Lawrence v Texas applies to escort services!! New Discovery!!

The word prostitution means in Latin means to “expose to sale” and “stand.” Stand means determined position.
“Expose. v. To show publicly, to display, “ -Black Law’s dictionary 6th edition.
The word “to sale” means to offer. So the root meaning of the word prostitution is “to be in a determined position to show publicly to offer.”
Latin meaning of words are legally binding on the legal system (ex. Pro Se, writs of habeas corpus).
Since state laws uses the word “prostitution”, the laws are in context of a person who has a determined position to show publicly an offer.
Once the person is determine position to show publicly and the act of offering sex or entering into an agreement for sex for pay the act becomes prostitution. The only way a person can show publicly is there another person who is a public person.
If two private person and one offer sex for pay in private, the offer is showed in private so the offer is private. The prostitution laws don’t apply because it is out of context of the Latin meaning that is binding on the legal system. The prostitution laws are in the context of a public show not a private show.
After hobbyist went on a date with an escort for one hour, the escort and the hobbyist becomes a private persons. So if private persons exchange money or things of value in private, the state laws on prostitution don’t apply because the act is out of context of the state law. Anything of value being exchanged for sex act between two private persons in private is considered private sexual intimacy not prostitution.
The court case Bergen v Wood 14 Cal.App.4th 854 (1993) supports my legal theory. This case declares a sexual relationship that has companionship as collateral is not prostitution even if there is evidence of monetary payment. Duane Wood and Birgit Bergen became private persons when they engage in social companionship together. The social companionship transforms them from public persons to private persons.
If there is a sex for pay agreement in private between the private escort and the private hobbyist, the act is not prostitution because there was no public offer. Since it is not prostitution, it will qualify for Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) protections.
Lawrence v Texas doesn’t cover public sex acts which include public sale of sex (prostitution).
What happen in State v. Green 989 N.E.2d 1088 was that he did not dated the undercover cop when he offered sex for pay. If he of dated the undercover cop for one hour and made his offer for sex for pay in private, Lawrence v Texas would of cover his ass. His ass got burned because he offered sex for pay to a stranger. A stranger is a public person in the show.
In order to convict someone for prostitution, the prosecutor must prove there is a public offer or public agreement. A public offer or agreement is only can be made when the offer or agreement in a context of a public show. A public show requires one public person.

Disclaimer: Not legal advice. Just Legal Theories.

That is interesting

Let do some legal word play. For example Rhode Island’s Prostitution laws.
§ 11-34.1-2 Prostitution ( Latin ones that in a determined position to show publicly an offer (public show) ). – (a) A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee. Any person found guilty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or to a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.


If the sex for pay offer is in a private show, this law doesn’t apply. Why? The state law is communicating when they use the word prostitution to mean in the context of someone who is in a public show not a private show. If the legal system doesn’t recognizes Latin root meanings, a defendant can tell the judge that he doesn’t recognizes pro Se, writs of habeas corpus, writs of mandamus, writs of certiorari, etc.

The state’s prostitution laws are in the context of public sale. I did some more research on the Latin usage. The Latin meaning is” stand to make visible to the public attempt to sell”. So when the state statutes uses this word ”prostitution” it constrict it to public sale. It doesn’t apply to private sale of sex. Private sale of sex is not in context of the true meaning the state’s definition of prostitution.
If you put sexually suggestive advertisement like BBBJ, CBJ, etc., the prostitution laws apply to you because you make a public offer.
If you don’t put these on your ads and you render companionship before the sale, the sale is private.
Lawrence v Texas deals with private sexual conduct. It doesn’t deal with public sale of sex or public display of sex acts, or sex in public locations.
If you don’t point it out to the legal system, they will keep misapplying these statutes to private conduct between consenting adults. The reason is we let them due to ignorance of the true meaning of words.
The state’s prostitution laws are in the context of public sale. I did some more research on the Latin usage. The Latin meaning is” stand to make visible to the public attempt to sell”. So when the state statutes uses this word ”prostitution” the statutes is restricted to public sale. It doesn’t apply to private sale of sex. Private sale of sex is not in context of the true meaning the state’s definition of prostitution.
If you put sexually suggestive advertisement like BBBJ, CBJ, etc., the prostitution laws apply to you because you make a public offer.
If you don’t put sexually suggestive ads and you render companionship before the sale, the sale is private.
Lawrence v Texas deals with private sexual conduct. It doesn’t deal with public sale of sex or public display of sex acts, or sex in public locations.
If you don’t point it out to the legal system, they will keep misapplying these statutes to private conduct between consenting adults. The reason is we let them due to ignorance of the true meaning of words.

