Sex Work

Exchanging Anything of Value for Sex Will Soon Be a Crime in Oregon

The measure is now awaiting the signature of Democratic Gov. Kate Brown.

|

Chealion/Flickr

There are a lot of hoary old jokes about the difference between dating or marriage and prostitution, but their punchlines all center on the idea that sex work and romantic bliss only differ by a matter of degrees. Oregon officials are now working to close this gap, by broadening the scope of activity that can be criminalized as prostitution. Under a measure passed unanimously by state Senators this week, the offense of "promoting prostitution" will include not just facilitating sexual services for a fee but also receiving goods, services, or anything of value in exchange for aiding, promoting, or "caus(ing) someone to engage" in prostitution. 

The bill was passed by the Oregon House of Representatives on February 4, and is now awaiting the signature of Democratic Gov. Kate Brown. 

Lawmakers say the measure is needed in order to prosecute sex traffickers, who often recieve things other than cash for facilitating sexual contact with victims. Granted, no one has any evidence of this happening at all, let alone frequently, but when they do, I guess Oregon lawmakers will be prepared. 

Sex-worker advocates, meanwhile, say the measure will harm the most vulnerable among them the most. Many homeless young people wind up exchanging sexual favors for shelter, food, and other basic needs because resources like homeless shelters are way too overstretched, they pointed out to lawmakers. Criminalizing these attempts to survive won't open up more shelter beds, it will just make survival that much harder. 

While we haven't gotten dystopian enough quite yet for cops to target conventional dating under this statute, it seems plenty plausible that it would be used to go after grey areas. "Sugar baby" relationships—where wealthy, older men provide gifts, pay rent, etc., for women they're sexually involved with—are a tale as old as time, but now that they're facilitated by apps and websites, their transactional nature has been turning more meddling heads. 

Nita Belles, managing director of an organization promoting the legislation, sees all of these things as perks. "It may be that somebody is sleeping on somebody's couch for the purposes of having a place to sleep, and in exchange for the opportunity to sleep on that couch, they are required to have sex with somebody in the house," she told KTVZ Oregon. "A tablet, an iPad, a computer, an iPhone—something like that in exchange for sex. So now, it doesn't have to be a transaction of money." 

"Belles said this will allow more prosecutions without the need for evidence of money being exchanged," KTVZ notes. 

NEXT: Activists Attempt to Shut Down Gay Conversion Therapy with FTC Complaint

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So a man in Oregon finds out his wife is cheating on him. He also finds out his wife’s lover has given her several expensive gifts. What is to stop him from calling the police and turning his wife in as a hooker?

    Yeah it is a stretch but suppose the husband is a cop or a DA or someone with connections. It sure seems to me that there would be enough evidence in this situation to charge them and make their lives hell even if the case would eventually result in an acquittal.

    1. Or a protective parent doesn’t like that girl who is corrupting their precious little boy.

      1. If only I had that parent when I was young…

    2. That is not a stretch at all. I’m absolutely certain that situation will happen.

      1. Yeah, not like the current statutory rape and AoC laws haven’t led to any ridiculous jailings. No siree Bob.

    3. “So a man in Oregon finds out his wife is cheating on him.”

      Reminds me of this:
      A guy gets a text from his next-door neighbor that reads: “Hi Bob. I have a confession to make. I’ve been using your wife — mostly when you’re not around. It started out as just an occasional thing, but I’ve been getting on your wife a lot over the past few weeks. But it’s over now. I can’t live with the guilt. I am very sorry.”

      Bob, devastated and angry, goes to the kitchen, takes out a butcher knife, walks into the bedroom where his wife is reading and stabs her repeatedly.

      Moments later, he gets another text from the neighbor. “Man, I hate this auto-correct on here. It’s wi-fi, not wife. Anyway, I’ve got my own now, so no worries.”

    4. The law is about promoting prostitution, not prostitution itself. And the text of the law appears to specifically exempt payments directly to a prostitute for their services. So at least under this law, it would be a big stretch.

      1. Good catch. It is, however, still appallingly broad. It is actually even worse than the outright ban I thought it was.

        receiving goods, services, or anything of value in exchange for aiding, promoting, or “caus(ing) someone to engage

        So my neighbor is a hooker and I give her a ride to work at a massage parlor in exchange for gas money or her cleaning my apartment. Under this law I am a sex trafficker.

