GLORY HOLES - As a serious business Idea
- Thread starter Sexaddicted
- Start date
You don't need a lawyer for this kind of scenario.This got me thinking about various loop holes in the "bawdy house" laws.
I'm pretty sure swingers clubs exist legally. I think the idea behind it is that you aren't paying for sex so much as you are paying for "admission" into a club where sex is being had.
Surely there is away you could work something out with SPs.
How about this for instance:
- You pay $50 for a one night membership into a social club
- The social club also sells soda via "waitresses"
- There are "waitresses" standing around waiting to be called on
- You call on a waitress of your choosing and order a soda
- The "waitress" brings you a soda that is listed on the menu as costing $200, so you pay the amount
- After she brings you your soda, she immediately gets a "break" from work, and (of her own free will) decides to have consensual sex with you either right there, or in a backroom?
You have not paid for sex, you've paid for soda
There are no indecency laws being broken because it's a private members club.
The "waitresses" can be paid on commission for the soda that's sold. That way they are even paying taxes.
I'm sure somebody has thought of this loop hole already. So are there any lawyers who could tell me why this would still be illegal?
Just picture yourself on the jury and someone tells you that story. Do you conclude the individual was paying for sex? Or soda and got lucky?
+1. Soda (or pop as you Canucks say) for $200? Yeah, that sounds legit.You don't need a lawyer for this kind of scenario.
Just picture yourself on the jury and someone tells you that story. Do you conclude the individual was paying for sex? Or soda and got lucky?
And why would you just pay $250 for 10-15 of sex in the bathroom when you can hire a SP for $250 for the hour and have sex on a comfortable bed?
Wouldn't it be irrelevant what the customer felt he was paying for?You don't need a lawyer for this kind of scenario.
Just picture yourself on the jury and someone tells you that story. Do you conclude the individual was paying for sex? Or soda and got lucky?
If it were on the general ledger that the sale of inventory was $200 and a profit was shown of $199. And then payroll showed a payment to a girl of a certain amount, say $185, as commission for the expensive soda, then he actually WAS paying for the soda.
As an argument, you go to a restaurant and order a steak and a beer. You eat the steak, but send the beer back because it's flat. When the bill comes you tell the waitress with a bill for $50.00, you tell her that you're only paying $5.00 because you sent back the beer which you "feel" cost $45.00.
So my argument is, surely it doesn't matter what you FEEL you are paying for. There is a menu, with prices, associated costs, etc.,. which all point towards what you ARE paying for.
Who said anything about 10 to 15 minutes of sex in a bathroom?+1. Soda (or pop as you Canucks say) for $200? Yeah, that sounds legit.
And why would you just pay $250 for 10-15 of sex in the bathroom when you can hire a SP for $250 for the hour and have sex on a comfortable bed?
You could have a "break-room" with a couch, and her "break" could last an hour.
Oy.Wouldn't it be irrelevant what the customer felt he was paying for?
If it were on the general ledger that the sale of inventory was $200 and a profit was shown of $199. And then payroll showed a payment to a girl of a certain amount, say $185, as commission for the expensive soda, then he actually WAS paying for the soda.
As an argument, you go to a restaurant and order a steak and a beer. You eat the steak, but send the beer back because it's flat. When the bill comes you tell the waitress with a bill for $50.00, you tell her that you're only paying $5.00 because you sent back the beer which you "feel" cost $45.00.
So my argument is, surely it doesn't matter what you FEEL you are paying for. There is a menu, with prices, associated costs, etc.,. which all point towards what you ARE paying for.
okay. Say I go to this same club and pay a very high price for a soda, go to a private room and find a bag of cocaine there. Lucky me.
Nobody gets charged for trafficing right?
How about this. You try it and report back how it goes.
How about this. This big burly guy comes by my house with a box of girl guide cookies and a price list of $5000 a bag. I give him $5,000 and fortunately he takes his car and runs over someone I hate. No murder for hire right?
