The Escort Disclaimer

[+ StLouisOct]

Do you believe that most escorts believe that the often seen escort disclaimer (e.g. “I do not accept money for sexual acts. I am compensated via contributions for my time only. Anything that happens during that time is a decision made between two consenting adults”) really provides legal protection, or is it something included because they’re not sure or because so many other include it? I’ve practiced law for a long time (although not criminal law) and I’ve never felt that a prosecutor who’s intent on pursing male escorts would be dissuaded by such a disclaimer - and I wouldn’t bet on jurors buying it either. One escort I know insisted that it was effective. I thought it best not to ruin the evening with a negative debate and we moved on to more enjoyable pursuits.

[sincitymix]

from what i have been told, any decent prosecutor can shred that statement in a heart beat and laugh while they do so.

[jawjateck]

It's worse than useless.

[+ DERRIK]

an escort could claim that the disclaimer was written by his social media advisor or his 75 year old attorney.

 

that sometimes works

[+ VictorPowers]

from what i have been told, any decent prosecutor can shred that statement in a heart beat and laugh while they do so.

[+ Avalon]

But don't most high end escorts get paid at the end of the session? When the escort arrives the client already has the money placed out in plain view? Wouldn't sex first then compensation afterwards eliminate any fear of a charge of prostitution?

 

Do the police really care about high end escorts? Aren't they more concerned about street hustlers, boys standing on the corner? They are the ones who ask for the money upfront. They perform sex in the car or alley and are done in 10 minutes. Don't the police do stings on them?

 

Is there any jail time for prostitution? Just pay a fine? Anyone have first hand experience?

[+ VictorPowers]

@Avalon I am finding that you're a man of many questions.

[mike carey]

@Avalon I am finding that you're a man of many questions.

Many!!

[KennF]

Are we talking about reality or technicality?

 

I don't believe that the disclaimer is a defense against prostitution, however, it is a defense against solicitation. In some jurisdictions the offer of sex for money is the offense. With the disclaimer, the offer is, technically, contingent on the disclaimer terms.

 

Reality is a different matter. That hinges on the politics of the jurisdiction and politics of the LEO involved.

[+ quoththeraven]

I think it's useless unless nothing sexual happens or until the hiring community stops complaining they didn't get what they paid for if expectations aren't met.

 

Non-street based escorting by adult men doesn't seem to be a LEO priority, with exceptions when some other crime is committed, like extortion or murder.

[Kevin Slater]

with exceptions when some other crime is committed, like extortion or murder.

 

Well, sure, if they order the deluxe package.

 

Kevin Slater

[tenderloin]

@Avalon I am finding that you're a man of many questions.

If they are good questions, there is no problem with him asking. This is a discussion board, after all.

[+ Avalon]

Bingo! It's not a fool-proof disclaimer nor does it claim to be but it's better than nothing. I will also note that many jurisdictions do not pursue higher end providers, especially men as we tend to be a lower priority. There are some jurisdictions where officers are told to leave us alone and let us do our thing.

 

That is good news!

[TruthBTold]

Bingo! It's not a fool-proof disclaimer nor does it claim to be but it's better than nothing. I will also note that many jurisdictions do not pursue higher end providers, especially men as we tend to be a lower priority. There are some jurisdictions where officers are told to leave us alone and let us do our thing.

 

Also much of the time those writing the laws are the ones that both order the product and control law enforcement. They write a law that forbids something but no way law enforcement is enforcing it because they would be coming through the legislators' door. Be discreet and your mouth/butt can do what they want.

[+ JEC]

@Avalon I am finding that you're a man of many questions.

If I had to guess I would say he’s writing a book about escorting

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

As others have said, it's a useless thing to state. It immediately makes me feel the escort doing it is in over his head.

 

What matters more is having a great attorney at arm's length in the event you need him.

[+ VictorPowers]

If I had to guess I would say he’s writing a book about escorting

Ha! That thought crossed my mind. I appreciate the varied questions. It gets us all thinking and talking about interesting topics.

[sincitymix]

Another reason I think its a good statement to make is it silences the hagglers who bombard us with "$50 for a blowjob?", "$85 for rimming?", etc, etc.

coupon for buy 1 get 1 free? punch card buy 10 get 1 free?

[+ saminseattle]

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessarily useless or ineffective. It really all depends on the particular facts of a given situation.

 

First, remember that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone nonsexual companionship for a fee is perfectly legal. Moreover, as has been discussed many times on this forum, such companionship does occur and may be more common than many people assume. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/time-only.106963/#post-993783 (post 2), https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/cuddle-up-day-and-miscellaneous-mentions.120706/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/professional-cuddling.html, https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/...tween-prostitution-and-escort-services-24035/. For example, many people might be skeptical that a client would pay someone $200 simply to have brunch together with no sex before or after…just to talk, and yet I know for a fact that this kind of thing does happen.

 

Second, even assuming that many people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, that does not mean that law enforcement can simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. The reason cops go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they are trying to get some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. Remember, a prosecutor may ultimately need to unanimously convince a jury of his case beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a tough standard to meet if there is any ambiguity or gap in the evidence.

