What laws can we BREAK while abroad? Drugs, hookers, public nudity, etc.?

SECURITY CLEARANCE Q&A
1

Trigger warning!

We know that even if marijuana is legal on the state level, it is illegal still on the U.S. federal level. For that reason, clearance applicants and holders are not allowed to use marijuana. I will use this as a segway because I THOUGHT this was the main principle of rules to follow, but . . .

The question is, does this rule apply just for federal laws?

What if I am a nudist and want to be butt naked on the beach in Spain. There is no federal law against nudity, only U.S. state laws, so is it ok or will I get flagged?

What if a man and his wife are swingers or in an open relationship? Fact is, the clearance gods have flagged it.

What if a person is a stripper or porn star? Fact is, the clearance gods have flagged it. Not because of some legal reason like taxes, but because the clearance gods see it as immoral or something.

On that note, why is prostitution flagged? There is no federal law against it. If I go to a country where prostitution is legal, why can I not partake? There will be no honeypot. I can bang a hooker and not give up secrets or care if she records a video, as long as I get a copy of the video!

What about consensual non-prostitution sex with a girl under 18? Yes, I said it! Trigger warning! Some countries have ages of consent under 18. There is no federal age of consent, so what is the harm?

Rebuttals:

  • Mann Act - that law is about human trafficking. What if there is no trafficking?
  • Blackmail - What if I cannot be blackmailed? I have no problem with the world seeing my naked ass engaging in debauchery.
  • The U.S. government will let you be an alcoholic (as long as you stay crime free) but not a pothead.
  • The U.S. government will let you be a flaming homo, but any hetero kink gets flagged.

The U.S. gov claims not to be the morality police and uses the “blackmail potential” for all of these things, but I will admit that I cannot be blackmailed. I don’t care who sees me doing what and calls me a sick perv. If I’m not breaking laws, leave me the hell along.

Thoughts on these things?

I welcome all comments and hate speech.

1 Like
2

If you need an interview in the future make sure and tell them you want it done in person, as that greatly reduces the chances of me getting your case. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

3 Likes
3

Quite the rant! None of these things are anyone’s business unless you choose to work for the federal government. Obtaining a specific job is not a right. You live your best life to whatever moral guidelines you see fit. You just might not be a good fit for a federal government job. No need for all the angst. Although the underage consensual sex is a little questionable. Really?!

1 Like
4

asking for a “friend?”

2 Likes
5

I came up against this very issue in adjudication minus laws being broken.

It was clear that I was honest and could not be blackmailed but the gov’t still denied me based on morality and basically just put it under “personal conduct”.

1 Like
6

The clearance system isn’t necessarily judging nudists, swingers, or porn performers for fun; it’s about risk to national security. If your behavior makes you vulnerable to blackmail or coercion, the government sees this as a potential problem. It doesn’t matter if you personally don’t care who sees you—others might, and that’s what they’re trying to prevent.

Also, foreign legality doesn’t automatically protect you. Even if something is legal abroad, U.S. federal law still applies to you. Marijuana use, sex with minors, or prostitution in another country can still violate U.S. law or create exploitable situations. Regarding foreign legality, it’s important to be clear: U.S. federal law still applies to citizens abroad. Acts that are legal in another country—like marijuana use, prostitution, or sex with minors under 18—can still be criminal offenses under U.S. law. Key statutes include the PROTECT Act, the Mann Act, and federal child exploitation laws. There is no “foreign law defense”; the U.S. considers protecting minors and enforcing federal law globally.

The rules aren’t about judging your lifestyle—they’re about making sure you’re not creating a situation where someone could leverage your behavior to access secrets.

So before claiming inconsistency, remember this: you can be an alcoholic, a queer person, or a nudist, and that’s fine—as long as it doesn’t create a security risk. The government doesn’t care about your kinks or your holidays in Spain—they care about whether someone could use those behaviors against you. It might feel unfair, but it’s about mitigating risk, not about calling anyone “sick perv” or “immoral.”

