If they don't allow MSOG you really aren't paying for their time.

If you get to say and they otherwise entertain you you're getting their time and for those the clearly saying the money is for the time and not sex then MSOG at the demand of the client might be seen as them being paid for sex rather than time....

She just offers very limited services, for 1 hour (or whatever) of her "time."  

It's like very ironic.

Is it really gfe if she doesn’t kiss?

she opens the door, to when she kicks your ass out.  Read the disclaimers in the ads and on the websites.  You are paying for time, not sex.  If you get sex its because she likes you, and you're both consenting adults.

Actually that is just a legal fiction ... and in fact, not really recognized as a legitimate legal fiction in the courts.

When it comes to "legal" I don't think you know what you're talking about.  I'm giving you the opportunity to put up or shut up. Doesn't get any fairer than that. I'm guessing I'm going to get crickets from you.

-- Modified on 1/4/2017 9:14:09 AM

but I agree with you completely, except it's a random "thought" not "thoughts.

all of the hooker-lawyers are telling their hooker-clients to put this line up on their websites, so until I see some credible evidence that the courts are not taking it seriously, as the OP seems to think, I'm going to believe it works for hookers whether its BS or not.  

Chocolate covered crickets!

If you walked into an LE sting with $400 cash in your pocket and said "I was just going to pay her for her time." Do you think they'd say, "Oh, okay, we'll let you go. Have a nice day."

agree with her kicking you out early since the guy/gal had paid for a certain amount of her time that she already has set aside. If the client wants to leave early, then that's on them and she gets some bonus free time.

Same as you say you're going to believe putting "compensation is for my time and companionship only" on a website means diddly-squat. Why? Maybe we're dreamers and silly hearts. Maybe we're fools. Maybe we're like every other internet troll.

-- Modified on 1/4/2017 1:32:40 PM

Don't throw around demands for citations of case law. I can't quote the criminal code, but that doesn't mean I don't know premeditated murder is illegal in my jurisdiction.

-- Modified on 1/4/2017 1:35:23 PM

Unless she offers a refund.

I'll disagree a bit on one point, all this misdirection does make it a bit tougher for LE to ensure a conviction.   If money is never mentioned or checked while the LE is present then it is more difficult (but not impossible) to show that she wasn't just a slutty gal blowing everyone who walked in the door.

Then you shouldn't be hobbying in the first place if all you can afford is cheap motel sex with BP and CL girls, or streetwalkers.  You should buy your kids new shoes with that money and jack yourself off if your only option is such risky scenarios.

Namely, from "Lion Butt."

Might be debatable.

See my response to Souls.

I didn't have to look up the first one . . . . its a famous tax case regarding earned income versus gifts.  The hooker had her conviction for failing to file a tax return overturned by the appellate court.

The website disclaimer is completely useless.  You as much proved it with your example.  Once LE is in the room if money is mentioned, look out.   It doesn't matter if she had a stack of previous disclaimers, she is going to get busted for the here an now.  

You're still arguing your 1980 pre-Internet case law you looked up. My post was about the disclaimer Hooker-attorneys are telling thief hooker-clients to put in their ads. You said the courts are disregarding it. I said prove it, and you provide tax and massage parlor cases. The more you keep arguing, the more you look like an uninformed hack. If you have a case that shows a court threw out a printed disclaimer, even ONE, then post it. If not, you should STFU about stuff you don't know ANYTHING about. Just my opinion. Others may disagree who enjoy watching guys like you make foolish arguments here.  It's cheap entertainment for the mob. Lol

-- Modified on 1/4/2017 9:38:25 PM

Lighten up, Francis.

I wrote?  Of course, we're laughing at you and not with you.

Seems to me you're hung up on what YOU said. No surprise. But my post was to say that the case law supported HIS assertion.

Responded to MY post. I thought you knew that. His SECOND assertion doesn't respond to me and is out in left field somewhere. Nice attempt at a save, though. Way to think on your feet. Too bad it doesn't make you look any smarter in your previous post.  

I have never posted under an alias and I never will. Everything I say, I am willing to be held to account on.