Well (apart from the spelling) you're right on. Getting a conviction would mean proving the hotel management—are we convicting the day manager, the national management, or the international chain?—was actually aware of the activities of particular guests in particular rooms. So it goes on.toughb said:
When we entertain ourselves with these discussions: "Outcall is legal but incalls aren't", "Does on-time make a bawdyhouse" we're playing Judge in a TERB courtroom. Tha law says what the law says. That's what is illegal, all else is legal. But a judge has to decide, helped along by authories and previous precedent, what words like 'customary' or, 'for the purpose of' mean in the context of a particular case. Then us amateurs glom onto the bits we like to buttress our chosen activity.
Consider: A guy rents a hotel room just for one outcall. That's 'for the purpose', but isn't 'customary'. He does it a couple more times and gets the same room, while his buddy who's with him on every junket always gets a different room. Is either or both guilty? And are they operating in any of the instances, or just found-ins? Did the MegaHilton commit a crime? What about the guy on the desk of the four-room hotel who promised he'd send the ladies right up, and asked if they'd been booked yet? And what about the guy who regularly has outcalls to his house? To party with his buddies?
Here's what we know: paying for sex is legal. There are laws that punish streetwalking and whorehouses. If any of that was clear, detailed or certain, there would be no lawyers. That's it. For safety, avoid both the first two, and hopefully you won't need the third.
Otherwise have fun, debating and debauching.
