Sugar Babies are not prostitute under CA Penal Code 647(b)

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by revjoel2013, Feb 9, 2014.

  1. #1 revjoel2013, Feb 9, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2014
    As used in this subdivision, "prostitution" includes any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.” -California Penal Code 647( B)
    “(8) No Requirement of Public Place nor of Person Present to Be Offended
    ... Stated another way, the act of solicitation can occur in a [***28] private place and it may be intended that the sexual acts solicited are to be performed in a private place. There is no limiting language of being in a "public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view" in subdivision ( B) (prostitution) as there is in subdivision (a) (lewd conduct) of section 647. The Hill case places no requirement of "public place, etc." in its redefinition of "prostitution. “ – People v Love 111 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1; 168 Cal. Rptr. 591;

    “"[For] a 'lewd' or 'dissolute' act to constitute 'prostitution,' the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute." (Italics added.)” THE PEOPLE v. HAROLD FREEMAN, 46 Cal. 3d 419; 758 P.2d 1128;

    ““Prostitute” is woman who offers herself indiscriminately to sexual intercourse for hire.” - People v. Robison 4 Cal.App.3d 1014

    “Second, the language of the MPC's prostitution law could be changed to make it easier to prosecute Category One and some Category Three arrangements. Currently, the MPC's “as a business” clause could protect Category One arrangements by requiring a fact-based inquiry into the purpose of each arrangement. 215 Such an inquiry could make it time consuming for prosecutors to pursue unguaranteed charges. To make it easier for prosecutors to secure charges, the MPC's language could be modified to outlaw sexual acts performed “for the financial enrichment of one party. , 216 With this change, the prosecutor would no longer have to prove that the sugar baby engaged in the exchange as part of a “business.” Instead, the prosecutor would simply need to show that the sex for money exchange occurred and that it was performed for some financial benefit.” – Motyl , Jacqueline. (2012-2013) “Trading Sex for College Tuition: How Sugar Daddy “Dating” Sites May Be Sugar Coating Prostitution. pg. 955 (11)

    “A case might be made for limiting the offense of prostitution to “promiscuous” sexual activity for hire. 25 Requiring promiscuity as well as hire would, for example, bar prosecution of a mistress who is supported by her lover. Such situations fall somewhat outside the target evils of our Section, but the “hire” requirement itself is probably a sufficient safeguard, since the lover's financial contributions in these relationships are more likely to be interpreted as gifts out of general affection rather than “hire” for sexual activity.” –Model Penal Code Comment pg.175 (12)

    “Hire vb. To employ a person for labor or services. A bailment, where a compensation is to be given for the use of a thing, or for labor or services about it. The contract of letting and hiring is usually divided into two kinds; first, Locatio, or” -Dean's Law Dictionary

    “This was not a meretricious relationship and sexual relations were collateral to the companionship of the parties.” - Bergen v. Wood, 14 Cal.App.4th 854 (1993)

    “[8b] We conclude that the judicial barriers that may stand in the way of a policy based upon the fulfillment of the reasonable expectations of the parties to a nonmarital relationship should be removed. As we have explained, the courts now hold that express agreements will be enforced unless they rest on an unlawful meretricious consideration. We add that in the absence of an express agreement, the courts may look to a variety of other remedies in order to protect the parties' lawful expectations. fn. 24” - Marvin v. Marvin , 18 Cal.3d 660


    This is my theory and not legal advice. The journal articles state the prosecutors must meet the elements in the Model Penal Code in prostitution cases. California 647( B) is dealing with prostitutes and customers and not sugar babies and sugar daddies. First, there is a hiring requirement in the terms “lewd acts.” A prostitute is hired by the pimp. Hire requires a third party being served and a bailment created. A sugar baby serve only the sugar daddy and no third party. Sugar relationship doesn't meet the definition of “hire.” It will meet the definition of contracting. Also sugar babies don't meet the second requirement of a prostitute which is indiscriminate. There is no indiscriminate sexual activity between the sugar baby and sugar daddy. CA Penal Code 647 ( B) requires paying for sex with a prostitute. A sugar baby is not a prostitute. In order to meet the definition under 647 (b) there must be payment to engage in sex with a prostitute.  Paying to engage in sex with a sugar baby doesn't meet the definition of prostitution in 647 (b). Sexual encounter between sugar daddy and sugar baby is not a lewd act because sugar baby is not a prostitute. A sugar baby doesn't indiscriminately have sex and is not hired by a pimp.

    “Lewd acts” are unlawful acts regardless of public or private. Lewd acts can be sex with a child or sex in public where it offend someone. Sex between consenting adults are not lewd acts unless there is a pimp involved. If one party makes an agreement with a pimp before having sex, the sex act is unlawful so it is a lewd act. We cannot bases our laws on what your neighbor said a lewd act is and is not. Someone can say that two homosexual men having sex in private is a lewd act. That is not true. Paying or not paying doesn't change the act from not lewd to lewd. There must be an unlawful element involved that make the sex act lewd. The pay is independent of the lewd act in 647( B) and not dependent. So lewd act cannot be defined as paying for sex. It can be defined as paying for unlawful sex.
    The California Supreme Court established the right to cohabitation contract in Marvin v Marvin because there was no pimp involved. If there was a pimp involved, the relationship will be meretricious. I don't know if the justices factor in the “pimp” theory into this decision.

  2. How many times do we have to tell you that A.) You Dont know what you're talking about, and B.) Nobody cares.?

Share This Page