In the state of Ohio to set up an incall with a known provider, pay full GFE rates, but just get a massage or nude massage with no sex?
Please advise.

it is legal to give a person money for no reason at all, it is only illegal  to agree to receive sex in exchange for that money.

you are not wanting or expecting sex, so it is not at all illegal based on traditional prostitution laws.

Here is when it gets complicated, There are some jurisdictions that throw in convoluted ordinances that label the most inoculous variations , yes very unfair .

IE: OC will arrest someone for prostitution for a foot massage.
And will also arrest for just meeting for lunch a date on the internet.
Jackie in Florida was arrested just for casual talking to a guy at his apartment. these are cases that do not involve money or sex.

In a nutshell; depends on the "local climate", are LE arresting people for basically nothing or are they  arresting real violators?

you will need to do some research & be prepared to follow the law exactly.

Massage License is required under the state medical board.  A nude massage would be considered malpractice & probably get the LMT license revoked.  A LMT can give a draped non-sexual massage (you, not LMT) but that's not really what you're asking.
You could probably skate but the provider will get charged of massage without license.  Most providers do not use the word massage but body rub hoping that'll offer some legal protection but IMO does not.
There's really no way to make providing legal in places where it is not.
skb

It does not sound like he searching for a LMT or CMT for muscle aches,

It sounds like he is merely seeking a body rub by an attractive lady, without any sexual activity & is concerned he might get arrested for patronizing a prostitute, even though he has no intent whatsoever of sexual activity by either party.

It appears  He also plans on compensating the lady a generous amount and does not want that to be misconstrued to mean he expects more.

Technically this would NOT be prostitution,
Is it legal?? well that would depend if that jurisdiction had a specific law against that specific activity,

is not the most germane point to concern yourself with.

Consider that for whatever reason, LE has latched onto some provider, whether she calls her self a masseuse, or body-rub gal, or whatever.

They stake out her place, and bust her and whoever else is in there with her, let's say that is you.

Now, if you get yourself a good lawyer, and he makes all the right arguements, then maybe a judge and/or jury will let you go.  But consider the damage that has been done:

You've been reported arrested in the papers.
You've been outed to your wife (Divorce court, here we come.)
You've been outed to your community and at work.  (Think your going to be promoted soon?  Guess again.)
And your out probably $10 Gs to the lawyer.

So, what price victory?

This leads us back to our mantra:

Repeat after me:

See only well reviewed providers.  See only well reviewed providers  See only well reviewed providers.

(still not a lawyer)

mrfisher is quite correct...  You need to do your homework & learn to be discrete & see only providers that are discrete as well.  
Please read the newbie manual at the top of this board & read back several pages here.  It wouldn't hurt to read a bit on the other boards as well.  (All this is free.)
learn about:
hobby phones
2 call system
separate & secure e-mail
cleaning computer memory
STFU
Meet in hotels (ladies change rooms frequently) NOT apartments, homes (nosey neighbors complain to LE)
Happy hobbying
skb

In California this would indeed be prostitution unless it was a legitimate massage.  Trading money for any lewd act (not limited to intercourse) is prostitution in this state.  Things might work differently in Ohio.

Yes, That is why I used the word "traditional prostitution" I also referenced a foot massage for OC,

I personally don't consider being nude, a strip tease, foot massage, singing nude, wearing lingerie, a belly dance,pilates nude,taking a shower, sipping wine & soaking in a hot tube.
private fashion show,strip poker, telling a dirty joke
"lewd acts" in the privacy & consent of 2 adults

giving someone money for time or just because you like them, is not in any way illegal,
otherwise anytime you give food or few bucks to the amputee homeless vet sitting on the corner in his wheelchair
you would be committing prostitution

but Sidone is absolutely correct.

I might also suggest that you leave the advice giving on legal matters to the attorneys, bad advice if followed could land someone in jail.

Your opinion notwithstanding the acts you describe are "lewd acts" in the eyes of LE. The  opinion of LE and the courts are the important ones if you want to stay out of jail.

Cathy addressed a compensated body rub without sexual activity and with neither party having any intent of sexual activity and stated this would not be “prostitution.”

     She is absolutely correct under California law. Prostitution in California requires at least one party to have a specific intent to engage in sexual activity.

     While Cal. Penal Code 647 does not define “prostitution,” the Cal Supreme Court has ruled that both “lewd acts” and “prostitution” as used in the statute require that the money be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal. People v. Freemen (“it is clear that in order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification).  This is one reason why pornographers get a pass in California.