Shall I go on?
There's no need to be a smart ass here.Oy.
okay. Say I go to this same club and pay a very high price for a soda, go to a private room and find a bag of cocaine there. Lucky me.
Nobody gets charged for trafficing right?
How about this. You try it and report back how it goes.
How about this. This big burly guy comes by my house with a box of girl guide cookies and a price list of $5000 a bag. I give him $5,000 and fortunately he takes his car and runs over someone I hate. No murder for hire right?
Shall I go on?
If there was a big bag of cocaine, I would imagine NOBODY would be trafficking unless they could prove who left it there. You would probably be charged with possession if you kept hold of it.
As far as your big burly guy scenario goes, I would hope that it would have to be proven that you had actually had the conversation with him where you requested him to kill that person. Otherwise it could be argued that if somebody from Greenpeace came by my house and got a donation from me and then accidentally ran over my neighbor, then I must have PAID him for doing so.
This is why I wanted a lawyer to reply, I'd like something well thought out. Rather than just ridiculous comparisons.
I am a lawyer. Your original scenario is absurd, and it got the response it deserves.There's no need to be a smart ass here.
If there was a big bag of cocaine, I would imagine NOBODY would be trafficking unless they could prove who left it there. You would probably be charged with possession if you kept hold of it.
As far as your big burly guy scenario goes, I would hope that it would have to be proven that you had actually had the conversation with him where you requested him to kill that person. Otherwise it could be argued that if somebody from Greenpeace came by my house and got a donation from me and then accidentally ran over my neighbor, then I must have PAID him for doing so.
This is why I wanted a lawyer to reply, I'd like something well thought out. Rather than just ridiculous comparisons.
Let me help you with some legalese. Evidence does not have to be direct, it can be circumstantial. In addition the trier of fact is entitled to infer intent from actions.
In your world (wherever it may be) the conviction rate would be very low.
This is a dumb idea.
I don't see the point of sticking your cock through a hole in the wall to have an unknown (supposedly female, but probably old gay dude suck your cock).
It that's what you're into, just head over to the local men's spa and get your cock sucked for free.
I don't see the point of sticking your cock through a hole in the wall to have an unknown (supposedly female, but probably old gay dude suck your cock).
It that's what you're into, just head over to the local men's spa and get your cock sucked for free.
I'm aware of what circumstantial evidence is. At least I'm somewhat familiar with it's premise.I am a lawyer. Your original scenario is absurd, and it got the response it deserves.
Let me help you with some legalese. Evidence does not have to be direct, it can be circumstantial. In addition the trier of fact is entitled to infer intent from actions.
In your world (wherever it may be) the conviction rate would be very low.
In my scenario, sex was had after a great deal of money was paid for a soda. You claim that it is therefore inferred that a great deal of money was paid for sex. This is your circumstantial evidence.
However could it not be proven with direct evidence (the company's general ledger) that a great deal of money was actually paid for a soda. And that the girl was paid as a result of selling the soda? The company would have financial statements to back this up. They would have been paying tax based on these figures. The girls would have been paying income tax based on their income from selling expensive sodas. This strikes me as relevant direct evidence that it was soda being sold, not sex.
I would imagine that there's a good chance of arguing it was bawdy house because people were specifically going there to participate in acts of indecency, rather than to participate in prostitution. But I don't agree with your reasoning.
I have tried to be as kind and gentle in explaining why your scenario would not fool anyone, and not offer any of the participants protection from criminal prosecution. In fact that kind of pattern of conduct would make the crown think you might be laundering money as well. I could make a ledger that shows whatever the fuck I want.I'm aware of what circumstantial evidence is. At least I'm somewhat familiar with it's premise.
In my scenario, sex was had after a great deal of money was paid for a soda. You claim that it is therefore inferred that a great deal of money was paid for sex. This is your circumstantial evidence.