        1. Anybody who gives a ride to a non-celibate woman is a sex trafficker, john. They just haven’t been caught yet.

          1. Women should not be in public unless they are accompanied by their husband or a trusted male relative.

            1. +1 Saudi Arabia

            2. trusted male relative

              I hear there are several genres of porn fiction based on that scenario failing miserably.

              “You’ll be safe, Guinevere. Sir Lancelot will escort you.”

        2. Is this an attempt to target publications that run personal ads or ads for escort services? They would be receiving “value” (ad fees) in exchange for “aiding” or “promoting” prostitution, wouldn’t they?

          And as I type this…that language is so overbroad that Elizabeth could be prosecuted for accepting pay from Reason in exchange for her articles supporting the decriminalizing of sex work. She’s receiving “value” in exchange for “promoting” prostitution.

          Stay out of Oregon, Elizabeth!

      2. The law says, “A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution if …. (c) Receives or agrees to receive money, goods, [or other] property, services or something else of value, other than as a prostitute being compensated for personally rendered prostitution services” …. ” (d) Engages in any conduct that institutes, aids or facilitates an act or enterprise of prostitution.”

        Which means, yes, the prostitute is given a pass, but the service buyer, the john, sugar daddy, etc. appears to be still on the hook.

        These violence-minded, buttinsky prigs seem to be multiplying faster than we can put them down.

    5. The way ENB described it (receiving goods, services, or anything of value in exchange for aiding, promoting, or “caus(ing) someone to engage” in prostitution), it would be a stretch to apply it to hookers or johns. Not that the government wouldn’t try, but until they do, the wife and her lover (or the boss and the girl sleeping her way to the top) are probably safe.

  2. Sorry, ladies. I’m not picking up the check anymore.

    1. My companionship is so valuable that even going dutch makes me a john.

  3. “This isn’t a sugar daddy thing. This is just an older, established guy paying for his younger friend he has sex with kind of thing, so just get that right out of your mind, you know?”

    1. Who is your daddy thing?

  4. C’mon ENB, get with the narrative. The word “prostitution” just isn’t used anymore. It’s like quaint and stuff. It’s all sex-trafficking now. Even if there was no trafficking, it’s trafficking. Because trafficking is like scary and stuff, while prostitution is meh.

    1. right “prostitution” is obviously exchanging money for sex, which a lot of people dont have a problem with, but “trafficking” conjures up images of 12 year old vietnamese girls or something.

  5. So going Dutch is a legal requirement now.

  6. Under a measure passed unanimously

    That’s all that needs to be said about bipartisanship.

    1. Or about Oregon, maybe.

    2. stupid party and evil party join hands to do something both stupid & evil . . .

      1. The religious right and sex-negative feminists have been implicitly and sometimes even explicitly allied since at least the eighties.

  7. Holy cow, they’re banning marriage?!

    1. No, they’re outlawing sex outside of marriage.

      1. No, they’re outlawing sex outside of marriage.

        Even more accurate.

          1. HA!

      2. No, they’re outlawing sex outside of marriage.

    2. I work and the wife stays home, so I give her money.

      So, I want a law against NOT providing sex in exchange for money.

      1. I came here just to post that. I see I am not needed. Carry on.

        1. That is one of my favorite Onion articles ever. Maybe only behind the article I Think I’m Going About This Cat-Breeding Thing All Wrong

          And don’t sell yourself short. Sometimes my employer manages to wring some productivity out of me. We need you to be there to post that link if I can’t make it.

          1. Oh man, The Onion used to be funny. Like really funny, not this HEY DID YOU GET THE JOKE try-hard bullshit they post today.

            1. It has been downhill ever since they left Madison.

      2. i remember some old snl fake advertisement for a new razor with FIVE whole blades. it explained how it would take off your hair, then more hair, then epidermis, etc. we got real five blade razors a little bit ago. i dont know how it makes me feel when something is preparodied like that.

  8. Nita Belles, managing director of an organization promoting the legislation, sees all of these things as perks. “It may be that somebody is sleeping on somebody’s couch for the purposes of having a place to sleep, and in exchange for the opportunity to sleep on that couch, they are required to have sex with somebody in the house,”

    So my “Gas, Grass or Ass, nobody rides free” bumper sticker might be a violation of law in Oregon. Nice.

