Posted on 07/05/2003 4:05:06 AM PDT by Lorenb420
MONTREAL -- Swingers clubs will spring up across Canada because of a judge ruling their activities are not necessarily illegal, the head of a swingers group said yesterday. Municipal court Judge Denis Boisvert found five people guilty of swinging-related offences, but decided "contemporary Canadian society tolerates swinging and swingers clubs if the sexual acts take place in private."
Jean Hamel, president of the 8,000-member Quebec Swingers Association, said Boisvert's ruling will have national significance.
"I don't think more clubs will open in Quebec but I think it will open doors for other places in Canada, like Toronto."
Judge Boisvert found a man and his daughter guilty on two counts each of running a bawdy-house. Three other people were convicted of being present in a bawdy-house.
At the heart of the ruling was the notion of public sex versus private sex.
"If the sexual acts take place in public, even among consenting adults, that is no longer swinging, but an orgy," he wrote. "And Canadians do not tolerate orgies or other Canadians participating in orgies."
Oh Canada--where men are sometimes men and sheep are scared.
In the strictest Roman tradition, it's not an orgy unless food is served.
ROFL!
The first issue is that it is illegal to grow, posses, sell, or use grass. It doesn't matter where it's done, it's still illegal, whether it's on your own private property or not. On the other hand, as we've seen now, sex between two consenting adults, in the privacy of their home has been ruled legal. Sex is not illegal between 2 consenting adults: But the crime of prostitution seems to be the exchange of something of value for sexual acts. The key is that those acts are NOT illegal, if there's no exchange. So that brings up the question, if you're on a date, and you pay for the lady's dinner, movie, or whatever, and you "get lucky," should that be illegal as prostitution? You've given her something of value, and gotten sex in return. Or how about when a husband gives his wife a valuable gift, like a diamond ring? If she "rewards" him, why is this OK, while a man who gives a prostitute the same ring, or something else of value committing a crime? It would seem that Does the fact that they're married make giving gifts to a wife OK, but to someone else that you have sex with a crime? If so, that would effectively grant the state the right of licensing and sanctioning sex between two consenting adults, which given this ruling, the state can't do.
I guess I just wanted to get some other ideas on this. It seems to me that this latest SCOTUS ruling has really opened up a pandoras box on this issue and others.
Mark
PS The reason that I bring this up is that in the Kansas City area, there's a massive crackdown going on with prostitution, and it's been in the papers and on the TV news. Two weeks ago, they made more than 100 arrests.
As much as the defenders of this decision deny it, it does open up a lot of other challenges.
Prostitution can be tacitly legislated since it is a commerical transaction.
Not so incest. There is a current case in California where a 17 year old boy is being charged with a felony count of incest for having sex with his 22 year old sister (who has not been charged). She got pregnant but miscarried the child so that is not an issue in the charge.
The people who supported the reduction of sentencing against members of the same sex who commit acts of statutory rape (or child molestation) (they thought 17 years sentencing was extreme for a homosexual act committed by an 18 year old on a 14 year old) have been silent on thi consensual incest case.
If a person grows the marijuana at home (indoors) and smokes it at home (indoors), and does not traffic in his stash, I don't know if the states or feds can legislate against it anymore (as long as there is no commerce). After all it is the act of a consenting adult in the privacy of his or her own home.
Don't expect to see these other laws dropped as quickly as all of the sodomy laws were. Other sex laws will remain to be challenged as will drug laws, and other privacy laws.
Even the states that are trying to outlaw tobacco smoking at home (under the guise of child abuse) don't seem to feel threatened by the Supreme Court's stance on privacy.
Think that the Court's recognition of privacy will keep the doctors from sharing medical information with the pharmecutical companies or police?
A: She'd have to write too many thank you notes.
A: "Stop, Daddy. Yer mashin' mah cigarettes."
" . . . I'm Soooooooooo drunk . . . "
" . . . I'm Soooooooooo drunk . . . "
Unless she's a redhead in which case it's "Next!"
Well, maybe not... In order to skirt the laws (unsuccessfuly), it seems that prostitutes designate their payments as gifts, saying that the "gift" is a token of appreciation for their time. As such, if it really is a "gift," then according to the tax codes, it is NEVER taxable income, and the "gift giver" is only subject to paying a gift tax if the total annual "gift" exceeds $11,000 to this one individual. As such, I believe that there may be some validity to the assertion that it is not a commercial transaction, any more than when a boyfriend gives his girlfriend a diamond pendant or earrings, and she thanks him in a private and personal manner. It could be considered a gift in the truest sense of the word. Technically, the prostitute is not forced or in any way compelled to provide the "gift giver" with sex.
Mark
I only go by what I read, no personal experience, but I think that while this may be true of an "escort" (someone to have hang on your arm, dine with you, keep you company, show you around, show you a good time, etc.), a "prostitute" will negotiate the price for certain acts ahead of time (negotiate for the amount of time together and then so much money for each sex act). This includes massage parlors (different prices depending on what exactly is massaged).
I've heard that the MO legislature has gone after massage parlors and "private" or "sensual" massages. I believe that in the state of MO, in order to advertise or give a "massage," you must be a licensed massage therapist (licensed by the state, much like a barber or hair stylist). It's actually illegal to give a "massage" if you're not licensed. To get around that, many "enterprising ladies" had taken the term "body rub" to do what you posted about. I've heard that the MO legislature actually passed a law classifing "body rubs" as massages, and are going after the "ladies" that way now.
Still, if a man and a woman (who is of age, of course) negotiate "time" together, then go to his or her place, if it's in the privacy of one of their homes, I can't possibly see how what they do is illegal, given the recent SCOTUS ruling... The best that could be hoped for might be a zoning violation, for conducting business in a residential area. But I don't even see how they could go after the lady for tax evasion, if both consider the fee a "gift." And if that's the case, then there couldn't even be a zoning violation... If it were, then birthday and anniversary parties would have to be outlawed.
Mark
From what I can tell, "escorts" are simply more discrete prostitutes, where no sexual acts are discussed directly, but it's assumed that's what's going to happen. They're also quite different from the "street walker," who can be a terrible thing for property values in a neighborhood, but more importantly, is going to be in danger from any psycho on the street who happens to come up to her: Someone like Ted Bundy, or another example would be the Green River Killer, who killed all those poor prostitutes in WA (I think). But here in the Kansas City area, they've always gone after streetwalkers when the population around Independence Ave finally gets pissed off enough, and they bust the ladies, and do stings to get the johns. The joke going around was that if the lady was somewhat attractive, then she was probably a cop! lol
But what's been going on in the KC area is a massive crackdown on escort agencies, massage (or body rubs) and escorts who advertise on the Internet, as well as in local publications. The key difference is that in order to come into contacts with these ladies, you have to go looking for them, either in local magazines, or on the Internet, as opposed to streetwalkers who are out and about, sometimes in residential areas. As I mentioned in my post, my interest in this comes from a massive operation involving 20 (I'm not kidding... TWENTY different) police agencies, from different cities, counties, and states. There are even rumors that the FBI was coordinating the busts! All to get 100 people arrested... And I've heard that 40 of those were strippers who allowed patrons to place dollar bills in places that apparantly the state believes should be off-limits... Here's an article on the "success" of the stings. I've also heard that many of the charges were dropped. It looks like the police were a bit overzealous in making the arressts in order to get the numbers up. I wonder just how much money was spent to get those 100 arrests, and if that money could have been spent in better ways...
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.