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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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”?.
