Some General Thoughts and Questions

Your first point is not accurate In most jurisdictions only the agreement or implied agreement of sex/money needs to be established, not necessarily an actual exchange. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

That is correct.

Without discussing money the act itself is not illegal. Originally Posted by WTF

WTF: Nope, that's incorrect -- at least in Texas. And it brings up an issue that I don't recall ever being discussed either here or on ASPD: What a lawyer might call "prostitution by an implied (or 'implied-in fact') contract." An implied contract is a contract formed by non-verbal conduct, rather than by explicit words.

In Texas, a person can commit the offense of prostitution by:
(1) making an offer,
(2) accepting an offer, or
(3) soliciting a person in a public place
to engage in sexual conduct for a fee, or
(4) engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.

Implied contract prostitution would be no. 4.

One way to think of it is like this: Imagine going into a supermarket. You take a box of Magnums with the electric barbs to the cashier. She scans the box, you hand her a Benjamin, she gives you your change and your rubbers and you leave. No word is ever said between you. That's an implied contract.

Now apply the principle to hobbying. You text your ATF, Delores Clitoris, with only "3?" She answers "y." You arrive, have your way with her 6 times in an hour and give her 25 explosive orgasms (well, that's what all the reviews here say), you slap your simoleons down on her nightstand, and split. That would be prostitution by implied contract.

How agressively will LE persue option 4. It seems that it is vague enough that most people are guilty of it. A girl friend trying to persuade a boyfriend to buy her something or any number of other examples. I would think convictions would be a challenge.

In Texas, a person can commit the offense of prostitution by:
(1) making an offer,
(2) accepting an offer, or
(3) soliciting a person in a public place
to engage in sexual conduct for a fee, or
(4) engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.

Implied contract prostitution would be no. 4.

One way to think of it is like this: Imagine going into a supermarket. You take a box of Magnums with the electric barbs to the cashier. She scans the box, you hand her a Benjamin, she gives you your change and your rubbers and you leave. No word is ever said between you. That's an implied contract.

Now apply the principle to hobbying. You text your ATF, Delores Clitoris, with only "3?" She answers "y." You arrive, have your way with her 6 times in an hour and give her 25 explosive orgasms (well, that's what all the reviews here say), you slap your simoleons down on her nightstand, and split. That would be prostitution by implied contract. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

But at the same time, even in your scenario or any scenario in which law enforcement attempts to charge you via an implied contract, there has to be proof that there was a fee. If the fact that a fee was payed, offered, or implied cannot be proven, it stands as mere anonymous and random sex, which to my knowledge is legal.

So it comes down to what I said originally, but phrased under a general terms.

How agressively will LE persue option 4. It seems that it is vague enough that most people are guilty of it. A girl friend trying to persuade a boyfriend to buy her something or any number of other examples. I would think convictions would be a challenge. Originally Posted by Laz

Not very, in my opinion, because such a case would be hard to prove. As I've written before, 99% of the prostitution cases I've handled involved the discussion of a specific sex act.

Thanks for the info.

Not very, in my opinion, because such a case would be hard to prove. As I've written before, 99% of the prostitution cases I've handled involved the discussion of a specific sex act. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I had no idea gerbil sex was so popular.

I had no idea gerbil sex was so popular. Originally Posted by pyramider

He's clearly talking about the Houdini. Clearly.

I think the point you guys miss is that they don't need any proof to "arrest" you. A cop can arrest you for smoking in your own house...trust me lol. What is up for debate is how much proof the DA requires to prosecute...most of these cases are thrown out of court. You end up humiliated in front of your family, may lose them and your career, but will likely never get charged.

Also, straight prostitution busts are rarely all there is to it. Drugs, trafficking, pimps, etc. are usually the busts they go after because they make headlines, so if you're not involved in the latter, the chances of some housewife from Iowa getting charged, are quite slim. Add money laundering and tax evasion to that list...those are usually the main reasons popular agencies get busted. Better to be a small fish in a big pond when it comes to this industry.

What is up for debate is how much proof the DA requires to prosecute...most of these cases are thrown out of court. Originally Posted by London Rayne

I disagree. My experience is, once a provider has been charged with prostitution, only occasionally does the prosecutor ask the judge to dismiss the charge. (Of course, I'm not talking about diversion programs, such as memo agreements).

That's interesting but not my experience with the women I know who have in fact been busted. They were actually never charged in the first place, then they didn't get caught again lol. I guess the "not getting caught again" part is what is important. A judge can't just make you serve time if the the DA refuses to take it to court to begin with...for that, he wants proof. I don't know many cases where a married client is willing to testify that he paid x for sex lol.

Now, in sting ops...totally different. They can pretty much do what they want. I do know of a case in Los Angeles where a high end provider was set up, taped, arrested, and then let go. Why? She never touched the envelope before they busted in the door lol. That one is on record.

London Rayne: When a person isn't charged with an offense, there's nothing to throw out of court (i.e., dismiss) because nothing was ever "in" court in the first place.

I am confused...when you are arrested then let go, that's not a charge right? If it's not on your record, you were never charged with it in the first place. If a case goes to court or not, the charge is not there until the judge says, "Guilty." I have been arrested for a ton of crap, yet have a clean record so I was never "charged" with anything.

If the DA does not prosecute but you are still arrested, then it was in fact thrown out by HIM before it ever got to court. Sorry, but you're confusing me here. I know plenty of cops, and they seem to explain this better. I guess you and I have different lingo when it comes to this. When I say 'thrown out" I mean before or after it might go to court.

You can, iirc, be held up to 24 hours without being charged for anything.

You can, iirc, be held up to 24 hours without being charged for anything. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

Thank you. I think my saying "thrown out" was the problem. If he is an Attorney, they look at that phrase differently.

You can, iirc, be held up to 24 hours without being charged for anything. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

I have heard of this happening to several people.