This is actually a question I have wondered for some time, possibly since grade school, or at least high school, in any event.
What if you want to have a child, as a young nubile female. But you don’t want to get married, or pay the high fees for artificial insemination. So you pay some gigolo to impregnate you.
Is that prostitution? Or is that just surrogacy, a rather more crude form of artificial insemination, if you will?
I trust you can see why I think that is a interesting question. And I put it in GD, because I assume different people will provide different answers to it.
And while we’re at it, what does the law have to say about this? And the courts? (I know in California, from what I read, porno actors can’t be charged with prostitution, because it isn’t prostitution, people. It’s free speech. Even if you disagree with that, it is what the courts had to say, when they stepped in. So there might be some room for precedent here too:rolleyes:.)
But back to my question. And thank you in advance to all who reply:):):)
I am of the impression that most surrogacy involves no actual sex. The eggs are usually harvested and inseminated outside the body, and the embryo re-inserted to the womb after its viability have been weighed.
Well, the question is a bit not-real-world, since a young nubile female who wishes to have sex generally doesn’t have to pay anyone to have her wishes realised. Plenty of chivalrous young men will be happy to gratify her wishes without monetary reward. Plus, as Isamu points out, surrogacy doesn’t have to involve sexual intercourse and, more often than not, doesn’t.
But, given the question, is it prostitution? Obviously that’s going to depend on the laws of the jurisdiction where this happens, but on the face of it yes, the gigolo is a prostitute (has sex for money) and the woman paying him is the client (pays someone to have sex with her).
So far as I recall, paying porn actors and actresses to have sex was found not to be prostitution in California because the person making the payment - the producer - did so not for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, but for the commercial purpose of making a profit. On that basis this transaction might not be unlawful in California because the purpose is, again, not sexual arousal or gratification but pregnancy. Obviously other jurisdictions may have differently-written laws governing sex work, so the transaction might well be unlawful.
Ex facie yes it’s prostitution, but which nubile young woman does not have battalions of young men egar to service her whether or not she is available or not?
I disagree with both options. It’s not prostitution since the end game is the seed, not to act. It’s not surrogacy since the vast majority of jurisdictions would likely consider the male to be a parent and require them to at least provide financially for the child.
Consider this professor in NY:
While he usually donates just sperm, he occasionally has sex with these women to help them conceive. However, this has not stopped several of the women to sue him (successfully) for child support.
