I've been "researching" some sex/prostitution/whatever law...and was also wondering about this question that someone on yahoo asked:  

"If someone donates money to a woman for her time.. and they happen to have sex, but that's not what the money was for, is it prostitution? Would it be illegal in the eyes of the law?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081126141145AArK2v7

The best answer is this:

That is prostitution.  

Now, in many ads for escorts, you will see that the "donation" is made for the woman's time and not her services. This does two things. First, it gives her a thin cover legally from prostitution. However, it is a very thin cover as intent is what is important. All that has to be shown is that the transaction was entered into with the intent to have sex. And, that is fairly easy to show.  

And, while we are at it, let's be honest. We might be able to define an act forbidden by the law so that it is not illegal in a courtroom. Even though it is still not illegal, it is still the act in question. So, you might be able to somehow define your giving the gift to the woman in such a way that you avoid the criminal charge of prostitution. But, if you are giving someone something of value, or if you are receiving something of value, and the intent of the meeting is sex, even if the act is not illegal, it is still prostitution. Look, what the girls do at the bunny ranch is legal and is prostitution.  

Secondly, it gives her the right to refuse sex and demand payment. You don't have to use her again and you don't have to use her company again. There's no one you can really complain to since the ad was for time, not anything else -- even though your expectations were for sex.  

Now, in the very rare occasion where a man truly does give a strange woman something of value for her time and the intention is truly is not sex -- I don't think this happens outside a dating or friendship relationship often -- and sex happens, that would not be prostitution. When you take your girlfriend out to a nice restaurant and show and afterwards she has sex with you, that is not prostitution, even though it comes close when the intent is sex for the dinner and show. What prevents it from being prostitution is the relationship you have with your girlfriend/friend. If you are talking to a counselor and one thing leads to another and you two have sex, that is not prostitution because the intent was truly not sex.  

But, in most of these cases, when you give a strange woman a donation and it's "for her time," both you and the woman KNOW it's for the sex that is expected during that time."

Interesting and thoughtful response.

What do y'all think about the "disclaimers" for escorts like gifts/donations/etc. are for time only....??

I was also one of the first people here to take a stand against the stupid practice of "envelopes" and was called everything from disrespectful, a misogynist, a fool and everything else under the sun.

Lets face it, some things done in the hobby, like the so called "LE test" are just plain stupid, and while some people like to coddle stupid people, especially guys wanting to coddle the women they are about to have sex with, no matter how stupid they are. I think "someone" has to stand up for common sense.

When someone can show me how they beat a solicitation charge in court by using a "money for time and companionship" defense, I will change my tune. Until then those disclaimers are more likely to get you convicted rather than acquitted, and they damn sure are not going to keep you from getting arrested.

I don't understand why some girls continue to use the disclaimer.  If LE catches her with a guy and an envelope, the jig is up.

without an envelope with the exact amount of money in it as is on her web ad, all LE has is her with a guy. Sex with a hooker is not illegal, paying her is. Without anything else to go on, LE has NOTHING.

LE can kick the door in all they want with, but no physical evidence and neither party being stupid enough to "confess", unless one of the parties in the bed is LE him/herself. LE has NOTHING to go on, that's why I have no worries about hotel management calling LE or LE lurking about the building, the only person I am worried about being LE is the lady who answers the door, because if it's a sting there is nothing in the world that is going to keep you from going to jail that day, unless you happen to be the arresting officers kid brother or golfing buddy. lol

Thank you for the very thoughtful responses.  I am also starting to wonder about all the pointless LE hoops.  

Do you still think it's a good idea to make sure a person is not an officer by having them undress/touch themselves/kiss you, etc....

Thanks!
SJ

I'm hoping that this is a good choice

He does have a mug that says "World's Greatest Attorney".

Almost every new girl looks at many other escorts websites before she designs her own. 99% of the time, she will see that disclaimer and therefore think it is important to have it on hers. There is a simple logic to that.  

And if the girl is not doing her own design and she hires someone, that webmaster will invariably look at other girls in the business sites and copy the legalese verbatim.

Lets face it, women are much more emotion based than men and it would make many of them "feel" vulnerable if they didn't put it on there. I really don't see any increased risk or lowered risk of doing it so if the girl "feels" better with it on there, so be it

You might want to go to the Legal board and read a few pages worth of discussion.

Simply put there is NO LE check..none!!  

Educate yourself sooner than later so you don't find out as sentencing is being presented.

actually some of the disclaimers, just like the envelopes do much more potential harm than good. Take the "by pressing accept you acknowledge that you are not affiliated with Law Enforcement" for example. By putting that on her website a woman is just begging a prosecutor to say "so you were well aware that what you were doing was illegal, weren't you miss rottencrotch?"

The amount of misinformation that is thrown around by wanna be jail house lawyers is just mind boggling, as is the outright stupidity of some of the advice. I will admit, I look at most of it the same way I ignore elevator music, but if we are going to have a thread on the subject, I see no reason to sugarcoat it.

END OF MESSAGE

The legalese is stupid, we all know it would never hold up in court.  Just like the "200 kisses" or "150 roses" BS they put on their ads and on here.  Say dollars ladies and gents, because all a decent prosecutor is going to do is bring in a 30yr vice Lt and put him on the stand, voir dire for a couple minutes and swear him in as an expert witness.  That expert is going to say "Yeah, they commonly speak in codes like roses=US Dollars"   And that takes care of that.  

