Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

[NSFW] A loophole for a de facto brothel? (details inside)

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26879points) June 22nd, 2011
9 responses
“Great Question” (0points)

They say there is always a way to do something, and no it isn’t what I am trying…. Say a person, man or woman, has a rather large house. They fine some very attractive women of the evening and hip them to the joint. The girls sign in, in the morning and are considered independent contractor like day laborers, the only stipulation is that if some one visits, that falls within their threshold and initiates sex with them, they have to comply; at least vaginal and oral, up to one hour tops. They also have to boink at least one guest a day to stay eligible to work in the house. While boinking the guest know they will be taped, as a keep sake of their time, or they can choose to reject it. They receive an hourly rate of pay just to be there even if no one shows. What tips are left by the guest are split percent wise to how many guest they serviced that day, IE, if there were eight guest and three women and one spent time with four guest she would get 50% of the tips and the other girls would spit the other 50% proportionately to what they did.

The guest male or female, would pay to have access to the house, they never pay the girls directly. They can help themselves to the bar, the spa, the pool, etc. They can approach any of the girls and then use one of the bedrooms to do a horizontal mambo. He/she leaves a tip to the house on the way out. If they want more they pay the house for another hour. The guest gets serviced, the girls make money doing what they do best but the sex between them and the guest no money exchanges so it is by legal definition not prostitution.

How could there be a legal challenge to that? How can one say it is by legal definition prostitution? Who can say that is not an innovative end around on the current laws on the books?

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

bkcunningham's avatar

The first obvious problems I see include zoning and taxes. I don’t understand the video taping part of your scheme.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

If there is a zoning problem, if there is no signage noone knows what it is just by passing, I am sure some creative labeling will take care of that. People spring up day care around here all the time in just about any place without seemingly a zoning problem.

The taping is the added layer of insurance, should someone try to say he/she paid the girl for sex it can be explained away she is employed for the day by the club/house and was paid as a performer helping the guest make a sex tape. The tape comes free with the cost but the guest don’t have to take it once it is recorded.

zenvelo's avatar

It’s a house of ill repute. The guest are paying a fee for services, and one of the services is sex. That’s called a brothel.

They are also selling liquor without a license, and they are offering rooming without a hotel license. And the tape would be evidence that the house is selling sex to the customers.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@zenvelo The guest are paying a fee for services, and one of the services is sex. If they are there to make a sex tape legally they are not there to have pleasure sex with the woman, any more having a madam whip you is not assult. The liquor is on the house, free of charge, they can have a shot, a class, or 5 glasses; no charge.

I see where someone can try to use the tape. There will be 15 pre-made scripts they can use, but if they don’t follow the script well I guess it is because they are amateur actors.

ratboy's avatar

You’ve got to work medical marijuana into this scheme somehow.

flutherother's avatar

There was a case in the UK a while back of a woman charged with running a brothel from her home. Guests paid for raffle tickets and these were then exchanged for sexual services with the ladies present at what was ostensibly a house party. I think the neighbours complained and she was charged and sentenced.

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central You can’t charge a fee and then provide free booze without a liquor license.

You can’t say “they are there to make a sex tape legally” and say you aren’t charging for sex. That excuse won’t work. Your construct is to get around the law, a prosecutor would point that out and win the case.

It’s like calling it a massage parlor; you pay for the massage and the sex is free and voluntary. That doesn’t work either.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@zenvelo That what is go good about American law, if you sweat the details you can almost get away with murder if the guy was in your house, you practically can with ease. In Califonria is says, “prostitution” means engaging in sexual intercourse or any lewd act with another person in exchange for money or other consideration.. Technically, any guy who takes a woman out to the concert and dinner with the ideal he is going to boink her later has solicited for prostitution if she gave in or sent him home after coffee with a peck on the cheek. That passage is also the lynch pin. So long as it can be proven he is not engaging him in a sexual act for the sake of the sexual act but acting as an extra in the sex tape he is creating about his fantacy she is basically in the same status as a porn star.
As you say the proving requirements at least in Cali are leapable,

• driving to an agreed upon location where the sexual activity will take place,22

• a verbal command, such as instructing the prostitute to undress (words are sufficient to constitute an “act in furtherance” as long as they are clear and unambiguous),23

• handing over the agreed upon payment.

No one is going to any location, they are already there and would have been for at least a quarter of an hour before any clothes came off.

There would be no verbal commands she was giving him or him to her; it is all in the script. Should they try to say instead of putting her on all fours as the script said he put her on her knees and grabbed her pony tail for some tongue action, he simply said he forgot what the script said and ad-lib it.

She took no money directly from him, or anything else, not even a tip, he gave nothing to her directly, not even a tip.

The booze would be wrote off on the books as having been shoplifted, embezzled, stolen, whatever; it was there but someone just took it without asking. Simple.

Dang, I love how American law has so many holes.

@ratboy Give me time, the place will be smelling like Cheech and Chong’s van.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`