    1. “”It may be that somebody is sleeping on somebody’s couch for the purposes of having a place to sleep, and in exchange for the opportunity to sleep on that couch, they are required to have sex with somebody in the house,””

      Far, far better that this person have nowhere to sleep and either wind up on the street or in a homeless shelter, she went on to add.

      1. It’s a small enough price to pay for the ideological purity is someone who isn’t even affected. See also: golden rice.

          1. As long as I ain’t payin.

            *plays some R Kelly to get in the mood*

      2. A simple solution to the “homeless slut” problem: The bed-owner pays her $XX for sex, and the she pays the bed-owner $XX rent.

    2. No One Rides For Free

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..aan5J5SDQs

  9. Lawmakers say the measure is needed in order to prosecute sex traffickers, who often recieve things other than cash for facilitating sexual contact with victims.

    I used to suck dick for coke!

    1. So a guy goes into a Catholic Church one afternoon to pray for his sick wife. While he is praying he notices that a priest is taking confession. After one confession is over, the priest walks up to the man and says

      “excuse me sir but I really need to use the bathroom. Can you do me a favor and sit in on confession for me?”

      “Really? I can do that?”

      “Oh yeah, don’t worry. It is easy. Just be understanding and give them a few hail Mary’s in penance. I will just be gone a minute. You will be fine”

      So the guy says yes and goes in the box and a teenage girl comes up to give confession. She says

      “Bless me father for I have sinned. I gave a blowjob to my boyfriend last Friday”

      The guy stalls a bit but the priest doesn’t show back up. After a few minutes he tells the woman to wait and goes out and finds an alter boy. He asks

      “Hey kid, what do they usually give for a blowjob around here”

      And the kid responds

      “I usually get a candy bar and a Pepsi.”

  10. So all dating sites will be illegal?

  11. Sex-worker advocates, meanwhile, say the measure will harm the most vulnerable among them the most.

    Why are only sex workers upset about this? This law should upset everyone.

  12. Politicians don’t like the competition.

    1. If you like your stall, you can keep it.

  13. If I get sex in exchange for more sex… wha.. ok… never mind.

    1. That’s assuming sex with you is anything of value.

      1. That’s quite a leap of faith.

        1. That’s quite a leap of faith.

          So I meant nothing to you?

          1. You got a 6 piece McNuggets out of it.

            Market price.

            1. After offering my two-piece McNuggets to you? That hardly seems fair.

      2. AND IT’S WAFFLES FROM THE TOP ROPES

      3. APPLY COLD WATER TO BURNED AREA

    2. Mind. Blown.

  14. But I can still suck a dick for my personal enjoyment?!? LOOPHOLE!

    1. I believe that is a GLORYhole.

      1. *narrows gaze*

  15. OT: Turns out the woman who was allegedly gang raped in New York? The one whose dad supposedly ran to get help but no one could understand him because he was too drunk?

    Turns out her and her father made the whole thing up after having an incestuous sexual relationship with each other.

    “Almost from the moment the explosive allegations were made public, the case was dogged by questions about the accounts by the woman and her father, who later admitted they had been having sex in the park that night, and about the city’s handling of the case, which was criticized as being too slow.”

    1. People are fucking depraved. That entire thing never smelled right. No father leaves his daughter to be raped. And no gang of young rapey wannabes picks out a girl who is with her father to rape. Why would you do that when you could just look around and find a girl by herself?

    2. I thought that we’re supposed to believe the allegations anyway and move forward with the prosecution. Just in case.

      1. Women never lie about these things Paul.

        1. Both a woman (the daughter) and a man (the father) lied about this. Did you miss that part?

          1. and a man (the father) lied about this

            I think that’s why these allegations didn’t get very far.

          2. Sure I did. But I was telling a joke. Did you miss that part?

          3. And one of the alleged assailants, who insisted he never had any sexual contact with the woman.

            1. Bill Clinton?

              1. Who are you going to believe, some no-name bimbo or the president of the United States? Even his wife believes him.

          4. Both a woman (the daughter) and a man (the father) lied about this. Did you miss that part?

            Dude, you got to invest in a solar powered sarcasmometer; the battery powered ones run out of juice half-way through the morning thread.

            1. The only juice that Epi runs on is your mom’s.

              1. Los Doyers restores my faith in the commentariat!

      2. So the media is going to identify the liars by name right? They’ve plastered the names of these innocent young men all over the place.

