Legal Question

So if I understand this correctly, it's not illegal to pay for someone to go on a date with you(to lunch, to the bar, reunion,etc..). In essence your paying for time. However at the end of the day we all know what we really want. To avoid the illegal consequences that could happen, would it be best to perhaps actually pay for the time and actually make a date out of it and establish that companionship? Then the question is how would you hint to the provider about services and activities, would you say something like yeah I'm into this or I like X activity, and gauge their response without actually soliciting it. For example, while setting up a date, you agree on a price, and say something along the lines like let's go out to eat at X restaurant and then after that we could go back to my place and chill while somewhere along the lines hinting at what you would like? Or am I wrong in this and just asking for trouble?

Well that's the theory that cops, prosecutors, and judges find amusing.
What the priority should be, is to screen your date (guys and gals) adequately, and only conduct business bcd. The gals usually have enough information already out, that you don't need to ask questions. Just ask for an hour, or 1.5 or 2, then when, and that's all that needs to be discussed. The gal will let you now where, the day of.

There used to be an excellent sticky thread on exactly this topic, but now it's where-ever.

Btw, the gals will not let a lot of time fly under your thought (unless shes collecting time fees).

Well that isn't just eccie related, could be anywhere. What's the difference between doing that and say you have a girlfriend or wife that you help support financially and every now and then you hand her some cash and somewhere in y'all's relationship you talk about your sexual likes and dislikes, and you keep handing her cash every now and then to help out, you have sex, is that illegal? You see what I'm trying to say is wouldn't it be better to actually build some sort of companionship before just jumping directly into the act?

I think you are overcomplicating things. Simply avoid making agreements for money in exchange for favors. The cops need to have the magic words said for a case. I think just sticking to asking for how much for your time would not be enough.

Yea, you are overcomplicating it. Just stick to providers that have several recent reviews from members that have joined at least six months ago and have several recent reviews of local providers that are still active.

You can get a sense of her services and activities from previous reviews so the only thing you need to ask is how much for the time. Lastly, do not hand any money directly to them. Place it on a table and make no mention of it.

If you really want to take them to dinner because you want to, that's great but you don't need to go to such great lengths to avoid unwanted consequences.

I'm not talking about just eccie girls with reviews. Also this is meant more as a topic of discussion about how the law would see it than it is to get girls, I was just interested in the opinions, curiosity just got me wondering about how that would play out, not that I really want to find our though lol

What the priority should be, is to screen your date (guys and gals) adequately, and only conduct business bcd. The gals usually have enough information already out, that you don't need to ask questions. Just ask for an hour, or 1.5 or 2, then when, and that's all that needs to be discussed. The gal will let you now where, the day of. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

I think you are overcomplicating things. Simply avoid making agreements for money in exchange for favors. The cops need to have the magic words said for a case. I think just sticking to asking for how much for your time would not be enough. Originally Posted by BlackSails

Exactly. Do your research here on ECCIE and on OH2, while there's no connection between you and the lady. Then when you contact the lady, there's no reason to mention money or activities. Do the deed, leave the money.

This is why it's so important that rates are mentioned in ROS.

Exactly. Do your research here on ECCIE and on OH2, while there's no connection between you and the lady. Then when you contact the lady, there's no reason to mention money or activities. Do the deed, leave the money.

This is why it's so important that rates are mentioned in ROS. Originally Posted by Crock

"OH2", What is that as a research site. I know it is another way of saying H20 for water, but what else?

"OH2", What is that as a research site. I know it is another way of saying H20 for water, but what else? Originally Posted by JRLawrence

OurHome2.net Another popular hobby site.

This is a very common discussion in the context of sugar babies. And for anyone that has every gotten into one of those debates, you learn one thing: no matter what argument you use or how clear you are, people disagree over the result.

Think of it as a spectrum. On the first end, you have classic prositution. Sex for money. Wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. On the other end, you have a traditional relationship where the guy works hard, brings home a paycheck, which his wife, who does not work, helps him spend.

Prostitution ----------------------------------------- Housewife

I don't know anyone that thinks of a housewife as a prositute, but stop and think for just a second. She fucks her husband. He gives her stuff. If she stops fucking him, he'd probably leave her meaning no more sex for him or money for her, so there is an argument that it is "sex for money."

Where is the line? Who knows.

If you by a hooker dinner first, almost certainly still prositution.

If you she's your GF instead of wife, almost certainly not prostitution.

What if you're just being generous to your GF?

What if you're just being generous to a friend you fuck?

What if you're just being generous to a girl you met for the first time tonight and fucked?

Answering the location of that line is the role of a fact finder, and it may not be very clear cut and inconsistent. The closer you are to the right on that spectrum, the safer you are. The closer you are to the left and the more your dinner or date looks like a peppercorn (for show only), the more likely a fact finder would find this prositution.

In short, you don't beat the system because you take a hooker out for dinner. But the more like a relationship it becomes (i.e., sugar baby) the safer you become.

This is a very common discussion in the context of sugar babies. And for anyone that has every gotten into one of those debates, you learn one thing: no matter what argument you use or how clear you are, people disagree over the result.

Think of it as a spectrum. On the first end, you have classic prositution. Sex for money. Wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. On the other end, you have a traditional relationship where the guy works hard, brings home a paycheck, which his wife, who does not work, helps him spend.

