"Escorts" and that disclaimer.

[Man_With_a_Cat]

A few days ago there was a bust nearby of a crack house/brothel. (People still use that word? Ok, a couple hookers lived and worked there too) Now, I’ve heard about escorts and massage giriles using the 'net, and specifically Craigslist to advertise, but I never paid a lot of attention.

But this being fairly close by, and me without a lot to do, I hit the List and checked it out.

Eek.

But enough editorializing. My question, for you legal types is this: Several of these women have language on there to the effect that “money exchanged is for company/modeling only and does not constitute an offer of sexual services…”

And I’ve seen enough TV to know that if you call one of these chickies that you get the standard “are you or do you represent any law enforcement…?”

So, if (no, by the way, though even if they’re airbrushed, some of these pictures make them look pretty hot, so maybe a second GQ would be if these pictures are reliable, never mind even the question of what inspires an 18 year old co-ed to get into this?) …again (sorry the ADD is working pretty good today)…if I call one these girls, and she gives me Speech A above, and also Speech B, and I AM a cop, is she off because I lied to her?

Also, assuming this is a cop sting, and I ask during my call if SHE is or represents law enforcement, and she says no, and follows up with Speech A, and I walk in the room to find a cute woman cop and her three beefy colleagues - am I off, or going to the pokey?

[pkbites]

@Mr Bus Guy

I AM a cop, is she off because I lied to her?

No. The old chestnut that an undercover/plainclothes police officer has to I.D. themselves is a myth born on t.v. shows. The police can lie in these situations.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

Police are not required to be honest and neither she nor you would be off the hook.

[UltraVires]

@Mr Bus Guy

A few days ago there was a bust nearby of a crack house/brothel. (People still use that word? Ok, a couple hookers lived and worked there too) Now, I’ve heard about escorts and massage giriles using the 'net, and specifically Craigslist to advertise, but I never paid a lot of attention.

But this being fairly close by, and me without a lot to do, I hit the List and checked it out.

Eek.

But enough editorializing. My question, for you legal types is this: Several of these women have language on there to the effect that “money exchanged is for company/modeling only and does not constitute an offer of sexual services…”

And I’ve seen enough TV to know that if you call one of these chickies that you get the standard “are you or do you represent any law enforcement…?”

So, if (no, by the way, though even if they’re airbrushed, some of these pictures make them look pretty hot, so maybe a second GQ would be if these pictures are reliable, never mind even the question of what inspires an 18 year old co-ed to get into this?) …again (sorry the ADD is working pretty good today)…if I call one these girls, and she gives me Speech A above, and also Speech B, and I AM a cop, is she off because I lied to her?

Also, assuming this is a cop sting, and I ask during my call if SHE is or represents law enforcement, and she says no, and follows up with Speech A, and I walk in the room to find a cute woman cop and her three beefy colleagues - am I off, or going to the pokey?

No, off to the pokey on speech a and b.

A moment’s thought should put the matter to rest. If skirting prostitution laws were really that easy, there wouldn’t be a single arrest in the country.

[Justin_Bailey]

@pkbites

No. The old chestnut that an undercover/plainclothes police officer has to I.D. themselves is a myth born on t.v. shows. The police can lie in these situations.

Which never made sense to me as whenever I’ve seen the old “Are you a cop?” line on a TV show, the cop always lies!

Does anyone have any examples of the cop answering with “I’m not allowed to lie, I am a cop.”?

[elbows]

Some questions are asked not because the answers will be truthful but because the manner of answering is all telling.

When I was a student landlord I always asked for references and I always checked them. I would ask a couple of standard, simple, easy to answer questions, (How long have you known each other, do you think he’s a nice fellow, etc).

And then I would ask, “Have you ever known him not to fulfill a financial obligation?”

Now it’s a pretty easy thing for the reference to know, from the get go, that his friend is expecting him to give a glowing review on all fronts. And he, likely, wants to do just that. It would be really easy for him to lie. Except most people are not practiced liars.

That pause that happened while the reference was saying, ‘um’ (wherein he was remembering how his friend burned someone on some debt or other) that preceded the lie is all telling.

People always think they are really good liars, but mostly they’re not. I think this conversation you are discussing falls into the same category. It’s not going to protect them from any prosecution, (which has been clearly demonstrated). But that doesn’t mean it’s not telling to them in some way.

[pkbites]

@Justin_Bailey

Which never made sense to me as whenever I’ve seen the old “Are you a cop?” line on a TV show, the cop always lies!

Does anyone have any examples of the cop answering with “I’m not allowed to lie, I am a cop.”?

Good point. Why some people believe cops can’t lie because of t.v. is beyond me. They always do lie in the shows I’ve seen.

There are a lot of police related myths I’d like to see busted:

*A male police officer can’t pat down or search a woman. In Wisconsin we can. we use a female officer when possible, but it’s not legally required.

**Reading the Miranda immediately. *TV cop is still fighting to get the cuffs on the bad guy and he’s huffing and puffing "you…gasp…have the right…gasp…to remain silent…! What bunk.

