Follow-up, learning experience, debriefing

[LivingnLA]

Pretty much this is a meaningless quotation, from a legal perspective anyway (according to a well-established escort who posts on the board)

 

Too true. It's not legally possible to protect yourself with a disclaimer when you're knowingly and intentionally offering to break the law.

[LivingnLA]

Too true. It's not legally possible to protect yourself with a disclaimer when you're knowingly and intentionally offering to break the law.

 

Now, if you want to get really legalistic and fun, here's the very narrow potential scenario that might protect an escort:

 

If everything about them and how they communicate with clients is clearly establishing them purely as an escort in the classic sense. In other words, a companion or friend who will "hang out" with you, dinner, whatever without any erotic or sexual activity involved. For this defense to work, they'd have to clearly communicate in their ads and all client communication that they are purely a social companion for hire. They couldn't post or share erotic pics or content and they would have to be clear that they do not have sex for money, ever, period.

 

Hypothetically, such a companion might avoid prosecution if they were ever arrested and charged. The question is, how many clients would pay the multi-hundred hourly rate purely for such a companion while relying totally on the social subtext that "consenting adults may have sex for free any time they want?" Yes, I know plenty of clients do hire escorts purely for social interaction sometimes, I'm just talking about the market overall over time.

[+ saminseattle]

Pretty much this is a meaningless quotation, from a legal perspective anyway (according to a well-established escort who posts on the board)

 

While I generally agree with @LivingnLA, I have a somewhat more nuanced view. I would not consider this kind of statement to be totally, completely meaningless; on the other hand, I don’t think it means all that much, and I certainly would not count on this kind of “disclaimer” language to protect me from the long arm of the law, particularly if it’s not really true. In other words, if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact exchanging sex for money, it doesn’t really matter that you have made a statement to the contrary in your advertisement. There is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one.

 

Having said all that, it should be stressed that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone companionship for a fee is perfectly legitimate. Sometimes people just want to spend time with a guy they find attractive, to go on a “date” as part of their coming out process, to talk about issues they’re having, to hug and cuddle, or any number of other things that do not cross the line into illicit sexual contact. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/legal-question.117983/, Going to the opera with someone is not a problem. https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/do-any-nyc-escorts-like-opera.118069/

 

Of course, sometimes people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, or “sex work,” as I prefer to call it. While this is technically illegal, enforcement is often haphazard and half-hearted. Two possible reasons for this are that 1) many people recognize that it really shouldn’t be illegal and 2) it is difficult to prove that a “crime” has occurred when there is no “victim” calling on the police. Law enforcement cannot simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. Presumably, the reason they go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they want some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. That is why I say that this kind of language may not be completely meaningless. If an undercover cop hears someone say that they will do x, y, or z sex act for x, y, or z price, that’s an easy case for them. But if someone refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and instead insists that any fee is for their time only, I should think that it would be a harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and details, but harder. So, it might not be a bad idea to use some version of the above language, but to the extent that the advertiser is actually a sex worker…they should probably be careful to be consistent in all their communications and not allow a generic disclaimer to result in a false sense of security…in the end, engaging in illegal activity inevitably has a certain amount of risk associated with it. This was discussed in some previous threads. https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/clients-who-speak-explicitly.109974/, https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/potential-clients-think-i-am-a-prostitute.115741/#post-1120101

[LivingnLA]

While I generally agree with @LivingnLA, I have a somewhat more nuanced view. I would not consider this kind of statement to be totally, completely meaningless; on the other hand, I don’t think it means all that much, and I certainly would not count on this kind of “disclaimer” language to protect me from the long arm of the law, particularly if it’s not really true. In other words, if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact exchanging sex for money, it doesn’t really matter that you have made a statement to the contrary in your advertisement. There is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one.

 

Having said all that, it should be stressed that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone companionship for a fee is perfectly legitimate. Sometimes people just want to spend time with a guy they find attractive, to go on a “date” as part of their coming out process, to talk about issues they’re having, to hug and cuddle, or any number of other things that do not cross the line into illicit sexual contact. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/legal-question.117983/, Going to the opera with someone is not a problem. https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/do-any-nyc-escorts-like-opera.118069/

 

Of course, sometimes people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, or “sex work,” as I prefer to call it. While this is technically illegal, enforcement is often haphazard and half-hearted. Two possible reasons for this are that 1) many people recognize that it really shouldn’t be illegal and 2) it is difficult to prove that a “crime” has occurred when there is no “victim” calling on the police. Law enforcement cannot simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. Presumably, the reason they go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they want some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. That is why I say that this kind of language may not be completely meaningless. If an undercover cop hears someone say that they will do x, y, or z sex act for x, y, or z price, that’s an easy case for them. But if someone refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and instead insists that any fee is for their time only, I should think that it would be a harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and details, but harder. So, it might not be a bad idea to use some version of the above language, but to the extent that the advertiser is actually a sex worker…they should probably be careful to be consistent in all their communications and not allow a generic disclaimer to result in a false sense of security…in the end, engaging in illegal activity inevitably has a certain amount of risk associated with it. This was discussed in some previous threads. https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/clients-who-speak-explicitly.109974/, https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/potential-clients-think-i-am-a-prostitute.115741/#post-1120101

 

I pretty much said exactly that right above ya. I bet our posts were written at the same time.

[+ saminseattle]

I pretty much said exactly that right above ya. I bet our posts were written at the same time.

 

Oh, too funny. Great minds think alike, I guess.

[Courage]

Now, if you want to get really legalistic and fun, here's the very narrow potential scenario that might protect an escort:

 

If I were feeling daring, I'd look the issue up at work on Lexis. My instinct is that an (over)zealous cop/prosecutor/judge would have none of it if the facts of a case led to the inference of an exchange of compensation for sex.

 

My global observation from news stories and stories in the legal press is that enforcement has shifted over the years from prosecution of individual sex workers to "johns" to businesses facilitating transactions (Rentboy) and operations/individuals doing stuff like human trafficking.

 

I don't believe "streetwalkers" or escort services are anywhere near the presence they were when I was a kid--when I wanted to hire, I did what everyone does for everything these days...I Googled it :-D.

[LivingnLA]

If I were feeling daring, I'd look the issue up at work on Lexis. My instinct is that an (over)zealous cop/prosecutor/judge would have none of it if the facts of a case led to the inference of an exchange of compensation for sex.

 

My global observation from news stories and stories in the legal press is that enforcement has shifted over the years from prosecution of individual sex workers to "johns" to businesses facilitating transactions (Rentboy) and operations/individuals doing stuff like human trafficking.

 

I don't believe "streetwalkers" or escort services are anywhere near the presence they were when I was a kid--when I wanted to hire, I did what everyone does for everything these days...I Googled it :-D.

 

Correct, but it boils down to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a good defense attorney would crush an overzealous cop/prosecutor if their escort client was a scrupulously thorough as I suggest above. Though, your mileage may vary and buyer beware. Our society still is very sex phobic, especially for gay sex and sex for pay.

[Chuckball]

All escorts should move to Canada. The prostitution law since 2016 is that there is no crime in selling sexual services. The crime is in buying them. Unless the escort is really a cop, it makes it impossible to prove a crime.