However could it not be proven with direct evidence (the company's general ledger) that a great deal of money was actually paid for a soda. And that the girl was paid as a result of selling the soda? The company would have financial statements to back this up. They would have been paying tax based on these figures. The girls would have been paying income tax based on their income from selling expensive sodas. This strikes me as relevant direct evidence that it was soda being sold, not sex.
I would imagine that there's a good chance of arguing it was bawdy house because people were specifically going there to participate in acts of indecency, rather than to participate in prostitution. But I don't agree with your reasoning.
Your idea is stupid, would fool no one, and now I have nothing left to suggest to you except to grow up.
In fact I have to go a step further and wonder if you really are as stupid as your idea suggests or perhaps your ability to reason effectively has otherwise been impaired.
Whoa.. You don't have to get upset over it and start this name calling. It was just an idea.I have tried to be as kind and gentle in explaining why your scenario would not fool anyone, and not offer any of the participants protection from criminal prosecution. In fact that kind of pattern of conduct would make the crown think you might be laundering money as well. I could make a ledger that shows whatever the fuck I want.
Your idea is stupid, would fool no one, and now I have nothing left to suggest to you except to grow up.
In fact I have to go a step further and wonder if you really are as stupid as your idea suggests or perhaps your ability to reason effectively has otherwise been impaired.
You need to relax a bit, dude.
Relaxing is not my strong suit. ;-)Whoa.. You don't have to get upset over it and start this name calling. It was just an idea.
You need to relax a bit, dude.
I fully admit to finding it frustrating when people lack the most basic reasoning skills.
Having said that, why don't we take an objective approach. If you think you idea has any merit at all, why don't you start a new thread with a poll asking if they believe your idea would work. Don't take my word for it, do some market testing.
I suspect he gave up being nice when you said you wanted a lawyers response, figuring he didn't know of what he spoke.Whoa.. You don't have to get upset over it and start this name calling. It was just an idea.
You need to relax a bit, dude.
How was I supposed to know he was a lawyer? This isn't Linkedin.I suspect he gave up being nice when you said you wanted a lawyers response, figuring he didn't know of what he spoke.
Whatever buddy.. You do realize that this was a thread about sticking your dick through a hole in the wall, right?Relaxing is not my strong suit. ;-)
I fully admit to finding it frustrating when people lack the most basic reasoning skills.
Having said that, why don't we take an objective approach. If you think you idea has any merit at all, why don't you start a new thread with a poll asking if they believe your idea would work. Don't take my word for it, do some market testing.
Why get all bent out of shape about somebody arguing the opposing side of a hypothetical situation?
You've been a member since mid 2009 and it sounds like you haven't read many posts/threads in the Lounge or P&IA forums or you would have known.How was I supposed to know he was a lawyer? This isn't Linkedin.
This thread is about 'running a business' where guys stick their dicks through a hole. You ask for feedback and it appears you got some you don't agree with and even challenged.Whatever buddy.. You do realize that this was a thread about sticking your dick through a hole in the wall, right?
Why get all bent out of shape about somebody arguing the opposing side of a hypothetical situation?
You're kidding me?? You knew he was a lawyer??? LOLYou've been a member since mid 2009 and it sounds like you haven't read many posts/threads in the Lounge or P&IA forums or you would have known.
I didn't know he had a reputation here... Sorry.
I do read the odd post in the lounge, and I participate when I feel like it. However, I don't keep tabs on what various contributors claim to do for a living.
Mostly I read the incalls section... I'm a bit of a perv that way
Well, I think there are about 6 lawyers on this BB, from both sides of the border, and maybe more who keep it to themselves. Their expertise and differences in opinions can be quite instructive.You're kidding me?? You knew he was a lawyer??? LOL
I didn't know he had a reputation here... Sorry.
I do read the odd post in the lounge, and I participate when I feel like it. However, I don't keep tabs on what various contributors claim to do for a living.
Mostly I read the incalls section... I'm a bit of a perv that way
