then their pimps discard them, leaving them to die or seek very expensive health care services from public services. In the end, the unregulated sex workers in the United States cost taxpayers and government health services far more than regulated sex workers not just in health care costs, but in criminal costs as well.
A Canadian study by the Alberta Reappraising AIDs Society found that seroconversion rates among non-drug injecting prostitutes to be close to nil. Indeed, American studies confirm that in HIV transmission among illegal sex workers, illegal injectable drug use appears to be the primary cause of HIV infection.
Given that studies show that legal, government-regulated sex workers have lower rates of HIV infection than the general population, better health care, vastly lower rates of injectable drug use, lack of organized crime involvement, and vastly better working and personal rights conditions, legalizing prostitution clearly results in better social conditions for whatever society legalizes and closely monitors sex workers.
How do citizens of the US cope with all these "(s)he was pushed"? Is nothing what it seems? If one cannot trust anything the authorities say or do, it's time for a change...Not to the same old politicians promising the same old crap and then "forgetting" to deliver. What's the alternative? Any ideas from the citizens of the only super-power, world's policeman state? And I am not trying to stir here, are there any new ideas out there?
Sometimes it seems from the outside that politics in the US is more like 3rd world clan-type stuff, G. Bush Snr, G. Bush Jnr, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton.
Getting of the thread here a bit...
Sometimes it seems from the outside that politics in the US is more like 3rd world clan-type stuff, G. Bush Snr, G. Bush Jnr, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton.
Getting of the thread here a bit...
B_sugarandspice
Experimental Member
I hate the oppression here.
All the people involved had called her( Palfrey) . She didn't recruit anyone and those men all called her too.
This is one of the main reasons I hate it here.
From the research I have seen female prostitutes in the US have a 3% rate of HIV which is the same as non prostitutes.
Unfortunately it is the Transgender prostitutes who have higher rates of infection.
I read that one reason is their clients refuse to use condoms.
I don't remember what the drug use impact and I don't want to look it up again.
All the people involved had called her( Palfrey) . She didn't recruit anyone and those men all called her too.
This is one of the main reasons I hate it here.
From the research I have seen female prostitutes in the US have a 3% rate of HIV which is the same as non prostitutes.
Unfortunately it is the Transgender prostitutes who have higher rates of infection.
I read that one reason is their clients refuse to use condoms.
I don't remember what the drug use impact and I don't want to look it up again.
A few points here:
Most Americans are worried about just getting by day-to-day. Like people anywhere else in the world, we spend 90% of our day taking care of making ends meet, planning for the future, and raising families. We're still prosperous, if relatively less than we used to be, and the great majority of Americans feel safe in their homes. Americans do work hard. We have 40 hour work weeks and most Americans even more than that. We are among the most productive workers in the world. All that doesn't leave much time for debating politics.
I think the idea of disgust with what we call, politics as usual, is beginning to be a formidable force. The ascendancy of Barak Obama, who carries a message of change from outside the system, is remarkable given how just recently Hillary Clinton was seen to be the only viable candidate in this year's election. Ask people eight years ago if America could seriously field a black candidate for the White House and I wager most Americans, no matter their ethnicity, would overwhelmingly state that it wasn't possible. Another factor has been the ascendancy of Ron Paul. While he was a marginal candidate with no hope of actually winning the GOP nomination, Paul's supporters are largely fanatical and very young. He strikes a chord with youth that few other candidates can match. His new book is number one at Amazon.com and that says something remarkable given how radically libertarian his ideas are.
Four years ago Americans overturned the composition of congress, giving a majority of seats in both houses to the Democratic party in a single election. This is a very rare event in American politics and usually signals deep dissatisfaction with the country's leadership. I believe most Americans hoped that sticking to the system would bring about the change in policies most Americans hoped for. When those changes failed to materialize and the new Democratically-controlled congress proved to be as do-nothing as the previous congress, people became disillusioned with the process in general and began looking for candidates who were outside the mainstream. McCain has run on the platform of being an outsider as has Obama, with great success.
This means that this presidential election is crucial to the survival of the two-party system and, in the more extreme speculation of some pundits, the survival of American democracy as we know it. If congress refuses to accept the responsibilities of the people who elect it, then the presidency must. That means whomever wins the election this year must be seen as a true agent of change or there is risk that the American electorate will lose all faith in the federal system as it now exists.
Americans are impatient people, but most people, liberal, conservative, and in between, believe in the system as it was founded. That faith is waning, particularly in the young, and with the economic, energy, security, and environmental problems facing this country in the immediate future, there exists a very real possibility of serious social upheaval.
Already the sides are being drawn as two very different Americas see their cherished beliefs in what this country is and should be being threatened by the other America. It's red states versus blue states, and the gulf between them is widening. Were you to visit the US as a tourist and visit the top tourist cities, you'd wonder however in Hell someone like Bush got elected. Bush and his supporters have nothing to do with the more culturally-diverse, urban, cosmopolitan, and better educated northeastern and western blue states. Where he may have had support from conservatives who live in those states during the first election, he lost all support from them in the second, and therein lies the problem. Not even political ideology could override the cultural mindset that separates the two Americas. We have not seen this kind of division, always there more or less, so dramatically defined since the civil war.