        1. They also locked them up for the maximum amount of time allowed without filing charges.

          1. Of course they did. Can the innocent guys sue the NYT for printing their names? My guess is not, but don’t really know.

    3. “When she turned 18, the woman, whose mother had died, learned her biological father’s identity and contacted him through Facebook, the officials said. Last July, she came to New York to meet him.”

      Bow-Chicka-Bow-Bow

      1. That’s factor-eleven daddy issues.

    4. Well, they made up the rape part, but the teens did gang-consensually-fuck her. So, from a criminal perspective, it’s great that we’re getting at the truth, but based on that truth… fuck every single depraved degenerate in this story.

      1. One of the boys was fourteen years old. Technically by law she raped him. Also 14 is young and hormonal enough to expect stupid decisions like having sex with the willing strange women in the park.

        1. With all your friends?

        2. Quite frankly, for men, *45* is still young and hormonal enough to expect stupid decisions like having sex with the willing strange women in the park.

  16. What is considered “of value”? If some guy buys a girl a drink and she has sex with him, does that now make her a prostitute?

    1. “I know what you are. Now we are just haggling over the price.”

    2. I’d imagine anything can be considered ‘of value’ the same way the IRS counts ‘stuff’ as things of value and therefore taxable as income.

  17. So currently in the Oregon legislature, the Dem have majority status in both houses. Total numbers are:
    53 Dems
    37 Reps

    18-12 Dems in the Senate
    35-25 Dems in the House

    But it is all those awful Socon Rethuglikkan bible beaters who hate sex.

    For the record: I fucking hate Socons. But i also fucking hate these modern feminists who ALSO seem to hate sex. (at least if there is a man involved).

    1. It was a unanimous passage so it wouldn’t have mattered if the Republicans had a majority. Would have passed no matter what.

      Plus, there is polling that shows leftists are much more likely to favor legalized prostitution than right-wingers. I actually think sex-trafficking hysteria is a symptom of left-wing support for legalization because people are using the specter of ‘sex-trafficking’ in order to get sex-positive leftists to view prostitution as something that isn’t a victimless crime.

      1. I actually think sex-trafficking hysteria is a symptom of left-wing support for legalization because people are using the specter of ‘sex-trafficking’ in order to get sex-positive leftists to view prostitution as something that isn’t a victimless crime.

        Then why is exactly 100% of the sex trafficking hysteria that I hear here locally coming exclusively from leftists? Are you saying that the symptom is coming from sex-negative leftists, or right wingers ‘latching’ onto something that they think will… I dunno, shame leftists into abandoning the principles of legalized prostitution?

        1. I agree Paul. I think the sex traffic hysteria is just the old “all hetero sex is rape” feminist bullshit in a new form.

        2. I’m saying the sex-trafficking hysteria is paternalistic left-wingers trying to get their fellow left-wingers to buy into the delusion that prostitution is not victimless.

          Look at polling stats. According to this one, legalized prostitution would be very close to 50% approval rating (42% support from Dems, 49% support from independents) were it not for Republican opposition (only 26% support legal prostitution).

          That’s a big difference. The right is still the primary source of opposition to legal prostitution.

          1. I don’t disagree with those stats (or much find them surprising) I was just trying to suss out your particular statement about where you felt the hysteria is coming from.

            It seems to me that while Republicans may not like prostitution for morality reasons, they may have a more traditional view of ‘sex trafficking’. It seems to me that on the left, the whole sex thing falls into to two camps: Positive and really, fucking, rabidly, hysterically against.

      2. Everyone hates hookers. I don’t quite know why but hating hookers seems to cut across the entire political spectrum. Hating hookers and vegans seem to be the one thing that brings everyone together.

          1. That si because you are some kind of deviant Paul. Get with the program and start hating hookers and vegans.

          2. When they’re dead they’re just hookers, Cyril

            So, would you say you’re a necrophiliac?

        1. Don’t get me started on vegan hookers.

        2. Everyone hates hookers? Really? I guess Pretty Woman was a fluke or something.

          1. Did you smash your sarc meter with a hammer this morning? I miss sarcasm a lot too but I didn’t think either of the two things you have missed were that hard to see.

            No. I don’t think everyone hates hookers. I said that as a sarcastic way of observing that politicians on both sides of the ideological spectrum seem to be caught up in the “sex trafficking” hysteria.

            Did you get some bad dope or something?

