Ravenwood - 08/03/05 06:15 AM
Ravenwood on prostitution:
The idea that you cannot charge someone money for something it is perfectly legal to give away, is perplexing. What's more, if you film it and distribute it, it's called art and you can pay both parties.As long as all the parties are consenting adults, I don't see the harm in either activity. But a Manhattan judge says there's a world of difference.
Prostitution, as traditionally defined, requires person A paying person B for sexual activity to be performed on A, Supreme Court Justice Budd G. Goodman wrote in People v. Paulino, 6687/04.Glad he cleared that up.Pornography, on the other hand, involves person C paying B for sexual activity performed on A.
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (6) top link me
There's the planet with 26 sexes (mu's are so stand-offish) where it's not so simple, especially when the porn possibilities are added.
So according to him, if my buddy gives the chick the money, I'm cool right?
Posted by: Nick Bourbaki at August 3, 2005 10:10 AMNick -
As long as he's filming, yes...
Posted by: roger at August 3, 2005 11:19 AMWell then, I guess we all know our ABC's now.
Posted by: Steve Scudder at August 3, 2005 1:57 PMSo how does the good barrister explain the ritual of dating? It seems that someone always ends up paying for it in one way or another!
Posted by: Gosshawk at August 3, 2005 11:07 PMProstitution: Paying for sex.
Dating: Paying for things you hope will lead to sex.
Marriage: Paying for no sex.
(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1.99K - 2K7
