In most States - Arizona for example - it is very clear cut. Prostitution is an offer of sex for a "fee arrangement".
I have been following the zillions of felony sex worker cases in Phoenix for two decades, attended a few trials, ready probably cause statements and police reports. There has to be a clear offer of sex for a fee. But for especially new folks this is very easy for LE to get. Sugar babies or cuddling ads are not offering sex for a fee arrangement so they are not at risk. Nor is nude modeling as long as no communication via text, e-mail, phone of a fee arrangement for sex. However, ads with terms like GFE or worse can be solicitation in themselves, although this isn't as common since getting a fee arrangement is so easy for LE. Explicit reviews are often part of probably cause for indictments. The only hope is the current ESPLERP case now before the 9th Circuit, at least for us in the 9th.So we all know that sex for financial consideration (and I think I saw perhaps even other benefits) is the basic definition of prostitution and is illegal. We also know that sex is an aspect of just able every intimate adult relationship and that most of those relationships will also have both financial and other benefits closely intertwined.
So it's going to be a spectrum of relationships that include both sex and financial or other benefits exchanged that runs from illegal to sanctioned and licensed by the State. Is there a legal standard or theory/case history that established just how much other stuff has to be in the relationship -- or perhaps work it from the other side, how much needs to be missing from that relationship -- before two people having sex and a clear beneficial element (financial -- which could be paying rent, or other benefit given) to be safe from charges of prostitution?
...it used to be marriage that made sex legal. Then common law marriage (actually maybe common law marriage was first - it is very old).
Of course the lord could always have sex with whoever, but he made the rules so whatever.
Prima Nocta!
I would say you are onto something that needs to be brought up in the fight for decriminalization.
However, now that both partners are bread winners in just about every committed relationship - does the argument fall apart?
For me it doesn't because back in the old days, which in reality only existed for a brief period of time in the 50's, when the man worked and the wife was maintained the house - I would assign value to the woman's work as well. So always both partners have contributed to the financial and other aspect of the collective unit of the partnership.
So perhaps the argument is "does a sex worker/client relationship contribute to a collective unit"? In other words is the whole greater than the sum of it's parts?
I always say that my life has been enriched to a degree greater than the money I have spent. So the answer for me would be yes.
In most States - Arizona for example - it is very clear cut. Prostitution is an offer of sex for a "fee arrangement".
I have been following the zillions of felony sex worker cases in Phoenix for two decades, attended a few trials, ready probably cause statements and police reports. There has to be a clear offer of sex for a fee. But for especially new folks this is very easy for LE to get.
Sugar babies or cuddling ads are not offering sex for a fee arrangement so they are not at risk. Nor is nude modeling as long as no communication via text, e-mail, phone of a fee arrangement for sex.
However, ads with terms like GFE or worse can be solicitation in themselves, although this isn't as common since getting a fee arrangement is so easy for LE. Explicit reviews are often part of probably cause for indictments.
The only hope is the current ESPLERP case now before the 9th Circuit, at least for us in the 9th.