*Holding a handgun with barrel pointing straight up. Especially while walking around corners. That may look cool for TV cop, but it’s not done in real life.

*TV cop makes no money, never has a day off. I retired from a department last July as a patrolman (“buck private” so to speak). My base pay with no overtime or shift differential was $64k, 6 weeks vacation a year and 12 days per year sick, fully funded pension. I had crossed from 5 weeks to 6 weeks vacation on my 25th anniversary and retired 12 days later. Most departments around here are paying in the mid-upper 50’s after the 5th year. That’s not bad for a job that only requires a 2 year degree.

[UltraVires]

@elbows

Some questions are asked not because the answers will be truthful but because the manner of answering is all telling.

When I was a student landlord I always asked for references and I always checked them. I would ask a couple of standard, simple, easy to answer questions, (How long have you known each other, do you think he’s a nice fellow, etc).

And then I would ask, “Have you ever known him not to fulfill a financial obligation?”

Now it’s a pretty easy thing for the reference to know, from the get go, that his friend is expecting him to give a glowing review on all fronts. And he, likely, wants to do just that. It would be really easy for him to lie. Except most people are not practiced liars.

That pause that happened while the reference was saying, ‘um’ (wherein he was remembering how his friend burned someone on some debt or other) that preceded the lie is all telling.

People always think they are really good liars, but mostly they’re not. I think this conversation you are discussing falls into the same category. It’s not going to protect them from any prosecution, (which has been clearly demonstrated). But that doesn’t mean it’s not telling to them in some way.

So, if the reference blurted out a short “no” without even pondering the question that would determine absolute truthfulness?!?

And what would you do next, pray tell? Go to the prospective renter and tell them that you won’t rent to them because their reference dared to PAUSE before answer, thereby proving that he/she is financially irresponsible??

[Campion]

elbows has it, I think, with respect to the “you’re not a cop, are you?” question. The questioner isn’t asking because it’s some legal incantation that provides protection, but because the questioner is looking for “tells” to indicate that the man is lying about not being a cop. (To me, the more interesting cases aren’t the cop ones but the prosecutor ones – law enforcement is permitted to lie, but lawyers aren’t. So can a prosecutor lie to – or intentionally mislead – a suspect about evidence?)

As for the disclaimer, it may provide some evidence of intent (or, more properly, lack of intent). But it’s also not air tight, and would simply be something for the escort to point to as an indication that the whole prostitution accusation is just one big misunderstanding.

[Rhythmdvl]

IANAP, so I sometimes wonder if the whole “are you a cop” myth isn’t so much that people actually believe it out there, but that people believe that other people believe it. That is, how long would it be before a real prostitute was disabused of the notion – I daresay long before thinking to rely on it.

The OP still has an interesting but I think unanswered question. Forget the whole question of lying, why doesn’t the "But your honor, I was paid just to go out with him and smile, but I ended up liking him so much that, well, wink wink wink … " work? Is it because it will eventually come down to a matter for the fact finder (judge or jury) to determine if she was lying, so it never flies?

[Polycarp]

Leaving aside any questions of ethics and morality, which are important, and focusing on the legal question:

It is not illegal to have sexual relations in private with a willing adult partner (issues of adultery to one side). It is, however, illegal in most jurisdictions to sell sexual services (prostitution) – leading to the old joke that sex is the one thing it’s legal to give away but illegal to sell.

Now, examine social practices of 50 years ago or so. A man takes a woman he’s interested in on an expensive date. While it’s at her discretion whether to give in to his advances for sex afterwards, there’s a mutual understanding, socially known, that he’s entitled to try, and while she’s entitled to refuse, she’s not entitled to get offended by his trying. (Again let’s ignore the moral question: that was a social norm of the time.)

But this translates to: I’ll take you out for an expensive dinner and a show, for the pleasure of your company. But there’s a subtext in my doing this that I want to have sex with you afterwards if you’re agreeable. Consenting to the date is not consenting to sex, but it is agreeing that you won’t get insulted by my making a pass.

Now, compare a restaurant waiter/waitresss. He/she is being paid (often a paltry wage) by the restaurant to wait on you at table. But there’s a social construct there that if he/she gives you good service (and in the absence of “No Tipping” notices), you are expected to give a reasonable tip.

Now, to the escort business. Leslie or Drake is selling you the privilege of taking them out to dinner, an evening’s enttertainment, or whatever, or the right to photograph them in whatever you want them to wear/not wear, or to appear at your party and dance for you garbed or not garbed as you agree. They are not agreeing to have sex with you in exchange for money, because that constitutes prostitution, a crime. However, like the waiter, there may be a social expectation present that is not a contracted element. Almost nobody would be willing to pay a complete stranger several hundred bucks for the privilege of treating them to a meal at your expense. However, Leslie and Drake can make a living by doing just that, with an unspoken commitment that, barring some reason, your night out with them is likely to end in bed.