            1. So when you miss my sarcasm/joke and accuse me of missing yours, is that like meta-sarcasm-missing or something? You completely squandered the opportunity to jump all over Pretty Woman. Think of the jokes wasted, John.

              1. Because I am stupid. that is why. I guess I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue or something.

                1. We’re all stupid sometimes, John. Here, try some of the Cinex I ordered yesterday.

          2. Is that the one where Richard Gere plays a prostitute who gets to have sex with a pretty woman?

            1. You mean An Officer and a Gentleman? Yes.

              1. Skull fucking. Kinky.

        3. They’re only hookers when they’re dead.

          1. “My dear fellow, what has happened to that rent-a-paramour?”

          2. Stop calling “her that

            1. …. Nevermind.

    2. The socons hate all sex that takes place outside of a heterosexual marriage. Progs have a compulsive need to use government to micromanage sex, especially if evil money might be involved.

  18. Many homeless young people wind up exchanging sexual favors for shelter, food, and other basic needs because resources like homeless shelters are way too overstretched, they pointed out to lawmakers. Criminalizing these attempts to survive won’t open up more shelter beds, it will just make survival that much harder.

    They’re trading shelter beds for prison beds. What’s the problem?

  19. hoary old jokes

    Are you calling us hoars, Elizabeth?

        1. I shouldn’t have to link that. It should be common knowledge.

          1. I like this this

            1. “I don’t need no instructions…to know how to rock!”

            2. Just the highlighted this, I don’t really care for the first one.

  20. You’ve been in that meeting, so many times.

    Discussion shifts to the thing for which you’re responsible, and invariably, you get that person — that person — who always has the light bulb go off. “Don’t you see, it’s so simple, you just have to move the…

    But you know the internals, why things are set up the way they are, and you know it would take ten hours to explain exactly how the “solution” is nothing of the sort, why it is so fundamentally flawed… why it would never, ever work.

    And you swear your world is Dilbert, come to life.

    Now picture hundreds of that person in a room, debating how society ought to be set up — that’s government.

    1. *mic drop*

      Boom. Just like that.

    2. Government is the idiots who tell the experts how to do their job.

    3. BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, UP THE PEOPLE

      1. ALL THE PEOPLE FOR ME.

    4. 0x90,

      I am plagiarizing that piece of brilliance at the very next opportunity.

      *stands and bows respectfully toward monitor*

  21. Sure they don’t care if she ordered lobster with an understanding that it means she’s gonna touch your junk… until it’s a cops ex wife that does it.

    1. But she wouldn’t refuse… because of the implication.

      1. DEMONSTRATE VALUE

      2. But she wouldn’t refuse… because of the implication.

        +1 Sailboat

  22. This all smacks of eroding tax base terror.

    Get rid of a service provided by contract that is also provided by marriages (legal), rapes (illegal), and sex-apps (legal); sex on demand. How do Democrats rationalize the two following statements? “Women should be able to choose to be whatever profession they want, respect their autonomy,” AND “Sex work is a problem for women and should be illegal;” on the one hand, imply one wants female agency, but on the other remove their agency entirely. Seems like the most paternalistic thing to emerge from Democrats yet. Is it not the ultimate goal of Feminism to yield self-aware, independent, free thinking women? Following that thought, what do you tell the self-aware, independent, free-thinking woman who has chosen to be a sex worker, that her choice is the wrong choice? Sidebar; I believe a Democrat-Republican switcheroo happened recently, like it has done before, and all the statist paternalists left the Republican side and became Democrats, switching God for Government.

    We are at historic lows of new marriage rates, historic highs of “live-in non-married couples” and our tax code, probate code, family law, and property law all congeal around marriages.

    1. Is it not the ultimate goal of Feminism to yield self-aware, independent, free thinking women?

      That is not the ultimate goal of feminism at all. Look at the actions, not the words.

      1. The ultimate goal of feminism is to replace men with government dependency. And it’s “succeeding” wildly.

        1. The ultimate goal is to have cake and to eat it, too.

          But not gain weight.

  23. MORE GOVERNMENT

    MOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRE

  24. Sounds like Oregon state senators went the opposite direction wrt to the question: why is exchanging money for sex illegal while exchanging a ring, dinner, drinks, etc. for sex not illegal?

    Next, Congress will reintroduce the 18th Amendment as its answer to the question: why is marijuana illegal while alcohol isn’t?