Stable societies with large middle classes do not have revolutions. In the US however, the standards of living, education, economic opportunity, and political enfranchisement are declining and there appear to be no solutions in sight. As the federal government continues to alienate large sectors of America no matter what it does, the faith in the political system that created that government will falter, and given dire economic circumstances which are likely to transpire in the future, give rise to radicalism and serious upheaval. If you wonder why so many counties, lately the OPEC states, have been trying so frantically to prop-up the dollar, it's because they realize that a stable United States is in their best interest. We may be to them only, as we say, the-devil-you-know, but we assure stability in the world for the western powers and the middle east even withstanding the invasion of Iraq and escalating tensions with Iran. Too many powerful states, corporations, NGOs, and people have a vested interest in the United States maintaining military and, therefore, political power in the world. Unfortunately, as most democracies discover sooner or later, the people of the United States, via their politicians seeking to give everyone what they want, have been living far beyond their means and using the credit of the country to establish a world-wide economic system that's beginning to crumble. When that happens, the US will collapse like post-Soviet Russia and then very rapidly other things will begin to happen including war in the middle east resulting in the most serious threat to global oil supply ever seen. Whether the EU, China, Russia, or some other entity will take the helm and become the next superstate is hard to say, but I do think that America itself will be faced with two choices and those are to either remain a single country or become Balkanized. Naturally there will be much disagreement and possible revolutions (violent or velvet)/civil wars and other problems.
What you are seeing now is the beginning of this process.
This would have been her second conviction in jail. She served a year in jail for a "pimping" conviction in 1991 in California.
She didn't want to go back to jail. She had another opportunity to make it right, but 18 months after getting out of prison, she went back to running an escort service, but she said this one was legitimate and that the women that worked for her, signed contracts that they would not have sex." Her argument was that she was not responsible b/c she had a contracts with the women that they would not have sex with the clients she hired, it was strictly a "companionship" service.
I remember seeing her interview a year ago on ABC when she released her phone records to help identify high profile clients (which may have backfired on her - they got more clients willing to testify against her). She said in her interview - this was a companionship service and fantasy "I never told them to have sex. I was selling fantasy, not sex." When asked if that was semantics and men would not just pay 300 dollars for a date, surely you considered that your employees were expected to have sex. "Well, I hope they would not, but hey signed contracts with me that they would not."
It wasn't an argument that stuck in court - they testified, that it was understood, she told one employee "talk to him, and what will be, will be." Another client of hers said he used her service 100 times. When an escort did not have sex, he did not pay her.
So, I don't know. I do wonder if criminalizing prostitution is bullshit or not. In germany it's legal and they get healthcare and the government gets taxes from it. I dunno though when I think it shouldn't be criminalized - it would minimize human traffiking of sex slaves and drugs involved in those businesses, then I think would I want my nieces taking that up as a career, etc. Bleh.. .I'm just thinking outloud though and it doesn't have anything to do with Deborah chosing to end her life. THough it's clear she knew the consequences of what she was doing.
Mr. Snakey
Expert Member
Thanks for that, as always, succinct and to the point.
I work in the offshore oil industry, and meet and work with people from all over the world. And Texans.A lot of them. And as you Americans well know, Texas is actually a "separate" country(that's what it feels like to me, anyhow). And not ONE has a good word to say about the current incumbent. By and large they are republicans, NRA types, and they are pissed of about their freedoms (Patriot act etc) being curtailed. And I agree, the world needs a stable USA, We all need the a stable US$(I get paid in them, it's crucial for me personally). So who elected Bush? Or did he really "steal" the election as Reg Plast(I think) in "The best election money can buy" claims?
BUT: The blatant disrespect for civilized norms, the greed and overt lying and "Fuck you" attitude emanating from the white house is SERIOUSLY pissing of the rest of the world. We need LEADERS and STATESMEN in the white house. Right now Bush is seen as a cheap 2-bit lying shyster leading the so-called free world. So to conclude this post, I hope and pray that the next incumbent is a person which is seen as "Morally upstanding" and not in the white house for personal gain. And to return those days when the USA was held up and seen to be a beacon of democracy and freedom.
Hehe, yeah. Texas is definitely a separate country. It used to be just that, the Republic of Texas, as I'm sure your Texan contacts have let you know. Native Texans are a breed apart. Bush isn't really from Texas any more than his brother Jeb is from Florida. He's from Maine and Connecticut, went to northeastern schools (like his parents). Though he's lived there for a long time, he's not particularly Texan as, say, Johnson or Ron Paul. Bush has pretty much lost support across the board. He's the most unpopular president since such polls were invented.
