@Inigo_Montoya (Inigo Montoya) posted a new topic, subject "Free Prostitution?". It read:

   If I hang out on a street corner and solicit my sexual services in exchange for money, thet's pretty much illegal.
    
    If I hang out on a street corner looking too sexy for my shirt and respond to sexual advances in a positive fashion contingient upon my receipt of monetary gain, that's illegal.
    
    But what if I hang out on a street corner looking too sexy for my shirt and respond to sexual advances in a positive fashion with no mention of compensation? I would of course never turn down a gift, but neither would I request one.
    
    Would THAT be illegal?
      *[Ghost]: “I

So @KlondikeGeoff (KlondikeGeoff) replied

    Can't answer the question, but I think you should post a picture of yourself looking too sexy for your shirt.
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @IAmNotSpartacus (IAmNotSpartacus) added

    It happens every single night in bars and nightclubs…
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @CookingWithGas (CookingWithGas) added

    Well, it happens in bars every day. The street corner aspect might introduce some sort of lewd public behavior issue, but just trying to find someone for a mutually satisfying sexual experience is not in and of itself illegal.
      *[Ghost]: “I

@dracoi (dracoi) replied

    This is a lot like the classic tax question - “What if I do work for my neighbor without asking for a fee, but would happily accept any gifts he might give me? Do I still have to pay tax on my earnings?” Yes, you do, and volumes of case law can go into the finer points.
    
    I don't know the finer points of prostitution law, but I suspect the court is going to use the same criteria to judge your case. If you regularly engage in the activity and regularly receive monetary benefit from it, you're probably doing it because you expect the monetary benefit. And if the person is offering a “gift” in relation to you performing a service or delivering a product, then it isn't really a gift any more than a tip for your waiter is a gift.
      *[Ghost]: “I

@hajario (hajario) replied

    You should probably keep your day job.
    
    Seriously, if it ever got to a jury, it would be all about intent. If a prosecutor could show that you tried this stunt on a regular basis and got a gift every time, the intent to trade sex for money was there and a crime was committed.
      *[Ghost]: “I

So @Really_Not_All_That_Bright (Really Not All That Bright) replied

    Gift or no, I can pretty much guarantee you'd at least be _charged_ with solicitation sooner or later.
      *[Ghost]: “I

So @ashman165 (ashman165) replied

    hajario:
    
    > You should probably keep your day job.
    > 
    > Seriously, if it ever got to a jury, it would be all about intent. If a prosecutor could show that you tried this stunt on a regular basis and got a gift every time, the intent to trade sex for money was there and a crime was committed.
    
    No prosecutor could show as much. Indeed, no one can show as much.  
    All that would need to be show, however, is that money was exchanged in one situation for sex. It would require a showing that the monetary exchange was specifically for the act of sex.
    
    Otherwise, dinner and movie might cause someone problems.
      *[Ghost]: “I

Then @Washoe (Washoe) said

    I once read an anecdote in the newspaper about a vice cop who was trying to nail a particular prostitute but failed because she never asked for remuneration. When asked why, she responded that “he was so nice to me that I couldn't charge him.”
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @Exapno_Mapcase (Exapno Mapcase) added

    ashman165:
    
    > No prosecutor could show as much. Indeed, no one can show as much.
    
    Prosecutors don't have to. As the rest of your post notes, in the law actions are intents. If you fire a gun at someone, you don't have to hit them to be charged. Claiming that you intended not to hurt them will get you nowhere. Your action was sufficient.
    
    Legal intent is defined in a different way than the everyday meaning of intent.
    
    Standing on a streetcorner in sexy clothing and accepting gifts will get you charged with solicitation. Your actions show your intent. The prosecutor won't make any attempt to gauge what's going on in your mind. The judge won't either. The jury might, but they aren't supposed to. Your actions are supposed to be sufficient.
    
    That's a good thing, most of the time. It allows for fairer justice than attempting mind-reading.
      *[Ghost]: “I

@ashman165 (ashman165) replied

    Exapno_Mapcase:
    
    > Prosecutors don't have to…
    
    I'm aware of that. I was correcting the person whom I quoted; it was s/he who asserted that prosecutors would have to show that in all situations such and such was the case. Despite it not being true, it's impossible to do. (Sorry about the blank verse).
    
    The rest of your post is somewhat true, but not relevant so I'll leave it be.
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @Little_Nemo (Little Nemo) added

    > No prosecutor could show as much. Indeed, no one can show as much.
    
