There are all the disclaimers about companionship only and anything else that happens is just between two consenting adults....not an offer of prostitution, by calling me you are certifying that you are not LE, etc.

Has this worked to keep someone out of legal jeopardy?  "She was just 'modeling' for me, but we really liked each other, so we ended up having sex."  

I don't see that working.  Seems like everyone would see right through it.  There are lots of ways to debunk it.

But it persists on providers' websites.  Why?

I will give more info on this later but a recent case in New York upheld this concept.
  First, to be charged with a crime, the elements of the crime must exist. i.e.to put it simply, to be charged with prostitution there must be a contract or agreement between two parties where money is to be exchanged for sex.
  It is based on the purchase of time as the most significant element in the event, you are purchasing a segment of time from the girl, if you end up having sex or not, it is not important because you purchased time for money not sex.
 If instead you had paid for sex and gotten it, you would be guilty of participating in an act of prostitution, but you were buying time and not sex.
 Think about this, you hire a plumber to fix your drain, in walks a female plumber, she fixes the drain, you have a drink together and she ends up riding you cowgirl style. What did you pay for? a plumber's work or a fuck? There is no element of prostitution because she was hired and paid for her skill, not for sex. Since payment for sex is a required element of the crime of prostitution, and is missing, you cannot be charged with it.
 or this,
  You hire a preacher to marry you and your girlfriend, you all get drunk and end up in a threesome, why was the preacher there, for sex or to marry you?
  You hire a nude model because you want to just sit and watch her, after a while she gets bored and you end up getting a bareback blow job, what was she hired for?
  That is the gist of this concept. In some places it has not been accepted, but in some places it either has or is beginning to make sense. The point is a classic legal principle, that if you pay for time it does not matter if you have sex, the necessary element of hire for sex is missing, so you cannot be charged with the crime of paying for sex because the element required to be charged is missing, that sex took place does not matter as it is trumped by the payment for time which negates the element necessary for the crime.
  More to follow....

-- Modified on 4/24/2010 8:07:33 PM

What you're saying does make some sense, and I guess that's why the first element of any bust is the proximity of the words 'sex' and 'money', right?

However, it seems to me that if one establishes a pattern of evading the semantics of the law while actually conducting an illegal act, that whatever language is being used is irrelevant.

So, everyone goes about doing illegal stuff, while winking at each other. Isn't that how they get conspiracy?  No one ever really says "kill the sob,' it's take him grocery shopping or some other agreed euphemism.

Seems like it can be shown that there are a lot of women offering 'companionship', and then you will see that they end up having sex with a lot of men, as evidenced by the multitude of reviews, even if those reviews are themselves disavowed as being fiction by the sites where they are posted.

So, lady Jane Smith, gets busted and says, we just had sex because I liked the guy. Then the prosecutor shows the jury that Jane 'just liked the guy' about 30 times in the last 6 months, and they all wrote about it.  And that same pattern would be shown by a whole bunch of other escorts. If it quacks like a duck...

Hey, I'm all for the ruse to work, but I just can't see it getting very far.  But, I'm just theorizing without any real basis for my opinion, other than logic and experience with human beings.  But then, that assumes the legal system works on the same principles, no?

disclaimer on a lady’s website due in large part to a blurred understanding of the scope of state prostitution statutes.

       These statutes not only prohibit sex for pay and sex for pay agreements, they also prohibit mere offers of sex for pay. Some states like Nevada go further and have dedicated statutes prohibiting the advertising of prostitution.

      Web site disclaimers providing that the lady is offering her time only are effectively worthless if the lady meets with the client and has sex for pay, or agrees to have sex for pay. Criminal law penalizes you for what you do, not what you label your activity.

     But the disclaimers are intended to prevent the website alone from being considered an offer of prostitution, or an advertisement of prostitution. If the website is otherwise clean of contrary language –and incredibly some ladies use the free website template that lists specific sexual services provided – the disclaimers should prevent the website alone from being considered an illegal offer, or advertisement. So it is not accurate to say the disclaimers are completely worthless.

