Married live-in so-called hooker claims "sex slavery"

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2018-04-22 01:14

Article here. Excerpt:

'A woman who answered the door Friday at the home of Hernando County Commissioner Nick Nicholson said she served for months as a “sex slave” to the elected official.

Valerie Surette, who called herself a 30-year-old stripper with an on-and-off drug problem, was one of two women named in charging documents when Nicholson was arrested Thursday on prostitution-related charges.

Nicholson, 71, preyed on her “vulnerability” and that of other women like her, Surette said. She had sex with Nicholson in exchange for a place to live and cash for groceries, drugs and drug rehabilitation, she said.

“I had originally agreed to the arrangement,” Surette said. “I did work at a strip club, but that’s different. Here, I was a sex slave. … Whatever he wanted, I had to do."'

Like3 Dislike1

Comments

Ludicrous. Before becoming emperor, Claudius for years had a live-in hooker with whom he had a very good relationship and whom arguably he loved. Like this woman, that one was free to go at any time. Where's the "slavery"?

Just in this case it's a political figure doing it with a married hooker whose husband assented to the arrangement. They had a drug problem? It would have been worse, no doubt, had they not had the relationship they did with the politician. And BTW, half of America seems to have a drug problem these days. So what. That dog won't hunt, as they say in Alabama.

"Sex slave", my ass. She got caught by police who are upholding a law that never should have been passed in the first place, so to avoid charges she claims victimhood and appeals to her drug addiction as vindication. What's her husband's excuse?

I'm not saying the pol is like a choir boy here. But in fact to suggest a purely quid pro quo relationship existed probably isn't accurate. The woman LIVED with him. They had a relationship. So did she also with her husband. As for him paying her, again, so what? Men give women money who they are fucking all the time. Plenty of married women attach a fee to their sexual compliance even with their own husbands, explicit or not. And so what pray tell is the difference here? That she's married to someone else? So what? Have the authorities not heard of polyamory?

The charges should be tossed. The lady in this case claims victimhood only bc she is afraid of further persecution for doing what only comes naturally to female primates: exchanging sex for something. This is a case of a crime-no crime and a case built on social hypocrisy.

Barf.

Like2 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2018-04-22 01:15