I know, I know, don't respond to ads on Craigslist.  But my question:

I notice that many girl's ads are quite often at least semi-explicit.  Either by saying "full-service", "GFE", etc.  Some even go so far as to talk about fucking, etc.

A lot of these girls do incall. I've called a few and they want me to come to a hotel or motel (what ever happened to girls getting their own incall places?).

So my question:  If they are semi explicit in their ad, and I merely show-up at the meeting, am I in danger of being arrested?  

I know that in the drug enforcement world, the dealers never call it "cocaine" or "crack"....But a guy might come up and say "gimme 3 rocks".  That is acceptable lingo for a bust.  

Can I be busted merely for showing up to an appointment with someone advertising full-service or GFE?  No money seen, no direct discussion.

that is my question.

I much preferred the day when girls never said ANYTHING in their ads other than escort or massage.  And as a client, you just dealth with the certain percentages that were rip-offs.

In California, merely showing up might be enough. California Penal Code 647(b) is the section on prostitution and what is required: an agreement and an act in furtherance of that agreement. The exchange of money isn't required to prove prostitution. There's lots of California cases in which no money changed hands. As long as there was an understanding between both parties as to what's happening, and someone acts on that understand, that's prostitution. So if I see an ad offering BBBJ and I contact that person to meet at a time and a place, that's the agreement. If I show up, there's the act in furtherance of. At trial, someone is just going to pull up a glossary, see what BBBJ means, and a jury is going to connect the dots. Your analogy about street slang for drugs is correct. Referring to crystal methamphetamine as "tina" won't stop a drug sale charge.

It also makes the "money is for time, not sex" claim much less believable, if there's a full listing of services and prices. I believe if people want to assert that defense, they shouldn't talk about ROBs and upselling so loudly, because then they're proving it's for specific services, not for time.

Thanks.  I have always felt the "money is for time, not sex" disclaimer on many provider websites to be hillarious. I'm amazed at how many of them think they can put such a disclaimer on their home page and then have a section that details all of their services and costs.

Even funnier is when you call a lady and she asks you if you're in any way a member of law enforcement.  I hated to break it to them that law enforcement is not required to be truthful with them on that (and I never did).

I wonder about that myself.  Is there anything illegal about requesting just the massage part or a nude rubdown without going into details?

"I wonder about that myself.  Is there anything illegal about requesting just the massage part or a nude rubdown without going into details?"

Massage is a different ballgame.  A "nude rubdown" is not inherently illegal.  Most massages done at perfectly legitimate day-spas are done (viola!) in the nude.  Sexual contact during the massage (if done for money) is illegal.  

I started out with massages when I was in L.A. In the back of L.A. Weekly, there were pages and pages and pages of girls who advertised FB massage.  I often got far more than that, but not because of any explicit understanding from the ad content itself.  Sometimes I was given a straight upsell offer, and sometimes the massage just cost me far more upfront, but I left very happy, never having spoken a single word about it. Actually, that was usually the norm.  90% of girls had some honor amoung thieves and delivered as promised.  10% used that lack of "explicit understanding" to rip the guy off.

But that was long ago.  Girls today seem to feel the need to break everything down into full "menus" (complete with specific prices for each pleasure).  I think that is sheer stupidity. Too scary for me.

My best advice:  Seek situations where the two parties say virtually nothing about what is expected, and the outcome is what both wanted to get out of it.  You can use places like this to find girls who are discreet AND have reputations for being generous AND still discreet.

Here's the part I don't get.  Yes, some of the providers' ads are pretty graphic, and certainly not too subtle at all.  The disclaimers, as we all agree, are ridiculous, although perhaps they satisfy some legal requirements.  But excuse me, if I were a LE, I would just subscribe to TER!  Come on guys, a provider who claims she's just there for companionship and nothing else implied then gets fifteen reviews which graphically describe ... well, you know all the acronyms. Maybe, as much as I rely on TER for guidance (and, I might add, so far with excellent results so keep up the good work!) the review system is one of the major weak links in protecting us all, beginning with the ladies we all appreciate so much.

Yes, but those 15 reviews described what happened between the lady and *those* 15 gentlemen, not (neccessarily) what happened between you and she. Legally speaking, that could all just be "locker room talk".  Police have to prove what happened between you and the lady.  

In the "bigdoggie" case a few years back, police targeted several ladies who were active on the discussion boards, busted a few of their regulars (who were prolific reviewers) in other busts, and then essentially tried to force the men to testify in court that they had paid those particular women for sex. Their intention was to charge the ladies with running a (RICO) criminal enterprise, simply because they would meet every so often and compare notes on potential clients and discuss tactics for skirting LE.  The case was more complicatd than that, but that was the real "meat" in regards to the johns and the girls.