        Conversely, disclaimers asking the client to certify that he is not LE are worthless as far as I can tell. With one exception, LE is permitted to tell outright lies in the course of an investigation.

        But the “this is not an offer of prostitution” disclaimer should be on every website to protect against the website being deemed to be an illegal offer.

I would like to see the NY case.  It is hard to imagine how it got there.  

If D was convicted, and it was reversed on appeal, this would require a holding that as a matter of law the disclaimer was valid in spite of all other facts.  

For example, if the website had the disclaimer, but listed other services, showed full nudity, linked to reviews listing the price as 300 and 400 with Greek, and had a dozen other items mentioning sex, the fact that she lists herself as a plumber or "model" just creates a question of fact, and on conviction, the court would uphold the verdict, stating that the the jury was simply drawing a contrary inference.

On the other hand, if the D was not convicted, the appellate court could only get it on a motion to dismiss prior to trial, appealed by an interloc writ.  Again, this would require a holding that as a matter of law, the disclaimer if valid, regardless of all facts listed above.


Finally, your analogy to a plumber is weak.  If you get the plumber from a website of home repair, and the plumber is listed on Angies list with no mention of sex, your argument holds.  But if your plumber's only listing is on a site that specialized in escorts, she offers to "clean your pipes - wink, wink" for an extra $50, it has her nude and spread eagle, her rate is 10 times any other carpenter, she shows up with no tools, and she offers overnight doubles with her girlfriend who has similar ads - with or without disclaimer, all the disclaimers in the world are silly, and not worth the time.

According to several DAs in NJ as well as a former member of the NJ State Supreme Court (who's a friend of my family) - it's BS.

If you respond to an ad that says certain things are offered like GFE, BBBJ, or other acronyms for sex acts, then no matter what you or she claim and no matter whether she has a disclaimer on her website saying that you're paying for her time or not, it's prostitution, the DA will prosecute if you're busted, you will be convicted, and the appeals courts will uphold it.  At least in NJ.

Look at it this way:
If a woman advertises sex,  you give her money and get sex, it's still payment for sex even if she washes your car, does your laundry and cooks you dinner.

As for this "New York case" - I've heard about that before.  If it's the same case that everyone else cites, it doesn't support the claim.

The case, if I remember correctly, had to do with a NY travel agent who booked people on cruises or vacations (don't remember which) that happened to be fronts for prostitution in another country.  The question was whether the NY agent could be held for promoting prostitution.  The answer was that they couldn't because they were merely booking the trips, and had no direct knowledge or involvement in the prostitution business.

If you're referring to a different case, I'd like to know.  

But, according to the ex-NJ Supreme Court Judge, there's never, ever, ever been a case anywhere in any jurisdiction that supports the claim that if you ostensibly are only "buying time"  or "companionship" and end up having sex, that you're not engaging in prostitution.

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right.  But, I've heard this argument before from many people, including lawyers, and it's never held up.  And there have been PLENTY of busts in NYC in the last few years and if there were such a case it would have been cited many times before now, and many agencies would still be open for business.

The problem I have with this is that the claim of payment for 'time & companionship only' on a web site...  even if it is one of the few rare ones that does not discuss sexual acts...  is that it "might" offer some protection from a solicitation statute based solely on that advertizement.  
It seems moot to me once you are face to face, some statement is made offering sex & the envolupe changes hands.  The latter agreement is prostitution & supercedes any previous disclaimers.  LE does not need to deal with the ad, computers, or phone calls because they already have what they need on tape.

If it makes you feel better, then what's the harm.

As for avoiding LE (Which should be the main concern of all.), clients must do their research and providers must to their screening.

That's the only way to stay safe.

