Do laws against prostitution prohibit doing it just for money or for goods too?

Question

My question is, could someone legally trade sexual favors for things other than money, or is that illegal too?
I tell ya, prostitution WOULD end with poverty.

Answer 1

ALRIGHT.. here ya go with that debate again.. not you.. but people in general.. The laws of prostitution are hairy.. and there are fine lines.. but here they are....

It is not illegal to BE a prostitute.. it is not illegal to take money, goods or services in exchange for your sexual favors.

It IS illegal to use prostitution for the financial gain of someone OTHER than the prostitute.. ie: Escort Service, Pimp.. etc

It IS illegal to solicit in a public place.

It IS illegal to pay for sexual services performed in a public place..


BASICALLY.. if a woman , by word of mouth, performs sexual services in a private place.. and none of the "profits" goes to someone else, then it is PERFECTLY LEGAL to be a prostitute.



B. PROSTITUTION LAWS AS THEY STAND
Procuring
The purpose of the "procuring" and "living on the avails" provisions in the Criminal Code is to hinder third parties from making a profit from the prostitution of others. This includes directing potential customers to the services of a prostitute, and living fully or partly off the earnings of a prostitute. In most large cities, people in the service industry such as taxi drivers, bell-hops, bartenders, and hotel clerks tend to supplement their incomes by procuring (Gomme, 1993: 301).

Pimps are people who actively seek out another person to prostitute for them. In exchange for this, pimps are supposed to perform certain activities for their prostitute: administer protection from the police, customers and other prostitutes; provide a residence; and recruit customers for "their women" (Gomme, 1993: 301).

Although not a great number of women enter the profession as a result of manipulation by pimps, several alleged to have been "managed" by a pimp at one point in their careers. According to John Lowman very few prostitutes who have been pimped have anything positive to say about the experience; other research, however, shows that some women develop meaningful relationships with these men, (procurers are almost always men, except in the case of madams; and hustlers or male prostitutes are rarely pimped). In some cases the person who acts as a pimp is the prostitute's significant other (i.e. husband, boyfriend, etc). This relationship is often characterized by the moral support, comfort and assurance that is provided by the man.

Laws regarding procurers are just as ambiguous as are laws regarding prostitution in general. According to what the law states, any person "who lives wholly or partly on the avails of prostitution" is guilty of a summary conviction offence, which entails a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $1000.

Problems arise as a result of the discrepancies between the way prostitutes and the law define pimps. For a prostitute a pimp is someone who "turns out" another person to work for him. This is another area where prostitutes are in conflict with the law; these women are not allowed to have a significant other. A prostitute from Toronto voices her frustration; "according to this law I'm not allowed to have a boyfriend because any man who is habitually in my company is defined as a pimp. We want the procuring laws removed. We [prostitutes] demand the right to have lovers" (Good Girls Bad Girls, 1987: 102; Lowman, 1992: 55-6). Noteworthy is that not many people are prosecuted under this offence.

Soliciting

The solicitation law was enacted in 1972, and it was designed to deal with all the aspects of prostitution that the Vagrancy C provision ignored. Section 195.1 read:

Every person who solicits any person in a public place for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This section of the Criminal Code sought to punish an overt act, solicitation, but what was meant by solicitation was not described. The solicitation law attempted to address the issue of public nuisance that prostitution causes. Preceding the solicitation law, the extent of what the police had to prove when prosecuting an individual, was that a prostitute had offered her sexual services in a public place. After the controversial 1978 Hutt decision, however, to make a conviction the police had to prove that the prostitute had been "pressing and persistent" when offering her services to a potential client (CIR, 1994: 2-3; Lowman, 1992: 65). The flagrant failure of this law was due predominantly to the encumbrance that it caused law enforcing agents. For this reason, some will argue that prostitution spread unchecked across Canadian cities because if the prostitute circumvented the necessary "persistence", she could ply her trade uninterrupted.

Positive aspects of the soliciting law are, a) it expanded police power by permitting the prosecution of male prostitutes and transvestites, b) police could no-longer make the arrest of a recognized street prostitute merely because she did not appear to be busy (Lowman, 1992: 65).

TOP

Communicating

The Communicating law was established in December 1985. Its principal purpose was to reduce the visibility of prostitution, thus reducing the nuisance aspect of the trade. Section 213 of the Criminal Code now read:

Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle, (b) impedes the free flow of pedestrians or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicate or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

A "public place" includes any place to which the public have right of access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.

