Prostitution v SD/SB Why is one legal?

Perhaps we can get some discussion of why SD/SB is legal v prostitution is not.

My layman's understanding is that as long as you can demonstrate you are paying the woman for a legal purpose then the fact sex is involved is incidental and moves the relationship into the legal arena. I am sure there is more to it than that but I think that is the general premise.

Comments?

A sugar baby is not I give you so much money for so much time in the bed.

Most think that they are both the same but in a true SD/SB relationship it is no the same.

If a hooker called me at 10:00 at night and said she had a flat I wouldn't get out of bed and help fix it.

I could go into detail but why bother, if you don't get it, you never will..

Perhaps we can get some discussion of why SD/SB is legal v prostitution is not.

My layman's understanding is that as long as you can demonstrate you are paying the woman for a legal purpose then the fact sex is involved is incidental and moves the relationship into the legal arena. I am sure there is more to it than that but I think that is the general premise.

Comments? Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

GY6 has a vested interest in saying SBs are legal and escorts are not so ignore him. He has a website devoted to "teaching men" how to have SDs for a fee, and he doesn't even get Texas law.

Going out and fixing a flat means nothing. If you pay a woman for sex, why would fixing a flat mean you didn't pay for sex? It doesn't.

The issue is as SJ has posted many times is in Texas prostitution is defined as the exchange of something of value with the expectation of sex in return. If you read the following article, you can see something amazing: when little monkeys were trained to use money, they did exactly as we humans did... even using money to buy sex
http://www.zmescience.com/research/h...nkey-appeared/

In other words, prostitution is the oldest profession and for a reason. IMO we are genetically imprinted with the concept. Of course, women would pick out the men who could provide the best for them in terms of survival and comfort. They are genetically imprinted with wanting their offspring to survive.

So everyone knows men pay for sex and women take it, the issue is how crude the exchange is.

Legally speaking, I think the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt comes in. If a woman says, "I will pay you $100 for a blow job". You give her $100 and say, "Okay, honey, I paid you $100. You can suck my dick now." You have no prayer if charged. There is nothing illegal with having sex with an appropriate age woman and nothing illegal about giving someone a gift, and that is what you would want your lawyer to be able to argue if you are ever arrested. I tend to steer clear of women who say, "how much" for things. Any woman that specific is naive about the law.

Practically speaking, I think you want to make the arresting officer, district attorney, and potential jury have to define how a SD SB relationship differs from a GF BF relationship or marriage because it is very hard to define. One DA was asked how his slow dancing with his wife at a wedding legally speaking is different than a guy getting a lap dance, and the DA couldn't do it.

I have given GFs money after having sex with them and done the same with the ex-wife (or more often paid her and not had sex.) If you do various non-sexual activities with a SB and get to know her and her family and vice versa, it's going to be pretty hard for a DA to win a prostitution case against you.

Notice I didn't say arrest you. SJ has always said, "You might beat the rap but you won't beat the ride." What he is saying is the dirty little secret of law enforcement is that you can get arrested for anything. Reckless driving is a completely subjective charge, and there are a host of others. If the police don't like you, they can always find a way to arrest you.

I have had two police officers and two lawyers tell me that they have never heard of or would bother with classifying SB SD relationships as prostitution or arrest people involved. But they all know guys are paying for sex and women are taking money for sex with the SB SD thing.

All four had no problems though with going after men and women using back page and street walkers and their johns. That said, if you get an angry cop who just found out his daughter was a SB and/or you happen to go before a man hating dyke judge, all bets are off. I don't think SJ wants to say this being a lawyer, but I will. After studying a lot of legal decisions, the law is much more subjective than we are led to believe. IMO if you are an asshole, the law will find a way to get you.

That said, OBSG, if you are a gentleman, which you are, and mix the pay for play with a caring relationship then I doubt you or any guys who are really benefiting the lives of women will have any problems.

Thing with GY6 and the other guys on the SD SB forum is they think paying by the month or paying for rent means what they are doing is legal, and it's not. If you are giving a woman something of value, and she is giving you sex in exchange for that, you are a john, and she is a whore. Just because law enforcement is not enforcing the law on prostitution with the SD SB thing doesn't mean you and your SB aren't breaking the law. You are.

woodyboyd: I generally agree with everything you wrote except your use of an offensive term for lesbians. We don't need that kind of language here.