Solicitation cases almost never get into the legal fine points.  No one has the funds to hire a lawyer to spend the time required to go there.  

In the above posts there are a lot of 'what ifs' and 'yeah buts' that are mostly all correct but all really miss the point.  To be charged with solicitation you have to come in contact with LE.  Assuming your well reviewed lady hasn't been flipped, your date will be (legally) a non-event.  

Common sense would dictate never seeing providers with explicit offers in their web ads.  Offers of GFE, BBBJ etc certainly could be considered a constructive solicitation, however that is HER problem really.  I've been with more than one lady who didn't ask for the envelope or wait for it to be placed on a table before kicking off the game.  Even afterwards they said nothing, of course I left the donation.  I discussed this with them later and they both said that they would 10X rather risk having a jerk walk out without leaving the donation than say anything before or after the act that could get them busted.  Neither had ever had a man leave without leaving the donation, btw.  

When you respond to a lady's ad, NEVER specify any kind of sex you expect "I saw your ad, I'd like to make an appointment for an hour."  When you arrive, never talk about sex, provide the payment and let nature take its course.  If she DID ask anything like 'so what do you want for your $$$' or anything like that you simply say 'your time and companionship only...just like it says in your ad, and nothing more!'  At that point, I'd start moving toward the door - and yes, i'd leave the envelope behind.  Thank her for her time and leave.  

Just my opinion, but getting into the legal nuances of the various laws isn't really productive.  We have all heard about stings where either the clients or the proiveders were charged for simply showing up for the date.  Was this strictly legal?  Probably not, but again, the cops know you don't have the funds to fight it in court and are going to plea to something and pay the fine.  

My .02

mvr

Mr Fischer said what I did and did it SO much more briefly and effectively.

mvr

if a guy offers to pay for time, the girl accepts (or vice versa) and they have sex – that concept has no place in the real world of arrest and prosecution.

      If LE has probable cause to arrest the couple for prostitution, the arrest will be upheld even if both swear on a stack of bibles that they were just contracting for time.


        In a prosecution for prostitution, the couple can likewise testify that they were just contracting for time and the sex happened bc they liked each other but that does not stop jury from convicting for prostitution. The reason is that what the parties label their conduct is never controlling in the criminal law.

    The prosecution will argue that the labeling is a subterfuge and in 99% of the case the jury will agree. But no way that any appellate court is going to buy into that concept as a matter of law and rule that if both parties testify that the deal was for time, and that the sex happened bc they just liked each other, that the conviction must be reversed.

      There was a N.Y. case that got some headlines on that concept but as I recall the case arose in the Phillipines where apparently some of the girls really were just professional companions and not providers.  A defendant can always make the “just paying for time” argument to the jury, but no court will dismiss a prostitution charge as a matter of law as long as there is some circumstantial evidence that a crime was committed.

seems like all the newspapers pulled the story but dave has an article about it on his sexwork site.


also the disclaimers are important because the absense of one would certainly be used against a girl in court.

but an offer (do you do bbbj)  and acceptance (yeah) of money (rates are on the site) for a sex act (the bbbj)  renders the disclaimer (the initial contractual agreement)  null and void because a new contract has now been made.  

-- Modified on 4/26/2010 5:22:33 AM

Yeah, that's the case that everyone cites.  Read the case.

It's a case against a New York based tour agency (Big Apple Tours) that took people to Asia (Philippines, Thailand, etc.) where people engaged in prostitution.  They were tried in New York on charges that they were an enterprise that promoted prostitution.

The jury ruled (and rightly so) that all people were paying for were the trips/tours to these locations.  The tour agency did not hire prostitutes, nor did they have any relationship to the bars or brothels where people on the tour engaged in prostitution.

To say that this case sets a precedent that if you're only "buying time" then you are not engaged in prostitution is mere fantasy.  Anyone trying to defend themselves from charges solely on the basis of this case is a fool, IMO.  

(Still not a lawyer)