An important aspect of the communicating law is that for the first time in the history of prostitution laws in Canada, the Criminal Code included customers "under the purview of the law". Thus rendering johns vulnerable to prosecution.

Even though the latter has been an improvement in Canadian legislation with reference to prostitution laws, section 213 has had little if any, positive effect on the trade or the people who practiced it. Amid the negative aspects that have surfaced after the law came into being is a dramatic increase in the murder rate among prostitutes throughout the province of British Columbia. Furthermore, this law still does not indicate where prostitution can take place legally (Lowman, 1997: 8; Duchesne, 1997:2).

Bawdy-Houses Offences

The laws regarding common bawdy-houses are aimed at those people who own or manage such places. Since keeping a common bawdy-house is an indictable offence, the maximum penalty for persons convicted on this count is two years in jail. Penalties for other people involved, (i.e. customers and prostitutes) are not as severe; the other participants would be guilty of summary offences. Section a 197 provides a definition of the terms "place, " "prostitute," and "keeper" (Lowman, 1992: 64).

Since World War II, the places which have been involved in common bawdy-house offences are the residences of the prostitutes, "trick pads" (a location used exclusively for the servicing of a customer), and, most frequently, hotel rooms (Lowman, 1995: 338). The police are not required to prove that the place is used frequently, the simple "general reputation" is enough to demonstrate that acts of prostitution occur regularly.

Places such as massage parlours escape being prosecuted under the bawdy-house laws because the customer pays for a massage; anything that happens after that is agreed upon between two consenting adults. Any payment that the masseuse receives is, theoretically, without the knowledge of the proprietor and/or manager. Despite their sly modus operandi, several massage parlours have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law according to the this section of the Code (Lowman, 1992: 80).

Answer 2

There's a concept called a "meretricious" contract. Basically, if the contract (verbal or written) is an exchange of sexual services for some other consideration, that would be prostitution.

The reason that having sex in exchange for gifts is not prostitution is that a gift, by definition, is given without expectation of return. There is no bargained-for-exchange, hence no contract.

Just because a person might give a gift hoping someone will "put out", or have sex hoping to be given a gift, that still does not make it a binding contract, hence not prostitution.

Personally, I think it's silly to take an otherwise legal activity (consensual sex) and make it illegal just because the exchange happens to be laid out via contract. But the government is often irrational, so....

Answer 3

Funny thing about prostitution in the gold old USA. If i where to go to a women and make agreement of either money or goods in exchange for sexual favors that day or in advance I am guilty of solication of prostitution but

If I go up to a women and agree that I will rent her a apartment for a year, lease a car and allocate spending money with a clear understanding I would be spending few nights a week for at the unit with her no problem , so it seems the more cash you have it's not prostitution but a friend

Answer 4

It is illegal to perform sexual acts for any type of compensation. Oddly enough, when men take women out for dinner/date, they expect something in return (not always, but most of the time), that becomes prostitution even though society has made it acceptable. Go figure. Sex should be done with no strings attached and because one wants to share an intimate moment.

Answer 5

I don't know the laws and it might depends where you are. I think prostitution of any form with money or goods is wrong. It should be illegal if it isn't already.

Answer 6

technichally any fornication during dating would be considered prostitution if their are gifts given,i think they are more worried about the ones doing it for a living spreading disease rather than peoples souls,heck i just had a dream about a woman cop who had sex with 6 men at the same time,you'de probably be surprised at the amount of prostitutes that are out there,then then there's the money whores who love money more than God,i think that's legal though

Answer 7

Any goods or services that are provided in return for sexual favors is considered being paid for prostitution. Now if you would like to discuss a barter..........

Answer 8

Anything in exchange for a sexual favor is illegal. Why not just get a real job???

Answer 9

Trading sexual favors for property is an age old practice, accepted in every society on earth. It's called "Marriage".

Answer 10

Any valuable consideration exchanged, would make it a crime. But don't let that stop you!Hey that's a way to stop prostitution. If we can just collapse the economy, we can end it! Ya Hoo!

Answer 11

Prostitution is the oldest business in the world and Making it illegal has never stopped anyone. and by the way,,, i will have sex for food...lol.
just like Bill Clinton once said, "you know you're famous when someone blows you and then they become famous". ie; Monica Lowinsky...
so come here baby...
and i'll make ya famous.