why couldn't a provider do this?

I'm sure it's been tried, but why couldn't a provider get a "hawkers" type license, sell a condom for $250+ and offer a free demonstration in its proper usage?

It probably couldn't be done for the same reasons that you can't sell a pencil for $500 and throw in a free Super Bowl ticket.

I remember a Dirty Harry movie where you paid $100 for some sex training sessions with a blow up prop (sex doll). Your instructor would come in after you undressed and show you what to do. Then, according to the movie, you start shooting people with a very large handgun.
This isn't what my dad told me...

In theory it could be done. But again, if sexual services are inferred or expected as part of the transaction then you're back to where you started. And it'll be your word against Mr. LEO's. And to argue it in court is costly and public. And in most instances getting popped is just a Misdemeanor that can often be pleaded down (although not always depending on the mindset of the prosecutor and the "message" they're trying to send).

Again, it's not illegal to have sex with someone. And it's not illegal to give them money. It's only illegal to give them money specifically for sexual services. This is much harder to prove than you might think. BUT, most LE and DA's play on the fact that the vast majority of people that get popped want as little exposure as possible so it doesn't taint their personal & professional life outside the hobby. So if you don't have anything to lose and don't mind spending inordinate amounts of money to make a misdemanor charge go away, feel free to give it a try.

The transaction has to be reasonable in the mind of the court. $250.00 for a pencil would not be seen as reasonable for the court. The amount paid has to be reasonable for the product received, or the court will see it as just what it is a smoke screen and that the money paid was in fact for sex. Now if you paid $250.00 for a television and then had sex and left with the television then the argument could be made that you paid for a tv not sex. There is a legal term for this, but I just flew back in from Chi town and I am tired, maybe Jackie can help me with this.

Yes, DD, there is a term for this type of transaction, and at present it escapes me also . . . bottom line here, Sens55 is 100% correct and offers very good advice in saying, "So if you don't have anything to lose and don't mind spending inordinate amounts of money to make a misdemanor [sic] charge go away, feel free to give it a try".

It is just a bad idea to invent a scheme to obfuscate a transaction that in the end, will always be adjudicated to be remuneration for sexual services. Whenever these schemes are advertised, LE seems to give them a lot of attention, becasue they are an easy case to make and a guaranteed conviction in most all cases.

The harder that both parties make it for LE to prove that the transaction included any contract for sexual services or any activity that satisfied a prurient interest, the safer both parties shall be . . . in other words, DO NOT CONTRACT FOR SEX!

Kisses,

- Jackie

Many years ago in Junction City, a life insurance agent would give a complimentary blow job, if you bought a policy. I wonder how that one would stand up in court.

Many years ago in Junction City, a life insurance agent would give a complimentary blow job, if you bought a policy. I wonder how that one would stand up in court. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Please, please please tell me that the agent was female LOL.

Many years ago in Junction City, a life insurance agent would give a complimentary blow job, if you bought a policy. I wonder how that one would stand up in court. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Interesting...

But was the agent a man or a woman? It makes a difference you know.

from a very old playboy

Jeff I see you finally digitized your collection...

Please, please please tell me that the agent was female LOL. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Um yes....not that there's anything wrong with that...

The transaction has to be reasonable in the mind of the court. $250.00 for a pencil would not be seen as reasonable for the court. The amount paid has to be reasonable for the product received, or the court will see it as just what it is a smoke screen and that the money paid was in fact for sex. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Exactly. People always think that the court is hamstrung by petty rules and the "letter of the law". I'm sure there are many cases where this is true, but I also think that most if it comes from TV and movies where the drama is the most important thing.

No judge would be fooled by the $250 condom or the $500 pencil or "money is for spending time together as consenting adults". This is why it is so ludicrous for people to talk about "cups of coffee" or "roses" or rates like "$$.4". You aren't fooling anyone, and you can still be arrested for offering sex for "250 smiles".

Couldn't I pay a girl to shoot a sexy adult rated video with me? That seems to be legal. As long as I had her sign the appropriate contract stating she was of legal age and it conformed to the laws in my state for adult video production, couldn't that work?

Couldn't I pay a girl to shoot a sexy adult rated video with me? That seems to be legal. As long as I had her sign the appropriate contract stating she was of legal age and it conformed to the laws in my state for adult video production, couldn't that work? Originally Posted by rutcat

Obvs I'm not a lawyer but I would assume in order to remain within legal grounds she would need to provide proof of age. And if you can find a provider willing to give you her ID and then sign a consent form, you might as well just start making porn instead of hobbying.