    To clear up confusion as to whether one or both parties must have the sexual arousal intent, 647(b) was amended to make clear that only one party must have this specific intent:

(b) Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages
in any act of prostitution. A person agrees to engage in an
act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage,
he or she manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the
specific intent to engage in prostitution.

Cal. Penal 647(b). Thus, when a cop busts a girl she cannot defend on the basis he never really wanted to do it.


   As applied to our situation, lacking the requisite specific intent to engage in anything sexual, the guy could not be convicted of prostitution, so Cathy is correct.


      While you are literally correct that “ Trading money for any lewd act (not limited to intercourse) is prostitution in this state," this truism does not make Cathy “wrong” bc the lack of sexual intent precludes the act from being a statutory “lewd” act. Again, an act is not a 647 “lewd act”  unless the money or other consideration is paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.

    Cathy tells us the guy has no such intent and, therefore, the body rub he receives is neither prostitution not a lewd act.
Whether LE and ultimately a jury will believe the guy, however, is a different matter.

any argument you have would have to be made in front of a judge, after arrest.

Is this really the kind of advice you want to make to people that might actually believe you?

I know you like to argue strictly for arguments sake, but there are people that (wrongly) take the advice given here seriously that might find themselves behind bars by taking your illadvised opinion literally.

Your textbook example might hold water in the classroom, but if anyone actually took your, or Cathy's advice literally, they would find them behind bars trying to find someone like you to defend them. Somehow I doubt that you need the business that badly, so for all of the "legally challenged" people out there please at least put some type of disclaimer that your advice might spare them a conviction, but that they will still suffer the indignity of arrest and more than likely prosecution.

readers of the Legal Corner are smart enough to understand that Cathy was addressing a hypothetical situation where she assumed arguendo that the parties were honestly pure in intent.

        And she really nailed it – explaining correctly that this technically would not be prostitution, but that whether it was “legal”  would depend on whether there was a statute addressing the particular activity.  So anyone reading her post would realize she was not giving her blessing to the activity as “legal” but was actually saying “you must look further.”

         And if readers were still unsure, they had the benefit (?) of your post which flatly said she was wrong.  Plus I suspect that Sidone - who was correct on  the law - will chime in at some point saying that he was addressing the problem from the perspective of LE rather than the subjective intent of parties.


     So I don’t see anyone booking a body rub after those two posts.

        But you do make one good point in that it is always a good idea to include disclaimers in these type of posts.

   It is also a good idea to read the entire post before you hit that Reply button. Had you done so, you would have noticed that I concluded my post with the disclaimer that, regardless of whether the acitivity was unlawful prostitution or not, whether LE or a jury would believe the guy was another matter.


      As for me, I’m still trying to figure out if Georgia is west of South Carolina so I can come down there and keep a closer eye on you and TJ. Having both of you in the same state makes me nervous.

thank you


It sounds like LE try to manipulate the law and have no wiggle room for an innocent misunderstanding.

Wonder if there has ever been a case were LE arrested someone who could not physically have sex ie: lets say a paraplegic that merely wanted a nice lady to enjoy a DVD & pizza together?

Thank you all for the great and helpful feedback. All in all, based on what I am hearing. I have chickened out.

over arrest and/or conviction.

innocent people go to jail every day.

the side that knows the most about the laws in that particular jurisdiction will always win the case.

leave the advice giving on legal matters to the attorneys


since when in the hell did having a law degree mean someone knows the law ?

WTF ?

most of the attorneys on this site are civil atttorneys and i have NO RESPECT for anyone who posts that they are an attorney and then precedes to give legal advice.  

i have seen some very good legal advice from some very good attorneys on this site but they never identify themselves as attorneys because not only could it cost them their license but because THEY DON'T HAVE TO.  

if you know what you're talking about, you dont have to tell people that you know what you're talking about, it will be obvious when you do.

cathy might not have a law degree and there are times when i have disagreed with her advice but i'm still appreciative of her posts because i know that she has some ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in these matters as opposed to the bevy of pompous asshole civil attorneys that have never ever SEEN the inside of a court room much less know ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about criminal laws or proper defense procedures.

a dermatoligist and a cardiac specialist are both doctors but if you had a heart condition, would you be impressed with a dermatologist who gave you advice on your condition, presenting themselves as a doctor but not clarifying what kind ?

do you think that just because a dermatologist went through medical school that means they MUST know something about heart conditions ?

a good CRIMINAL attorney knows that the written statutes arent nearly as important as how the law is actually being applied in their jurisdiction because ultimately, it's up to the judge's INTERPRETATION of the statute and that can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from judge to judge.

in leiu of retaining an attorney, needs to spend some time in jail reflecting upon their own stupidity.