I was told by LE (a family member at one time) that it is perfectly legal to offer  my time to anyone willing to pay for it at what ever rate I want. So if that is the case then why would it be against any law to advertise that  ability?  I am curious as to why  that would constitute any illegal activity enough to be possibility arrested for . Intention of  cours e would vary by individual but overall unless someone can prove that  more than that is actually offered and paid  for  wouldnt that be a viable defense to any would  be sting or  straight arrest if there were no priors  nor any record  of any other wrong doings. My thought has always been  to maintain that time is the onlything one is being paid for or  charging for. and once  the agreed upon time has passed, then its simply two consenting adults isnt it?

And that is exactly why they aren't arresting every provider.  They're only getting paid for their time.

Indeed the concept of selling only time and then falling deeply and passionately into the arms of someone could realistically happen.  In fact it is my belief that adults frequently intend only to meet on a date and end up in bed together.  

However, in California it does not matter if the money or other form of consideration is removed in time from the actual act of lewd conduct (sex or lewd conduct both count as prostitution).  Those disclaimers on women's sites claiming that you are paying for time only and anything additional is between two consenting adults, that does not negate the act of prostutiton.  All it really does is make the girl feel safer by putting that on her website.  It protects nothing.  Money or things of value in exchange for sex or lewd conduct is prostitution even if the event is removed in time from the payment.  E.g. I will pay you Tuesday for sexual activity today, or next week.

Also, the amount of the money, gift, or other consideration is irrelevant.  Essentially, this means that everytime you give a girl flowers or take her on a dinner date and she rewards you with sex afterwards,  you have in the broad sense of the definition committed an act of prostitution.

 Under that definintion even alimony can be considered a form of prostitution, but I digress.  The only thing that keeps the California definition of prostitution in line is the reality of social norms.  If a boyfirnd buys his girlfriend random expensive gifts, or pays her bills once and a while, that is likely to be deemed ok.  Dinner, movies, and flowers are fine too.  But a shopping spree followed by sex, well.... you never know...  Of course who would bust that?  And what jury or judge would convict for that?  None.


-- Modified on 11/21/2002 11:30:47 PM

TheFemaleLawyer's synopsis of the law and her discription of social mores is right on point. On a related matter, there was a recent article in the LA Times business section about Websites posting a citation to a federal Clinton era privacy statute based on the assumption that it prevents LE from snooping. Unfortunately no such federal or state statute exists. Whatever is posted on the Web is not considered private and is, therefore, fairgame for anyone, including LE, to view. Those who have any questions about these matters are welcome to send me a private message.

could only be considered as a form of payment for prostitution if sex was actually involved!!! No the case for me.

What was not mentioned here is that if you get caught up in a sting and don't admit to any sexual acts no matter how much the guy(LE) tries to get you to admit then they will still give you an escorting without a license ticket.  Yes, there is a license for escorting.

As you say, prostitution is the exchange of money or something of value for sex or a lewd act.  

I don't think the typical dating situation where the guy buys the dinner or gives something else of value really meets that definition, since there is usually no *specific* agreement that the dinner is just for sex afterwards, even though that may or may not occur afterwards.  And I would assume that marriage would be a legal defense to a prostitution charge for alimony.    

I wonder whether the argument that the money was just exchanged for "companionship" has ever worked for a defendant, assuming there was no explicit discussion of "sex".  This argument gets raised a lot on these message boards, but I've never seen any case law on the subject, escept in Texas.

...where I live Escorting is legal because you can sell your time and whatever happens between consenting adults is O.K.  Escorts are even required to have business liscences.  I don't know how many actually get one, but one escort I frequent told me about it.

Whereabouts in Canada is this?  Sounds like someplace to visit.   Please let us know.

OK Mz. F/Law:  

If the term "prostitution" is so broad as to cover totally innocent activities (eg., the flowers and dinner "date"; and let's not kid ourselves, there is every expectation of sex), then why can't the statute be challanged on vaguness and overbreadth (substantive due process); and/or subject to arbitrary enforcement in the hands of local authorities?  Any constituional challanges of moment?  How has this faired in court cases?

If that is so, then all of the reviews would be fair game for LE to use (almost like an admission or confession).  Or, can the reviews be treated as a form of (protected) "entertainment" "free speach" "expression" etc.?

LOL, if I told you what province you could probably find out who I am!  Saskatchewan, or otherwise known as The Gap.  So flat you can watch your dog run away for days.

I'm guessing that legislation is similar in most provinces as Canada is socially liberal; much more so than the States.  Escorting (the sale of time) is legal.

Problem with all this is that a jury can INFER evidence of an agreement or offer to engage in sexual activity for a fee (thus the complaint won't be dismissed on legal grounds alone).  You (or your lawyer) can argue factually that the money was only for time, but it's up to the jury to actually believe that argument.  As the FemaleLawyer pointed out, many of the so called normal activities involved in courtship could be construed as prostitution.  For example, a long-term couple who has sex only after an expensive dinner date paid by the guy could be considered prostitution.  By practice, a jury can infer an agreement to perform sex for fee.  Will a jury convict?  Unlikely.  Juries come with common sense, and I think they will realiz that prostitutes have sex for money, not for dinner.  In your scenario, a jury is going to ask why did you have sex with this guy with whom you had no prior relationship (other than perhaps similar encounters).  Well, there's that money on the table.  What was it for?  You argue it was for your time.  What skills did you provide that was worth $$ or $$$?  They may just call you on your bs.

Regardless of the hundreds of hypothetical situations described in the posts below, in the end it comes down to the issue of "mens rea"(your intent, frame of mind, etc.)... and the prosecution has the burden to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, but mens rea (the intent) may be inferred from the situation in which you find yourself.  Where's the reasonable doubt that you are engaged in prostitution if the prosecution enters into evidence of the $$$, naked man, naked you, hotel room, and no prior legitimate relationship between man and you?

so I would assume the decoy would stop short of engaging in sexual acts.   So the lady is charged with soliciting.

I don't thing the real issue is whether the money was just left on the table or given to the lady directly.  As you say, the jury could infer the money was for the ladies services.  The real question is whether sex was included in those services, and if the lady states at the time its only for her time and companionship, it would create a triable issue of fact for the jury to decide, with the burden of proof on the prosectution.