The prosecutors and the judges cannot choose which Latin meaning to accept or ignore. If the legal system doesn't have Latin meaning as a bases of communication and operation, there is no legal system.

Front, hate to jump all over your legal theories...but the "true meaning" of the statutes is almost always the statutory definition. Under the canons of construction, that's the first place you look when interpreting any perceived ambiguity. In other words, if section 1.02 is the "meat" of the statute, 99% of the time, 1.01 has the definitions of the operative words. Latin meanings or other etymological roots never enter the equation.

The state statutes must be backed by Roman civil law. The new definition of prostitution is commercial sex.

Front, hate to jump all over your legal theories...but the "true meaning" of the statutes is almost always the statutory definition. Under the canons of construction, that's the first place you look when interpreting any perceived ambiguity. In other words, if section 1.02 is the "meat" of the statute, 99% of the time, 1.01 has the definitions of the operative words. Latin meanings or other etymological roots never enter the equation. Originally Posted by SaytownFinest

Rhode Island is the only state that has the Roman civil law definition of commercial sex. The rest of the state must update their definition. So the true meaning of prostitution is found in black law's 8th edition. I did not realize the update until today. I was using the old stuff.

Let us know the outcome when you put these "New Discoveries" to the test.

The theory is still right. Social companionship. The method of interpretation may be wrong. The social companionship is found in the secret cannon. Never will fail.

Let us know the outcome when you put these "New Discoveries" to the test. Originally Posted by jframe2

When posting on any website it becomes public and the cops print it as proof. Good luck arguing it's not a public sale when some guys announce it to the world (reviews) or ladies post (ads) on public internet then put a price tag & time limitation. I don't know to many ladies willing to go out on a date for free without discussion of price/time first (trying to socially date an escort wont work for this exact reason). This is where Johny Law steps in and seizes his chance. We can all come up with the play on words trying to find the loop hole but in the end lack of evidence/good lawyer is the only thing that will set you free.

I don't think you need to change your business practice that much.. But I will say screening helps.

I hope guys will come for companionship. Exposing these court cases help to make sure that the public know there are remedies and a way to do things.

It gives confidence to men who afraid to hobby. I hope this help your business. The crime is not selling companionship publicly. The crime is selling sex acts.

I totally agree, screening from both parties will reduce most risk and knowing the state laws for your state will help.

If guys calls for a dinner date, you should charge them. You are escorting. You can offer a reduced rate for dinner date or drinks at the bar. Don't do it for free. For private dates, then increase the rate.
This knowledge of the social companionship loophole will give men the confidence to hook up with escorts. The war against the Johns scare allot of men from hobbying. They don't want to loose their job, have a bad reputation, get arrested, or get public shame for booking an appointment. At least they know there is a loophole.
Don't expect prostitution to be legalized soon in US. The US government have too many wars going on; war on terrorism, war on drugs, war on crime, war on sex trafficking, war on poverty, war on human trafficking, etc. The US government is at war with too many things. They intend to keep their wars including the war on sex trafficking.

Lawrence v Texas invalidated a TX sodomy law (and 13 other state laws). Relying on Griswold, the court opined that "consensual private acts" are constitutionally protected (as privacy right), BUT the court said (see P 18) "does not include public conduct or prostitution."

The court could have written a more broadly worded opinion that covered all private (including contractual) sex. But it didn't.

Trees reading of Lawrence, See, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-102P.ZO leads to inevitable conclusion that the OP is wrong and arguments OP used to support the wrong conclusion were creative but again, wrong.

Prostitution remains illegal most everywhere in the US. ECCIE survives and thrives in large part because prostitution is not legal. It should be legal (taxed, regulated?) but it's not. Citing Supreme Court precedent that "legalized" prostitution (escorting?) is skullbuggery.

19Trees

Trees, thanks for the research. I knew there was something out of whack with the OP's reasoning, but did not have time to do the research for the next few days.

No way, no how, is any court decision going to legalize prostitution beyond what an individual state legislature has created by statute.