In sum, the Texas prostitution statute makes any of four acts a crime: offer, acceptance, soliciting, and what I'll call the act of pay-for-play without an offer or acceptance. The hypothetical doesn't fall within any of these categories.
Originally Posted by ShysterJon
Shyster, can you expand on that last one and how it works? Originally Posted by honeydavishttps://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=212302
The OP's use of the term "honey trap" isn't a usage of the term I've come across before, and I suspect it's a misuse of the term. However, I'll assume this is what the OP is asking:All professionals can get arrested for soliciting on boards and ads.Prostitution is illegal.
If the police ONLY posts a provider profile (or an ad) offering sexual services for money, and the hobbyist shows up at the location and ONLY pays money, does that constitute prostitution under Texas law?
My answer is "no" because it is a fundamental legal concept that an ad is not an offer. (To me, a profile is the same thing as an ad.) If an ad is not an offer, paying the money can't be acceptance of an offer.
In sum, the Texas prostitution statute makes any of four acts a crime: offer, acceptance, soliciting, and what I'll call the act of pay-for-play without an offer or acceptance. The hypothetical doesn't fall within any of these categories.
However, I agree with Unique_Carpenter that sometimes a judge decides what's legal or illegal after the fact, and the outcome could depend on the judge, or even the mood of the particular judge that day.
Note: My opinion is based on the fact situation presented. Originally Posted by ShysterJon
The key is to not be an idiot that pays for sex. There is also a reason you don't discuss anything sexual ever, especially while discussing money. If someone does I'm out because I don't pay for sex. I pay for time and time alone and then what happens happens. Its really no different than buying a woman drinks and then going back to her place. The drinks and the effort aren't in exchange for the sex. They just get you to a point where you hope it happens and it is likely. But at no point will I trade currency for any sexual act and you shouldn't either.The bolded section of Shyster's post describes being guilty of a criminal act even if you are not openly discussing p4p. And as I have read the new law, could potentially mean being legally arrested for being offered whether you accept or not. I'm hoping that I am wrong in my interpretation of that particular section, as it is vague and now makes navigating the hobby difficult. Waiting on Shyster's response *nudges Shyster*
The bolded section of Shyster's post describes being guilty of a criminal act even if you are not openly discussing p4p. And as I have read the new law, could potentially mean being legally arrested for being offered whether you accept or not. I'm hoping that I am wrong in my interpretation of that particular section, as it is vague and now makes navigating the hobby difficult. Waiting on Shyster's response *nudges Shyster* Originally Posted by honeydavisI can't know for sure what he's saying but in his examples on the other thread it seems the act of making an offer or the act of accepting or agreeing are most likely verbal or written. It sounds like he's saying even if you both go mute but exchange a fee for services you're still on the hook. For instance getting down and then giving cash without actually discussing the transaction. Now how they could prove that's what you are paying for if not expressly said seems impossible.
I can't know for sure what he's saying but in his examples on the other thread it seems the act of making an offer or the act of accepting or agreeing are most likely verbal or written. Originally Posted by MASTODONTrue.
It sounds like he's saying even if you both go mute but exchange a fee for services you're still on the hook. For instance getting down and then giving cash without actually discussing the transaction. Now how they could prove that's what you are paying for if not expressly said seems impossible. Originally Posted by MASTODONIf what you're saying is true, it would be impossible for the state to prove a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence. However, the state obtains convictions based on circumstantial evidence all the time. Considering your example, if the state presented evidence that the H paid money to the P, then the H and P had sex, the jury could reasonably infer that the P had sex with the H in exchange for the payment of the fee.