But like the tip, that’s not an element of a contract – rather an expectation mutually understood.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Polycarp

Leaving aside any questions of ethics and morality, which are important, and focusing on the legal question:

It is not illegal to have sexual relations in private with a willing adult partner (issues of adultery to one side). It is, however, illegal in most jurisdictions to sell sexual services (prostitution) – leading to the old joke that sex is the one thing it’s legal to give away but illegal to sell.

Now, examine social practices of 50 years ago or so. A man takes a woman he’s interested in on an expensive date. While it’s at her discretion whether to give in to his advances for sex afterwards, there’s a mutual understanding, socially known, that he’s entitled to try, and while she’s entitled to refuse, she’s not entitled to get offended by his trying. (Again let’s ignore the moral question: that was a social norm of the time.)

But this translates to: I’ll take you out for an expensive dinner and a show, for the pleasure of your company. But there’s a subtext in my doing this that I want to have sex with you afterwards if you’re agreeable. Consenting to the date is not consenting to sex, but it is agreeing that you won’t get insulted by my making a pass.

Now, compare a restaurant waiter/waitresss. He/she is being paid (often a paltry wage) by the restaurant to wait on you at table. But there’s a social construct there that if he/she gives you good service (and in the absence of “No Tipping” notices), you are expected to give a reasonable tip.

Now, to the escort business. Leslie or Drake is selling you the privilege of taking them out to dinner, an evening’s enttertainment, or whatever, or the right to photograph them in whatever you want them to wear/not wear, or to appear at your party and dance for you garbed or not garbed as you agree. They are not agreeing to have sex with you in exchange for money, because that constitutes prostitution, a crime. However, like the waiter, there may be a social expectation present that is not a contracted element. Almost nobody would be willing to pay a complete stranger several hundred bucks for the privilege of treating them to a meal at your expense. However, Leslie and Drake can make a living by doing just that, with an unspoken commitment that, barring some reason, your night out with them is likely to end in bed.

But like the tip, that’s not an element of a contract – rather an expectation mutually understood.

So does that qualify for prostitution, then, in the eyes of the law? Or is that scenario you described too difficult to prosecute so they look the other way and the vice squad brings down the obvious street hookers?

[DesertDog]

@Polycarp

Almost nobody would be willing to pay a complete stranger several hundred bucks for the privilege of treating them to a meal at your expense. However, Leslie and Drake can make a living by doing just that, with an unspoken commitment that, barring some reason, your night out with them is likely to end in bed.

Reminds me of an episode in Barney Miller where a hooker was robbed and is in the station house giving her statement. She said something like, “I was selling pens. A guy bought one for a hundred dollars. I went up to his hotel room to thank him . . . Skipping ahead a little bit–”

To which Miller interjected, “Please do.”

[Contrapuntal]

@Polycarp

It is, however, illegal in most jurisdictions to sell sexual services (prostitution) – leading to the old joke that sex is the one thing it’s legal to give away but illegal to sell.

A kidney being another.

[pkbites]

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once where a hooker was insisting to the police that she was only selling condoms, but they came with a free demonstration.

I recall that when I’ve given blood there was a question on the form asking if I’ve had sex with anyone in exchange for money or other valueables.

Does paying the mortgage and cable count? Because If I don’t pay the bills, I’m not getting any!

[Kevbo]

@elbows

And then I would ask, “Have you ever known him not to fulfill a financial obligation?”

Well I’d probably pause a second or two just to digest what exactly that question meant…I’d need to translate from your formalized, somewhat leagalistic language, into my own vernacular, before even considering the answer.
Apparently such pauses are accepted by many, as my friends still get thier security clearances even though I have to ask for clarification on about 25% of the questions the investigators ask.

[Siam_Sam]

@pkbites

No. The old chestnut that an undercover/plainclothes police officer has to I.D. themselves is a myth born on t.v. shows. The police can lie in these situations.

I was certain there was a Straight Dope column on this, but I can’t seem to find it. But what you said was the gist of it.

[Ponderoid]

@Siam Sam

I was certain there was a Straight Dope column on this, but I can’t seem to find it.

Perhaps you’re thinking of the Snopes article.

*** Ponder

[GuanoLad]

@pkbites

I had crossed from 5 weeks to 6 weeks vacation on my 25th anniversary and retired 12 days later.

Well, there’s another myth busted. 12 days from retirement, and you lived beyond it. On TV and the movies, Cops never retire, they always get shot just a few days shy.

[pkbites]

@GuanoLad

Well, there’s another myth busted. 12 days from retirement, and you lived beyond it. On TV and the movies, Cops never retire, they always get shot just a few days shy.

I intentionally worked some time past my real date so that I would have renewed vacation weeks (which came on July 1st) That netted me an additional $7800 (I got longevity pay, education incentive pay, shift differential, and so on which raised my pay beyond the base).

The reason it was 12 days was we had a 5 on 2 off, 5 on 3 off slide schedule.
My last 2 weeks were 5 on, 2 off, 5 on and see ya later.