Having a girlfriend or wife is not ilegal, SB is the same as a girlfriend...just better

IB

Either way, if you weren't getting sex out of the sb you wouldnt keep her right? I think there is a fine line...sb are way hotter and dont fuck multiple guys a day.

I am not exchanging anything for sex.

I have never ever been looked at for the way I approach girls, never been asked about said girls that are well over half my age when traveling with them and I never will.

"GY6 has a vested interest in saying SBs are legal and escorts are not so ignore him"

The way you do things makes it legal.

So I beat the ride as well 100% of the time.

The important difference between a provider and sugarbabby situation is the presence of a real relationship between the sugarbaby and sugardaddy. That relationship is what clouds things enough so that it may not actually be prostitution. Now I'm talking about a true sugarbaby/sugardaddy relationship and not the pseudo sugar BS that is infecting SA and other sites anymore which is basically just prostitution under the label of "sugarbaby."

The important difference between a provider and sugarbabby situation is the presence of a real relationship between the sugarbaby and sugardaddy. That relationship is what clouds things enough so that it may not actually be prostitution. Now I'm talking about a true sugarbaby/sugardaddy relationship and not the pseudo sugar BS that is infecting SA and other sites anymore which is basically just prostitution under the label of "sugarbaby." Originally Posted by Jannisary

Good advice prostitution under the label of sugarbaby.Escorts and sugar baby paid session.

...

Thing with GY6 and the other guys on the SD SB forum is they think paying by the month or paying for rent means what they are doing is legal, and it's not. If you are giving a woman something of value, and she is giving you sex in exchange for that, you are a john, and she is a whore. .... Originally Posted by woodyboyd

I would agree with this as sex is the only thing given for the money.

But, in a real SD/SB relationship, there is often more than just time spent in bed. The cases I have read about all include the element that while sex was part of the relationship and the relationship might not exist if no sex was involved, sex was not the sole activity in the relationship. Because the guy could show money given was not solely for the act of sex, then it was not prostitution. The guy could claim and show he received something of value for his money besides sex.

Now, I am not talking about moral differences, just legal ones.

I have a GF. We have sex every time I see her. We also have social interactions outside the bedroom but if we were not having sex, I would not be dating her though I would possibly spend time with her as a friend. Because I can afford it, I give her an allowance every month. This allowance means she does not have to work as much so she has more time to be with me. But I do not hand her money every time we have sex. Yes, I receive sex, but I also have a companion I get to hang out with, talk to, provides me moral support when I am down, goes to social functions with me, runs errands for me, etc.

The inclusion of those non-BCD activities is what moves the relationship from prostitution to legal. Or at least, that is my understanding.


If it were solely sex x number of times a week and I give her money solely for that, then yes, its prostitution.

Clearly, like with many issues, it can be a gray area on how the law should be applied in each specific case.

I am really interested in the perspective of the lawyers here. What elements would you want to see in a case to be reasonably sure you could defend someone in a case like this? Or what would you counsel someone interested in setting up a SD/SB relationship to include in that relationship to avoid charges of prostitution?

By the letter of the law, having a sugarbaby could be construed as illegal. So what? Everyone breaks laws constantly, mostly without knowing it - there are too many nitpicking and obscure laws for anyone to obey all of them. What you can or will be successfully prosecuted for has little to do with the letter of the law.

If a man starts to disrobe his wife and she stops him and says, "Baby remember you promised me a new dress?" is that prostitution? Technically, it very well could be, but if it were somehow brought to court the prosecutor would be a laughingstock. On the other hand, if you try to defend yourself in court on the basis that you are "innocent until proven guilty" you are doomed, notwithstanding that you are legally in the right.

Laws are a secondary consideration. What's important is established practice and personal attitudes. If you have a case that doesn't fit the standard pattern that the police and prosecutor are used to dealing with, and you haven't pissed them off, you won't be charged. The Bad Guys want conviction numbers to brag on and fines in their pockets, not hard work or uncertainty.

Also what about porn? They are paid to have sex on camera! Lol

So if I bring a camera, that makes it legal for us, right?

The same reason marriage is legal and hookers aren't. And I was married for over 10 years and it was with out a doubt more expensive. And this was after the diamond ring down payment I placed on the pussy mortgage.

Ok, let me reword my question.

What legal grounds could be argued that a SD/SB relationship is not prostitution?