    Sure they can. At least to the extent that they can convince a judge and a jury. And that's all the law requires.
      *[Ghost]: “I

Then @Exapno_Mapcase (Exapno Mapcase) said

    ashman165:
    
    > I'm aware of that. I was correcting the person whom I quoted; it was s/he who asserted that prosecutors would have to show that in all situations such and such was the case. Despite it not being true, it's impossible to do. (Sorry about the blank verse).
    > 
    > The rest of your post is somewhat true, but not relevant so I'll leave it be.
    
    No, the original quote was:
    
    > If a prosecutor could show that you tried this stunt on a regular basis and got a gift every time, the intent to trade sex for money was there and a crime was committed.
    
    That's exactly equivalent to saying that actions equaling intent. That's what a prosecutor does - indeed must - do to get a conviction. It is correct.
    
    I don't understand what part of it you think you are correcting. If your problem is “all” then that's wrong, too. The prosecutor doesn't have to show that it's true for all eternity, just the specific cases that are being tried.
      *[Ghost]: “I

So @ashman165 (ashman165) replied

    Exapno_Mapcase:
    
    > No, the original quote was:
    > 
    > That's exactly equivalent to saying that actions equaling intent. That's what a prosecutor does - indeed must - do to get a conviction. It is correct.
    > 
    > I don't understand what part of it you think you are correcting. If your problem is “all” then that's wrong, too. The prosecutor doesn't have to show that it's true for all eternity, just the specific cases that are being tried.
    
    Since your reading comprehension seems to be lacking, I'll more plainly delineate this for you:  
    A prosecutor must show the following things:
    
    1.) you regularly try this,  
    2.) in every instance that you've tried this, you get that “gift”.
    
    Why you've read that at least twice and failed to understand that the universe of activities in question is the one involving all attempts at this ploy by the _one_ person in question and not the full universe of all hookers escapes me. My only conclusion is that you do not critically read, or the issue is too complex.
    
    This it that to which I replied. You know this because it's the only thing in the thread to which my words have any direct relevance.
      *[Ghost]: “I

@JonathanTheRed (JonathanTheRed) replied

    Exapno_Mapcase:
    
    > Standing on a streetcorner in sexy clothing and accepting gifts will get you charged with solicitation. Your actions show your intent. The prosecutor won't make any attempt to gauge what's going on in your mind. The judge won't either. The jury might, but they aren't supposed to. Your actions are supposed to be sufficient.
    
    I'm sorry, but say _what_?? Are you a lawyer? I'm not, but this rings completely false to me. Consider the action of running somebody over with your car. As far as the law is concerned, this may be first degree murder, or it may be no crime at all, or it may be any of a number of things in between. What differentiates one from another is _intent_ , and if the prosecutor wants to nail you for first degree murder, the burden is on him to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt _what was going on in your mind_ at the time, that you had the _mens rea_ to be a murderer. Intent is far from irrelevant in court.
    
    In this particular instance, in the case of this quasi-prostitution, intent may or may not matter… but I'm not a lawyer and don't know.
      *[Ghost]: “I

Then @Freudian_Slit (Freudian Slit) said

    ashman165:
    
    > Otherwise, dinner and movie might cause someone problems.
    
    Or a man lavishing gifts/dinner/apartments/cars on his mistress?
      *[Ghost]: “I

To which @ashman165 (ashman165) replied

    Freudian_Slit:
    
    > Or a man lavishing gifts/dinner/apartments/cars on his mistress?
    
    Marriage is legalized prostitution in other words? Or at least taking a mistress?
      *[Ghost]: “I

So @Freudian_Slit (Freudian Slit) replied

    ashman165:
    
    > Marriage is legalized prostitution in other words? Or at least taking a mistress?
    
    No, but what if the woman is only sleeping with the man for money/gifts, and the man is only giving the woman the stuff so she'll sleep with him?
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @ashman165 (ashman165) added

    Freudian_Slit:
    
    > No, but what if the woman is only sleeping with the man for money/gifts, and the man is only giving the woman the stuff so she'll sleep with him?
    
    I don't know. Perhaps “Cecil” can do some research on this.
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @Inigo_Montoya (Inigo Montoya) added

    IAmNotSpartacus:
    
    > It happens every single night in bars and nightclubs…
    
    And given the prices in many places I've been in, plying the masses with a few drinks begins to approach a typical hooker fee (considering a 20% cast to catch ratio) when you look at cash outlay/coitus.
    