Prostitution ----------------------------------------- Housewife

I don't know anyone that thinks of a housewife as a prositute, but stop and think for just a second. She fucks her husband. He gives her stuff. If she stops fucking him, he'd probably leave her meaning no more sex for him or money for her, so there is an argument that it is "sex for money."

Where is the line? Who knows.

If you by a hooker dinner first, almost certainly still prositution.

If you she's your GF instead of wife, almost certainly not prostitution.

What if you're just being generous to your GF?

What if you're just being generous to a friend you fuck?

What if you're just being generous to a girl you met for the first time tonight and fucked?

Answering the location of that line is the role of a fact finder, and it may not be very clear cut and inconsistent. The closer you are to the right on that spectrum, the safer you are. The closer you are to the left and the more your dinner or date looks like a peppercorn (for show only), the more likely a fact finder would find this prositution.

In short, you don't beat the system because you take a hooker out for dinner. But the more like a relationship it becomes (i.e., sugar baby) the safer you become. Originally Posted by sketchball82

Great read and great explanation. This is what I was looking for. Similar to my thoughts I had when posing the question, great answers.

I'm not a lawyer but I think some have this all wrong.


Either the provider or the client can slip up and create an act of prostitution. LEO can hassle just about anyone - if you are innocent it is unfortunate, but if you are really guilty all the deception and tiptoeing around the issue suddenly become a cover lie that you have to manage carefully or you'll convict yourself.


By and large, "almost busts" don't happen. Busts happen and then LEO sorts out who might be innocent vs who might be guilty. If you are in the midst of a bust you are in the midst of a bad situation and only shutting up and waiting for the opportunity to call a lawyer is going to save you.


I might even suggest that shenanigans designed to cover up our intentions make it worse. Why, for example, would a married man connect with a woman online arranging a dinner date and agree to drop her off at ... a hotel (known to house prostitution)? Attempting to explain that only creates a story that has to match her story AND then you have to repeat AND then you have to hope it works. All while your SO wonders why you are needing to be bailed out.


Memorize your lawyer's phone number. Save the money from dinner and stash it away to pay the retainer fee should you be picked up.

Either the provider or the client can slip up and create an act of prostitution Originally Posted by Bighawg11

Kind of. Prostitution is generally thought of as three elements:
* sex (actus reus);
* giving money or other consideration (actus reus); and
* the sex is for the money (mens rea).

The sex and money are acts that you do. But the third element is the hardest to prove. It is also not something you do. It's a mental state, known as a mens rea. Usually, the codification of prostitution will require either intent or knowledge level of mens rea. That means that one party (e.g., the girl) may think the money is for the sex, but the other party may think the money is just a gift and was unrelated to the sex (e.g., the guy). In this case, legally only the hooker committed prositution. The guy did not commit solicitation because the guy did not have the requisite mens rea.

That isn't to say that one party's statements cannot be evidence of the other's mental state. For example, if the girl testified that the man offered her sex for money, that would tend to prove the mens rea element for the other party.

LEO can hassle just about anyone - if you are innocent it is unfortunate, but if you are really guilty all the deception and tiptoeing around the issue suddenly become a cover lie that you have to manage carefully or you'll convict yourself. Originally Posted by Bighawg11

Yes, LEO can arrest you with probable cause. Otherwise you may have a Bivens action or an 42 U.S.C. 1983 action.

But you are assuming some stuff here, mainly that your point of view is a "clever lie." The implication, here, is that the actors think they're committing prostitution. The irony is that belief makes it prositution, because they now have the mens rea. If they don't believe the money is for the sex, it is legally not prosititution. That being said, the actors could still be prosecuted and found guilty because the jury only sees the evidence, not their state of mind. Funny, eh? Believe it or not, some people (me included) actually believe that the far end of the spectrum (sugar babies) is NOT prositution.

By and large, "almost busts" don't happen. Busts happen and then LEO sorts out who might be innocent vs who might be guilty. If you are in the midst of a bust you are in the midst of a bad situation and only shutting up and waiting for the opportunity to call a lawyer is going to save you. Originally Posted by Bighawg11

I agree. Two take aways:

1) Never, ever agree that money is being exchanged for sex to your counterpart. I would even encourage you to walk if this is brought up by your counterpart.

2) If the police show up and start asking questions, invoke your right to be silent and ask for a lawyer. Miranda kicks in as soon as (i) you're in custody (a reasonable person would think you are not free to leave), and (ii) you're being interrogated. So if a cop is asking you questions and a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, Miranda is probably in play. But you can waive Miranda. There are exceptions to Miranda. So, as my Crim Pro professor loved to say, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I might even suggest that shenanigans designed to cover up our intentions make it worse. Why, for example, would a married man connect with a woman online arranging a dinner date and agree to drop her off at ... a hotel (known to house prostitution)? Attempting to explain that only creates a story that has to match her story AND then you have to repeat AND then you have to hope it works. All while your SO wonders why you are needing to be bailed out. Originally Posted by Bighawg11

Your attorney will argue that this is just a relationship. Cheating is not illegal. It's not prositution. More than likely, you'll plea out or charges will be dropped because there is a lot of risk the prosecution cannot prove the mens rea element. BUT this only works if you shut the fuck up.

Sketchball82 - thanks for chiming in. Always good to hear from a better expert!