As far as the LE touch/naked check.  I refer to TONS of cases in Florida since the 1980's.  Back up until the mid 90's that I know of there were many vice LE guys being allowed to get a BJ in order to make the case.  The logic was that as long as they didn't finish, they were only doing it for work and not for pleasure.  Kinda flawed logic to us these days, but hey, everyone had mullets and acid washed jeans back then--what did they know huh?   I think it would come down to the local LE agency policy on stings--how far they can go before they have to stop.  

The best way I think, honestly, is like on here.  Everyone vouches for the provider, so you go see the provider based on that and knowing that she's legit.  She can see that you are verified in a couple different ways as well and everyone is happy.  

If you made it this far into my dissertation, I'm sorry.  I was bored.  

 
 

END OF MESSAGE

If you brazenly state within most US jurisdictions that you will have sex in exchange for money, then LE just has to show up with cash and keep a copy of your ad and they'll get a conviction.  They can proudly tell the press how effective they are, and just not mention it was only a couple hours of work.

But if there's no clear statements, and LE has to really work to try and create a case, eventually they're likely to give up or be ordered off the case to something more productive.  While some folks decry the use of certain words, they really do serve a useful purpose by increasing the difficulty level to ever put someone in a courtroom in the first place.

And saying that a date where you exchanged something of value is not prostitution is really splitting hairs.  I mean, I've spent more time exchanging emails with some providers than I have spent talking with a civvie one night stand - which one then meets the relationship test?

And what about those people who say they can only have sex if they get married, doesn't that mean they're exchanging marriage for sex?  *shudder*

LE tests are laughable.  If you're in a room with a cop running a sting then you WILL be arrested, from there on shut up and let a lawyer earn his check.

It's more correct to say theres no LE check that will actually protect you.  There's one house in NYC that's famous for doing them.  Problem is, a cop will undergo such a check, then bust you anyway and deny doing it.

"We" know who you are...and where you live...and who you see...and who you fuck!!

I've spent a lot of time thinking about these questions.

Remember, the police have to prove that money was exchanged with the specific intent that it was in exchange for sexual activity. Prosecutors generally don't want to prosecute a case unless they're pretty sure they are going to win it. The more potential defenses you have the more bargaining power your attorney is going to have in getting charges reduced or dismissed - or winning the case before a jury if it goes to trial.

The disclaimer certainly does no harm and, in fact, is one factor that can help. (One of my personal rules is never to even call an escort whose ad does not have that language - pretty sure that an ad for a sting would not say that the escort is offering nothing but her time).

LE checks are generally worthless. Undercover police in most states have a privilege to engage in otherwise illegal activity if necessary to gather evidence leading to an arrest. There are however, some localities that have a policy forbidding officers from such things. And, an officer who asks for and receives a blow job - and only then makes an arrest - is likely to piss off a jury. So ... there's that.

The idea of the envelope (if its not checked, mentioned, or even gestured at) is that the escort can say that she didn't accept any money for the act - didn't see any money - and didn't even know it was there. Not a very strong defense in most cases - but probably better than having the guy count out a dozen twenties and hand them to you.

Another absolute is never to discuss the services you provide while setting up a date or before starting. Its very common for escorts to ask, at the first meeting "so, what do you want". As soon as you have this conversation, under almost every law, you are guilty of solicitation. Every police officer will want to push this conversation at every opportunity. Escorts need to learn how to tactfully deflect such requests, and guys just have to learn to use the reviews to see what ladies do and then to trust that their experience will be what they're looking for.

Frankly, none of this is going to be much help with the typical date - where you meet in a hotel room, money is left. clothes come off, and you get right down to it. Its not a difficult case for the prosecution.

Everyone's advice is spot on. The best protection is to screen, screen, screen (both parties). Sites like TER make it easier for guys - but even that isn't foolproof. A well reviewed provider may have been recently busted and agreed to cooperate to avoid prosecution. Even guys with references and verified employment could have been flipped. But good screening is much more likely to keep you out of trouble than anything else discussed in this thread.

The LE check is generally worthless. The disclaimer, the envelope, no advance discussion of services, and thorough screening - all may help, in varying degrees. But ... if your date turns out to be a police officer, you're probably going to be arrested. If that happens, say nothing more and call an attorney.

There are additional precautions that I incorporate in my hobbying - but that goes way beyond the scope of this thread.

I actually got the "are you a cop" question my first time with a provider.  I casually mentioned after our appointment that LE doesn't actually have to identify themselves when asked, and the provider said she knew that which left me kind of puzzled.  If she knows it does nothing, and can lie, what is the point behind asking?

If Al Capone had the foresight to put a disclaimer on the front of the ledger, he may well have beat the tax evasion rap.

He would have done well to have hired me to represent him.

I don't lose  

But - at the end of the day, it's not so annoying that it's worth making an issue over it.  

As far as the envelope is concerned - the envelope is sort of handy as opposed to other ways to carry a separate wad of cash - especially if you are financing a multiple hour threesome....  It's easier to make sure the count is right.  Less hassle/stress

More in tune with Bugs Moran than Capone.

As well the trial was held in the Loop.

END OF MESSAGE