    So a prosecuter is going to be looking at my intent then? Because there was a time in my life (like for about 20 years) when I would have gladly offered my services free of charge as described in the OP. (please, I'm not romanticising the hooker's lifestyle so don't start throwing rocks at me). How would that have resulted in an arrest? A vice cop starts noticing me hanging out and socializing with a suspiciously large circle of friends over time? If I'm not soliciting payment I sure as hell can't get busted in a sting could I? Not unless I just did the cop and she offered to pay up after the fact?
    
    And since we're all about motive, I guess what's driving my question is: It's illegal to be a prostitute, but is it illegal to be a slut? How about a kept slut? At what point does a sugar-daddy's mistress become legally a prostitute?
      *[Ghost]: “I

So @JonathanTheRed (JonathanTheRed) replied

    ashman165:
    
    > Marriage is legalized prostitution in other words? Or at least taking a mistress?
    
    Housewife charged in sex-for-security scam
    
    There was an episode of the old show _Ally McBeal_ in which one of the lawyers (I think his nickname was Biscuit) was defending a prostitute. He successfully argued to the jury that there's no difference between what his client was accused of and what nearly every woman does, the only difference being that his client was paid in cash rather than flowers, candy, drinks, or diamond rings. This argument bothered Ally who asked if he really believed that all women are whores. He answered, “Do you know why I said those things?” Ally said, “No, why?” and his answer was, “Because they paid me to.” For some reason, that scene has stuck with me.
      *[Ghost]: “I

Then @ashman165 (ashman165) said

    Inigo_Montoya:
    
    > And since we're all about motive, I guess what's driving my question is: It's illegal to be a prostitute, but is it illegal to be a slut? How about a kept slut? At what point does a sugar-daddy's mistress become legally a prostitute?
    
    When the agreement becomes “For this price, you can get x service”. I'll leave to the readers to fill that in with their interests and pecuniary interests.
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @Markxxx (Markxxx) added

    This argument actually comes up more often than not.
    
    For instance, when celebrities play for charities most of the time they are compensated in “gifts.” Let's say you are going to throw a benefit for roaches, to many people trying to “off” them.
    
    You get DeBeers to give you diamonds, you get Porsche to give you a car etc.
    
    For instance, “Cher” says “I'll pay the befefit for free, just pay my expenses”
    
    Of course her “expenses” consist of a private jet, free gifts from all the sponsors like Porsche and DeBeers." She also has to stay at the Peninsula Hotel in the presidental suite and all the “gifts” that the hotel automatically gives anyone staying in the presidental suite.
    
    Do you see how this is working out?
    
    Congressmen are limited to the gifts they can take. But lobbyists will take them to dinner, which easily exceeds the costs a gift should be. Apparently dinner isn't a gift.
    
    So the OP question can easily be expanded and it constantly comes up. What the OP is really asking is can you take other things in place of cash for services rendered? And the answer isn't always “no.” There are work arounds.
      *[Ghost]: “I

Then @Exapno_Mapcase (Exapno Mapcase) said

    Markxxx:
    
    > This argument actually comes up more often than not.
    > 
    > For instance, when celebrities play for charities most of the time they are compensated in “gifts.” Let's say you are going to throw a benefit for roaches, to many people trying to “off” them.
    > 
    > You get DeBeers to give you diamonds, you get Porsche to give you a car etc.
    > 
    > For instance, “Cher” says “I'll pay the befefit for free, just pay my expenses”
    > 
    > Of course her “expenses” consist of a private jet, free gifts from all the sponsors like Porsche and DeBeers." She also has to stay at the Peninsula Hotel in the presidental suite and all the “gifts” that the hotel automatically gives anyone staying in the presidental suite.
    > 
    > Do you see how this is working out?
    > 
    > Congressmen are limited to the gifts they can take. But lobbyists will take them to dinner, which easily exceeds the costs a gift should be. Apparently dinner isn't a gift.
    > 
    > So the OP question can easily be expanded and it constantly comes up. What the OP is really asking is can you take other things in place of cash for services rendered? And the answer isn't always “no.” There are work arounds.
    
    a) Every penny of those gifts must be declared as taxable income no different from cash.
    
    b) Dinners are absolutely gifts and the costs of them cannot exceed the threshold.
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @Ruminator (Ruminator) added

    Inigo_Montoya:
    
    > And since we're all about motive, I guess what's driving my question is: It's illegal to be a prostitute, but is it illegal to be a slut? How about a kept slut? At what point does a sugar-daddy's mistress become legally a prostitute?
    