Before they got into office, Bush and his pals were part of a neoconservative think tank in Washington, the Project for the New American Century. A quick read of their alleged statement of principles, should give you an idea of what they wanted to achieve when they entered office. I think Mussolini ran on the same platform :wink:. PNAC's 2000 white paper, Rebuilding American Defenses, states:
I'm of the, follow-the-money school of thought on these sorts of things. Think tanks generally don't make money. They're not-for-profit entities, so what they need is funding, and lots of it. If you look at the funding for PNAC, you might not see where things come from right away. It looks very much like it's receiving money from other foundations. Fortunately for us, public not-for-profits have to publicly declare their funding sources. If you follow the train of foundations, you find that the money comes from (surprise, surprise) major defense contractors and major oil company shareholders. While they themselves may not have elected Bush, they put him in the position of being electable. For example, the Scaife Foundation was founded in the name of Sarah Mellon Scaife. The Mellons were big in banking, but her primary holdings were in Royal Dutch Shell, the same company in which the Dutch royal house, the same family which founded the Bilderberg Group, hold billions in assets. Conspiracy theorists go nuts over connections like that.
Most Americans do not care to believe that Bush stole the 2000 elections from Gore. While those allegations did circulate the mainstream American media, they were quickly dismissed. The story was not reported fully in the way that non-American media did. Facts that were made widely public in the rest of the free world were just dropped or ignored here, reported only by some small independent media sources which were themselves dismissed by big media as radical and, therefore, unbelievable. I think there were several factors in dismissing the true election situation. First is that whatever major media source pursued the story would essentially become part of the story themselves, possibly becoming responsible for social unrest. Second, Al Gore himself conceded defeat before all the details of the fraud became available. If you're going to accuse the president-elect of the US of perpetrating fraud, you have to have a rock solid case. It took quite some time for that case to be made and, by the time it was, Gore was out. Why defend a man who has already conceded? Third, people just don't like bad news and news that portrays America in a bad light just doesn't sell as well to Americans and tends to alienate them from watching/reading/listening to your media in the future. Last, and perhaps most pragmatically, whatever news organization pursued the story would find themselves frozen out of the White House loop for a minimum of four years. They'd be denied access to top administration officials, their reporters wouldn't be chosen during press conferences. It would be news reporting suicide unless the stories managed to get Bush thrown out of office and, given the Supreme Court ruling that Bush was the official winner, apparently pointless. I'm sure the powers that run the media organizations thought, "Well, he is a legitimate candidate and the race was close... It's not like some general taking over the government. Let's just drop it. How bad could he be?"
Mea culpa, mea culpa.
I think your last paragraph, if you'll excuse me for saying so, is a bit naive.
People do not become president for altruistic reasons. If you've gone through the PNAC website, you can see that these people have a bit of a chip on their shoulder regarding how America is viewed in the world. They're strictly, "America first and fuck anyone who doesn't like it." Diplomacy and public image is not their first consideration. A former US president, Teddy Roosevelt (yaay Dutch!), once said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The neocon's version is more like, "Carry a big stick and whack people with it." In 2000, Russia was just a banana republic and China was seen as a bunch of clever little yellow people who needed to be contained. What does a superpower do, what have all superpowers done, when there are no foils for power? They get cocky. The US was no exception. Rather than build coalitions, use consensus diplomacy, or truly consider allied feelings, the neocons of PNAC, now in power, decided to go out on their own, hence Bush's famous, "You're with us or against us," speech. We don't need no stinkin' allies! Our two most essential allies, the UK and Japan, didn't object or, at least, get in the way, and so off we went to war.
It's arguable that 9/11 could have been the biggest squandering of world good-will there has ever been. At the beginning Bush had every opportunity to press the America agenda and had the moral backing of nearly every nation on earth. He and his minions blew it spectacularly to the point that a mere four years later, America was reviled in ways it had never before experienced. It wasn't good.
What is good news for America is that neither McCain nor Obama are part of the crowd that started this mess. Hillary, via her husband's strong connections to the Bushes, is seen as a more-of-the-same type of candidate. McCain's star wanes as he constantly changes his positions to suit whatever audience is listening to him, while Hillary has a history that can most charitably be called, "checkered." This, his youth, his race, and his ability to sound like he doesn't speak with Washingtonian bullshit accent, are why Obama is doing so well. If he survives, he may well become the next president if he stays the course. Whether the neocons and all the very powerful people to whom the Clintons owe favors allow Obama to get elected is a different matter altogether. Obama is going to have to do some serious ass kissing to get the protection and goodwill of the people who can make him president.
Americans are acutely aware of how the world views them and it's both sad and infuriating given how Americans believe the country has been so generous with its money, time, and lives. Americans like to believe they are a beacon of freedom, that the places we, "liberate," welcome us with open arms, that America does no wrong. Perhaps unlike other peoples in empires past, we need to believe we're good. Bush and company have done a very poor job of that both at home and in the world and Americans are looking to restore that essential idea of American goodness. It's very important to us to have that illusion because Americans aren't terribly united in any one particular culture. We're united by a constitution of ideas, not anything tribal, religious, or ethnic. We haven't been Americans for thousands of years like other peoples around the world. America is an idea and an ideal more than anything else. If we lose that ideal then we lose our identity.
