Another post prompted my venture into this forum but I also notice the one below about the legislative effort we should support.

So here's my uneducated question, and preamble.

We all know that the escort game of "paying for time" is weak at best if LE comes calling. But why?

Society and law has not problems with women marrying for money and by definition the marriage must include sex -- and I suspect all presume that that's really the main trade off involved. Seems like a really long date ( and I suspect generally includes a defined payment in some prenups) and that's legally blessed.

The entire porn industry is about sex and that's what the actors are being paid to do. Sex for money and completely legal.

Then we get to the no money but pure sex with things like the one night (and even quarter night) stands and whole friends with benefits thing but here we can put on our economist hats and point out monetary payments are merely a reflection of the non-pecuniary costs of any exchange and there are no free lunches. So some form of payment is occurring here. Bring in the IRS rulings about trading goods to get around taxes and how that's not going to work and you're back at an effective monetary payment by someone.

What's the legal principle that differentiates the current escort status as illegal versus these other cases or money (or in the last case implied monetary value) exchanged for sex?

Prostitution and solicitation laws are typically quite specific:  
 A direct exchange of money for sex = illegal.  But as you point out, indirect exchanges of sex for money is quite legal.  

 A gold digger who marries for money = legal.  
 An SB's 'arrangement' with an SD =  legal.  

 Then there's this paradox:  sex for free = legal.  Sex for money = illegal.  That addresses your 'one night stand' issue.  I'm trying to think of another example ( besides sex), where giving something away is legal, but selling it is illegal.  Organ donation, perhaps.  

In regard to porn, there's legal precedent (see Miller vs California) that gives it first amendment protection.  
   
That doesn't answer the larger question of 'why'.   Camille Paglia once wrote that  "Sex is the intersection between man and his animal nature".  Over many centuries, laws and traditions have tried to curb man's animal nature, to little effect.  --

Beyond all the laws and precedents that make up our legal system, there is the reality of politics, pure and simple.

Things are illegal for centuries when all of a sudden a shift in the views of the hoi poloi suddenly brings the issue to the high court and presto chango, it becomes legal.

This is the case with any number of issues including abortion, civil rights, and most recently gay marriage.

Sometimes it is the legislative process that acts first as in the case of slavery.

Bottom line:  When there is a political will among the people to insist on a change, the law finds a way to accommodate it.  You would think that sex for pay wouldn't be all that problematic.  After all, most of the free world allows it, and even a few counties in Nevada allow brothels.  It was even quasi-legal in the US until reformers in the late 19th century turned against it, so what's the big deal?

But my sense of things (Which is often inaccurate.) tells me it will be a long time coming.

Organ donation is probably the best and one that is questioned as well.

The indirect payment is a bit of what I was trying to get at with reference to the IRS and their crack down on the b2b barter that crept up as a way to avoid taxes related to asset disposal. The indirect shouldn't really matter -- and so I'd argue that escort should be legal if SB and gold digging is. But it is what it is.

Kind of laughing over the laws to curb our animal nature line. Wonder if one could try the "but animals don't use money or pay so we're much more civilized in so doing" line of argument?

Thanks for taking the time to give a thoughtful answer.

Agree with everything (except maybe the time line) and have at times, mostly in jest but not entirely, cast the prohibition in a gender conflict light -- men have generally be dominant in society and the ability to sell sex is fairly empowering for women. That fits into the gold digger and SD legal while prostitution and escort not picture fairly well -- the gold diggers and SB are still largely under the control and dependent on the particular husband or SD where as in the later setting the woman can pretty much take or leave any given man with feeling any pain.

It's an easy target for politicians to make themselves look good and like they're 'doing something.' Of course, no self-respecting businessman would shortchange his or her best source of revenue, but what politician has common sense?

As for your IRS reference, the rules on barter are like the FBAR rules - both have been around for a long, long, time, but weren't strongly enforced until recently. And for good reason - nobody was doing them. I worked for a guy who was in a barter club way back in the late 80s, and even then he got tax statements about what he traded and what his income from barter was. But he was a rare bird then - most people laughed at him (and called him cheap) for doing it

But doesn't that just strengthen the idea and indirect payment is not a way to get around the sex for pay/money problem? In other words the distinction is much less clear than the law seems to want to claim.

Take a gander at the map I've linked to below.  I was a bit surprised at the number of countries where prostitution is legal.  

 It's legal in almost all of Europe.   In the Western Hemisphere, it's legal almost everywhere except the U.S. and a few small countries.  --z

It is really strange -- or not now that I give a second thought. For whatever reasons the USA seems to have a tendency to like passing laws to prevent minor crime or "immoral" life styles and then spend huge amounts and further increase policing to address the related activities. Drug prohibition, we get war on drugs and all the smuggling, turf wars and violence and adulterants that are even more harmful that the underlying drug. Sex prohibition, we get the war on human trafficking (though clearly other factors here too).

We could have learned from the alcohol prohibition era you'd think!

Thanks for the link. Interesting that no law is not considered legal but maybe somethings about the localities make that association in correct.

 We're the most sexually/morally repressed country in the Western Hemisphere.  And we're also the most war-like country in the  Western Hemisphere.  It's not a good combination.  --z

Geez seems so obvious. Look, are you aware that almost half of all Americans do not believe in evolution? The legal principle is that Tony Scalia only jerks off in the dark when God can't see him.

Well, I think if we were both sitting in a 1L class discussing this, intent would be the primary driver. In the P2P scenario, the intent of the parties is a business transaction, while in the relationship scenario, the intent is, well, a relationship - something more than immediate satisfaction of needs.

Of course, there is the time-honored tradition of 'marrying up' and 'marraiges of convenience,' but both of those are socially frowned upon (and illegal in certain circumstances).

It's as you say - not clearly black and white. But, if all parties are being honest, there are clear differences. My SO has benefits that I can't get in a P2P relationship. For example, someone with whom I can discuss intimate issues, who has a stake in the outcome (ie., if I want to quit my $250K/yr job, my ATF will never care as much as my SO, because my SO has a much more significant stake in the outcome). As much as my ATF might care about me, that one detail is not, and will likely never be, a part of our relationship. In that regard, the best the ATF can hope for is BFF status.

I guess God saw him after all.