The case fell apart because the DA promised confidentiality to all of the johns. The defense objected, and the DA never revealed the witness names in the requisite amount of time.  Charges were (mostly) all dismissed. The only lady that went to jail was the one who chickened out and plead guilty very early on. No men were convicted of anything (including TBD).

Welcome to the American legal system.  Defined by "must draw the line somewhere."  This starts to look a lot like how we define abortion.  When is it murder?  When does a life begin.  Not quite so heady on the philosophy side but you get the point.  The legal disclaimers, while arguably humorous, are not necessarily ineffective.  It is not illegal to have sex with a woman, it is illegal to contract for it.  I don't know how far I would get in court but I have read and executed a few contracts and studied a little on the subject and when I agree to pay a woman to meet me for an hour, that is the entire contract (an oral contract and very difficult to enforce. Good news for no-shows on both sides or you would have to pay regardless).    Their is no such thing as implied terms.  If you meet a woman at a bar or wherever and you hit it off (or, gasp!, you are just both horny and mutually agreeable), so what if you go back to her place and screw like bunnies without a word of discussion on the matter.  

I'm not saying it is all above board and legal.  It's just a pain in the ass to split hairs that finely.  There is a certain ambiguity that has to give LE fits when it comes to proving beyond a reasonable doubt.  Just a reminder, it doesn't matter if your guilty.  It only matters what they can prove in court.  

In my brief experiences, I have gone to a meeting with the understanding that she would be there and what we did for an hour was between us.  I don't think the etiquette of leaving the donation has any legal significance but it does appeal to my notions of a better way of doing business.  More intimate.  If you show up and pay for the time.  She can refuse to do anything.  A good question might be, "has she ever refused?"  
As for the reviews, you are only describing your experience.  When I was in college, all the guys I knew talked about all the girls they banged.  There was a lot of cross-pollenation going on.  It's called improving your odds.  Do you want to pay to meet a woman who tends toward the catholic nun?  Or would you prefer someone who passes the time with more entertaining hobbies, like giving blow-jobs to guys she has just met.  I have actually known a few women who do just about that and you didn't even have to buy her a drink.

This isn't legal advice.  Just my analysis before I take the risk.  I think the hobby definitely has the flavor of questionable associated.  Take a tip from the girls websites.  If anyone talks about having sex for money (upselling perhaps?), walk away.  I'm just out to meet hot girls with loose morals who will probably fuck my brains out when I meet them.  Conversation about college football is an added bonus.  Root for the right team and it may even lead to a marriage proposal.

Now, pick apart my logic.

I think many girls post their little disclaimers thinking they have some kind of "shield" protecting them.  On one page, they have that same little disclaimer that the others have, and on another page they offer full-service, GFE for a specific amount of money for a specific amount of time.

Full service and GFE might seem like non-binding code words, but they are not really.  If you go up to a guy on a street corner, pull out $40 and ask for 2 rocks, you could get arrested for cocaine.  Also, if a guy approaches you, asks you if you want to BUY some rocks and you happen to be a cop (and he happens to have rocks in his pocket), he could go to jail.

These acronyms are now so commonplace that they are no protection at all.  A CBJ might as well be a speedball.  Neither specifically mention the illegal act, but both acts as stand-ins and qualify for prostecution.

Even if the charges do not stick, they'll still attempt to charge you, and the damage is already done.  But if you give them no probably cause that allows them to even attempt to prosecute you, you are in much better territory.

I agree.  I steer clear of too much information in the advertising.  That is why I love the reviews here.  Still some exposure but one more layer to reduce the risk.  How about this though.  There is an apartment complex in the area where I have seen several providers and there is always a Highway Patrol car parked in the lot.  Makes me wonder if it is going on under his nose or with his blessing.  I am comforatble with the risk since it is 1) parked in the open and 2) a bunch of very well reviewed providers who have had no problem.  I have never seen anything that felt very off on my visits.  I got a little nervous today when the door across the hall from a hotel incall was open a crack.  I rolled the dice and went with the reviews.  Had a great time.  Any thoughts?

I asked an LE friend of mine about this and here is what he had to say:

Law enforcement knows a lot more than people assume they know in regards to what happens in their towns.  They know who is who and who is doing what. People assume that LE only knows things if they are actively arresting people.  Not so.  They might not have enough evidence to make cases on these ladies or their customers, but they may have had "related" problems regarding the activities that go one there.  The cop you see in the parking lot might be parked there to help send a message to those who might committ other crimes.  It lets them know that the cops are aware of them, and just 15 minutes of their presence might get them 2 weeks of fewer problems.  In all reality, this visible presence is probably part of a larger strategy to reduce crime with a certain set of the population.