Forgive me if this has been asked and answered already, but I did a search and didn't find it...
Anyhow, I've seen a lot of statements on provider's websites that state something to the effect of "this is a donation for the provider's time only and anything else that happens is strictly an act between two consenting adults"
Assuming that you skirt around the obvious (i.e. "I would like a BJ for $50.00), do these statements hold any legal ground at all?
The short answer is that the "donation for time" language may help a provider dodge a charge of solicitation IN SOME STATES. It pretty much depends on the way a particular state's statute reads. It might also help a provider say (with a semi-straight face) that the cop didn't pay for "services," she just liked him so much they spontaneously went at it. Again, YMMV, depending on the state where you live or pursue your hobby.
In the long run, though, none of the word games on the website will work if the undercover cop is wearing a wire and the tapes of the conversation sound more like a menu than a friendly get together.
Fast Ferret
as I understand it, none of these euphemisms, abbreviations (such as GFE), or skirting of issues will make a difference in the courtroom.
once you have the intent to engage in any sexual act while a transaction of money, or any form of compensation, has taken place it will negate a verbal agreement and/or civil contract that this "donation is for time only". the way the law reads is usually something to the effect that once a criminal act is committed you can sugarcoat it any way you like to, but you still won't be able to save your ass from the arrest or conviction.
my best advice would be to simply do not discuss money or any certain act. most all of us, both providers and hobbyists, should know, or learn, how to read between the lines by now.
best regards, "not talkin' about sex or money here", mr.man
It is not intent OR solicitation. In criminal law, the defendant must be shown to have committed some illegal act, in these cases, exchanging a promise of sex for money.
That's one. Two is that all that folderol language is exactly that. Folderol.
A judge will snicker at that stuff; so would a jury. I mean, it's advertising that you're hooking and trying to use language to get around the penal code. Doesn't work at all and is not a viable defense.
what if you refused to accept money and then also told the man to put his money away? And further steered clear of any dialogue that would be considered solicitation or acceptance of a solicitation? Am I correct in assuming with out a transaction there is no crime?