    Texas law excerpt http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.009.00.000043.00.htm:
    [code] 
        
        Sec. 43.02.  PROSTITUTION.
        (a)  A person commits an offense if he knowingly:
        
        (1)  offers to engage, agrees to engage, or engages in sexual conduct for a fee; or
        (2)  solicits another in a public place to engage with him in sexual conduct for hire.
        
        (b)  An offense is established under Subsection (a)(1) whether the actor is to receive or pay a fee. An offense is established under Subsection (a)(2) whether the actor solicits a person to hire him or offers to hire the person solicited.
        
        
        
        
    [/code]
    
    IANAL.
    
    I assume other states' laws are worded in a similar manner.
    
    The verbiage is so sparse that conceivably, a wife could be prosecuted for prostitution if she offers her husband sex for money.
    
    Likewise, a long-term slut accepting gifts would also be a “prostitute.”
    
    Does it all just boil down to what's practical to enforce? Hookers on street corners are easy targets (easy to enforce). Sluts moving in and out of high rise penthouses are a little tougher to target.
    
    Charlie Sheen supposedly said, _“I don't pay them for sex. I pay them to leave.”_ I'm not exactly sure why the judge rejected that.
      *[Ghost]: “I

@Little_Nemo (Little Nemo) replied

    > But what if I hang out on a street corner looking too sexy for my shirt and respond to sexual advances in a positive fashion with no mention of compensation? I would of course never turn down a gift, but neither would I request one.
    
    Leaving aside the legality, how would you make a living at this? What happens when your “partners” decide not to leave a gift afterwards? The whole point is that it's supposed to be voluntary. If you start insisting on the “gift” then you're clearly doing it for pay.
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @Max_Torque (Max Torque) added

    A comedian, I believe it was Bruce Baum, once noted that, “A prostitute is a wicked, sinful woman who charges money for what good, moral women give away for free.”
      *[Ghost]: “I

So @tullsterx (tullsterx) replied

    No, that's called “dating”
    
    It happens fairly regularly.
      *[Ghost]: “I

After which, @Sapo (Sapo) added

    Inigo_Montoya:
    
    > If I hang out on a street corner and solicit my sexual services in exchange for money, thet's pretty much illegal.
    > 
    > If I hang out on a street corner looking too sexy for my shirt and respond to sexual advances in a positive fashion contingient upon my receipt of monetary gain, that's illegal.
    > 
    > But what if I hang out on a street corner looking too sexy for my shirt and respond to sexual advances in a positive fashion with no mention of compensation? I would of course never turn down a gift, but neither would I request one.
    > 
    > Would THAT be illegal?
    
    What if you insisted on the fact that you could not accept gifts and always rejected them. Could you stand in a corner with a sign saying “I am horny, take me home”?.
      *[Ghost]: “I

@Shodan (Shodan) replied

    Inigo_Montoya:
    
    > And given the prices in many places I've been in, plying the masses with a few drinks begins to approach a typical hooker fee (considering a 20% cast to catch ratio) when you look at cash outlay/coitus.
    
    And they say romance is dead.
    
    Regards,  
    Shodan
      *[Ghost]: “I

To which @Freudian_Slit (Freudian Slit) replied

    Sapo:
    
    > What if you insisted on the fact that you could not accept gifts and always rejected them. Could you stand in a corner with a sign saying “I am horny, take me home”?.
    
    I propose this sign.
      *[Ghost]: “I


{'source': 'discourse', 'url': 'https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-prostitution/500842', 'title': 'Free Prostitution?', 'views': 2796, 'has_accepted_answer': False, 'word_count': 3165, 'like_count': 0, 'reply_count': 30, 'participant_count': 19, 'posts': 31, 'tags': '', 'author': '@Inigo_Montoya (Inigo Montoya)', 'participants': '@Inigo_Montoya (Inigo Montoya), @KlondikeGeoff (KlondikeGeoff), @IAmNotSpartacus (IAmNotSpartacus), @CookingWithGas (CookingWithGas), @dracoi (dracoi), @hajario (hajario), @Really_Not_All_That_Bright (Really Not All That Bright), @ashman165 (ashman165), @Washoe (Washoe), @Exapno_Mapcase (Exapno Mapcase), @Little_Nemo (Little Nemo), @JonathanTheRed (JonathanTheRed), @Freudian_Slit (Freudian Slit), @Markxxx (Markxxx), @Ruminator (Ruminator), @Max_Torque (Max Torque), @tullsterx (tullsterx), @Sapo (Sapo), @Shodan (Shodan)', 'image_url': [None], 'created_at': '2009-06-24T15:57:13.000Z', 'last_posted_at': '2009-06-25T20:42:49.000Z'}