Nice try, but ‘legal somewhere else’ is not a magical cloak of immunity-you’re not Frodo, and Uncle Sam still cares and isn’t handing out invisibility rings. Trust me, Uncle Sam does not share your sense of humor about international loopholes.

8

@Duetooversight

If your behavior makes you vulnerable to blackmail or coercion, the government sees this as a potential problem. It doesn’t matter if you personally don’t care who sees you—others might, and that’s what they’re trying to prevent.

This statement. Who determines what makes me susceptible to blackmail?

Marijuana use, sex with minors, or prostitution in another country can still violate U.S. law or create exploitable situations.

There is only a U.S. federal law against marijuana. There are no federal laws against prostitutes and sex with minors. In fact, some U.S. states have ages of consent as low as 16.
Neither you nor the government have given a valid reason for flagging such activity. Stop being the morality police. If homos can be homos with no issue, then these things should not be an issue either.

Key statutes include the PROTECT Act, the Mann Act, and federal child exploitation laws.

These laws apply to trafficking and/or forced sexual activity. I’m talking about consensual activity.

The government doesn’t care about your kinks or your holidays in Spain—they care about whether someone could use those behaviors against you.

Again, this rebuttal makes no sense. How does the government determine this? Maybe I like teenage hookers as much as f4g likes it up the arse. There is no way to determine if someone can use behaviors against a person. Prove me wrong.

What if I am an old ugly fat guy who goes to a legal brothel in the U.S. state of Nevada to get my rocks off? Why is this an issue?

9

You’re mixing up two different things: what is legal everywhere vs. what the U.S. government can hold its cleared personnel accountable for. Security clearances aren’t a “follow only local laws” system—they’re governed by federal standards and risk assessments. The people who determine whether behavior is a concern aren’t random “morality police,” they’re adjudicators using the Adjudicative Guidelines for National Security Eligibility, which specifically evaluate things like criminal conduct, personal conduct, and susceptibility to coercion.

On the legal side, your claims about federal law are simply incorrect. There are federal laws that apply to U.S. citizens abroad. The PROTECT Act makes it a crime for U.S. citizens to engage in sexual activity with minors outside the U.S., regardless of local age-of-consent laws. That’s not about trafficking—it explicitly covers non-commercial, “consensual” activity as well. Federal law also criminalizes illicit sexual conduct abroad more broadly, and prostitution-related activity can trigger issues under federal statutes and related offenses depending on circumstances. So no, “it’s legal there” is not a valid defense for a U.S. citizen.

As for blackmail and coercion—this isn’t hypothetical guesswork. Investigators look at patterns of behavior, judgment, discretion, and vulnerability. You don’t get to self-certify “I can’t be blackmailed.” Plenty of people think that—until their job, reputation, family, or finances are on the line. The government evaluates whether a reasonable person in your position could be pressured, not whether you claim you personally wouldn’t care.

Finally, the Nevada example actually proves the point. Legal activity—like visiting a brothel where it’s permitted—isn’t automatically disqualifying. But if it becomes frequent, secretive, financially risky, or tied to poor judgment, it can raise concerns. That’s the consistent standard: not morality, but judgment and risk.

Bottom line: clearance rules aren’t about whether something is “fair” or aligns with your personal views—they’re about whether your behavior, legal or not, creates any realistic avenue for coercion, exploitation, or compromised judgment. That’s the standard, and it’s applied far more consistently than you’re suggesting.

10

Personal Conduct guideline needs to have boundaries set. The government will abuse that guideline to deny a clearance if the government doesn’t like that person. Some of things that are covered under the personal conduct is laughable, like telling joke that someone does not like.

Personal conduct needs to be strictly lying on the background form and dishonest conduct, not calling someone a name.

11

Yup, they denied me on petty nonsense , because i shared a “naughty” pic with a girl i was seeing and because i got in an argument defending guys i supervised. Nothing i ever hid or was ever embarrassed about. They use “personal Conduct” for literally anything they want. I’m not convinced there is no quota on denials yearly.

12

My mind goes to “if you have to ask, you can’t afford it”