 

So, for example, if an undercover police officer invites an advertiser to a hotel and gets him to say, “yes, I will fuck you for $200,” then the fact that his ad said, “I do not accept money for sexual acts” would not be particularly helpful to him. If the disclaimer is obviously not true, it won't do the advertiser any good. On the other hand, if the advertiser refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and goes back to the language in his ad that he does not accept money for sexual acts and any fee will be for his time only, I should think that without more evidence, this would be a much harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and other details, but certainly harder.

 

The only concern I would have about this kind of disclaimer, particularly for those advertisers who are actually sex workers, is that it might lure them into having a false sense of security. They should remember that there is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one. If the State can prove that they are in fact engaging in illegal activity, a disclaimer to the contrary in their advertisement will not protect them.

[+ StLouisOct]

As noted by Kurtis Wolfe above, prosecutors have not been inclined to take action against high end escorts. They’re more concerned about sex trafficking of minors and other scenarios that take advantage of people in weak positions, as opposed to adults who are in the business of providing client services. That’s good. One might ask, what about the prosecution of Rentboy’s owner? I’ve always felt that Rentboy flaunted itself too much, with Hookie award celebrations and the like, and perhaps a district attorney thought they went too far. That’s not the case with Rentmen and similar sites.

 

Addressing the disclaimer issue, imagine yourself arguing before a judge or a jury that your client has neither solicited sex nor engaged in prosecution. You are left with the following position: “Your honor (or members of the jury) it’s true that my client publishes pictures of himself naked and erect with his ass exposed at tantalizing angles; that he describes himself as a versatile bottom who loves men of all shapes and sizes, and advertises that he’s into cum, anal, oral and spanking, and that he charges $250 an hour for his time. Rest assured that he was not talking about providing sex to others. He solicited a valuable interpersonal relationship and experience and didn’t seek payment for anything having to do with sex. That latter point is obvious because the money was put on the table after he advertised himself as a sex god, but before he engaged in sex. ” --- Good luck with that.

 

Saminseattle provides helpful thoughts. Overall, the good thing is that legal authorities do not appear to be concerned about the Rentman scenarios. Escorts should feel free to use the disclaimer on the off chance that it may be useful and if it makes them feel better. But legaleze isn’t going to change the obvious facts.

[MrMattBig]

I find this generic disclaimer useless.

Like all things in life, growth, evolution, and ingenuity lead to betterment.

This is my current disclaimer on my website.

 

"All rates and fees stated and discussed are for my time only, with the purpose and intent of serving as your personal enrichment guide. I accomplish this using the knowledge I have acquired as a self-taught alternative sex-positive therapist; aiding in the improvement of sexual and psychological health, happiness, competence, and emotional and spiritual well-being. As such, the only services I provide are consulting, counseling, coaching, and therapeutic introspection training. No quid pro quo exists in regards to my time or services. "

[+ Avalon]

Aren't there sex therapists? And that is legal?

[+ saminseattle]

Aren't there sex therapists? And that is legal?

 

Nice try, but if you are talking about certified sex therapists, you are talking about licensed professionals in areas like psychology and medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Sex_Therapist I am fairly certain that the applicable professional ethics rules would forbid them from personally participating in a sexual situation with one of their patients, at the risk of losing their license. If you are talking about someone who is more of an informal “coach,” if you will, who uses a “hands-on” approach to help clients deal with sexual hang-ups, I should think that person would still be at risk for being charged with the crime of prostitution if he accepts money in connection with any kind of sexual act. While I personally think this kind of service could be totally legitimate and genuinely therapeutic for some people, the “powers that be” would probably argue that it is still a crime. Having said that, it would be interesting to see someone use this as a defense, especially if they could put forward a particularly believable and sympathetic case.

[+ Avalon]

Nice try, but if you are talking about certified sex therapists, you are talking about licensed professionals in areas like psychology and medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Sex_Therapist I am fairly certain that the applicable professional ethics rules would forbid them from personally participating in a sexual situation with one of their patients, at the risk of losing their license. If you are talking about someone who is more of an informal “coach,” if you will, who uses a “hands-on” approach to help clients deal with sexual hang-ups, I should think that person would still be at risk for being charged with the crime of prostitution if he accepts money in connection with any kind of sexual act. While I personally think this kind of service could be totally legitimate and genuinely therapeutic for some people, the “powers that be” would probably argue that it is still a crime. Having said that, it would be interesting to see someone use this as a defense, especially if they could put forward a particularly believable and sympathetic case.

 

Thanks! I could see an escort with a porn background be deemed a professional sex expert. They've had so many hours of "hands on" experience to qualify. ;-))))

[+ José Soplanucas]

I find this generic disclaimer useless.

Like all things in life, growth, evolution, and ingenuity lead to betterment.

This is my current disclaimer on my website.

 

"All rates and fees stated and discussed are for my time only, with the purpose and intent of serving as your personal enrichment guide. I accomplish this using the knowledge I have acquired as a self-taught alternative sex-positive therapist; aiding in the improvement of sexual and psychological health, happiness, competence, and emotional and spiritual well-being. As such, the only services I provide are consulting, counseling, coaching, and therapeutic introspection training. No quid pro quo exists in regards to my time or services. "

 

Hey Matt! Why do you think a jury or a judge would take that disclaimer more seriously than the standard one?