  25. While we haven’t gotten dystopian enough quite yet for cops to target conventional dating under this statute, it seems plenty plausible that it would be used to go after grey areas.

    Yeah, grey areas. What I am thinking is that the legislature, the governor and the District Attorneys of the different counties are salivating over the prospect of a super tool available to them to get rid of their political rivals. The DAs only need to show that presents were given and voil?! The jury can make the inference or the defendant will take a plea bargain and quietly sink into obscurity.

  26. So Valentine’s Day, wedding anniversaries, flowers: just because and romantic dinners are right out. Gotcha.

  27. “…Lawmakers say the measure is needed in order to prosecute sex traffickers,…”

    If they ever find one, it might.

  28. Am I the only one who has read the text of the law? It appears to specifically exempt direct compensation of a prostitute.

    IOW, the jokes are hilarious, but the law is not criminalizing gifts in exchange for sex. Or am I missing something?

    1. Yeah, I thought it was providing things of value to third parties who are facilitating the prostitution.

      So 1800-FLOWERS.COM.

    2. I didn’t read the law but got that from the write up. I guess you could argue that giving a whore payment for sex is enabling/causing someone (the whore) to engage in prostitution, so it could be stretched to include the above jokey examples.

    3. Nita Belles, managing director of an organization promoting the legislation, sees all of these things as perks. “It may be that somebody is sleeping on somebody’s couch for the purposes of having a place to sleep, and in exchange for the opportunity to sleep on that couch, they are required to have sex with somebody in the house,” she told KTVZ Oregon. “A tablet, an iPad, a computer, an iPhone?something like that in exchange for sex. So now, it doesn’t have to be a transaction of money.”

      Does the legislation contradict Nita Belles’s intentions?

      1. I believe so. Here is the relevant text from the bill (sorry I’m too lazy to fix the formatting):

        (c) Receives or agrees to
        receive money
        , goods,
        [
        or other
        ] property,
        services or something else
        of value,
        other than
        as a prostitute being compensated for personally rendered prostitution services
        ,
        pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the money
        , goods,
        [
        or other
        ]
        property
        , services
        or something else of value
        is derived from a prostitution activity;

        1. Ok, having to read multiple times here.

          1. Receives money OR goods or other property or something else of value. So that would include an iPod Touch or getting a spot on the couch…

          2. Other than as a prostitute being compensated…

          I’m trying to understand ‘other than’. I keep wanting to interpret this to mean that all regular people who might buy dinner for someone in exchange are guilty of prostitution, but the prostitute is shielded. Seriously, help me out here, this isn’t improving much by reading the text.

          it looks like this bill says I’m a pimp if I buy her dinner. But my parsing of legalese is admittedly weak.

          1. *guilty of promoting prostitution*

          2. You are a pimp if someone buys you dinner in exchange for helping them find a prostitute. I think you have to look at the prostitution law to see if buying someone dinner in exchange for sex counts as prostitution.
            I think that the “other than as a prostitute…” part is there to make clear that this law is about procurers/promoters of prostitution and not the prostitution itself.

            That’s my non-lawyerly reading of it.

            1. My understanding is that you are ‘promoting’ prostitution if you exchange goods for an exchange of sex. So even if you’re… receiving the sex, the fact that you knowingly bought her (him/it) dinner in exchange for sex then falls into the camp of “promoting”.

              To me, it’s kind of unclear.

    4. You are absolutely correct. The law that is being amended was about “promoting prostitution”. The only thing changing is that for the crime of promoting prostitution, they are adding “goods” and “services or something of value” to money and/or property being exchanged. So jokes aside, this doesn’t affect the sex workers themselves at all.
      But all the objections regarding the effects on the guy who takes her to her job, or the sugar daddies seem perfectly valid.

      1. It’s aimed at the johns at least as much as the pimps, according to “Nita Belles, managing director of an organization promoting the legislation”. She sees she specifically says that a “transaction” without a pimp, just pro and john, is criminal under this statute. “‘It may be that somebody is sleeping on somebody’s couch for the purposes of having a place to sleep, and in exchange for the opportunity to sleep on that couch, they are required to have sex with somebody in the house…A tablet, an iPad, a computer, an iPhone?something like that in exchange for sex. So now, it doesn’t have to be a transaction of money.'”

  29. Aren’t all women prostitutes? Receiving goods, housing, and transportation in trade for sex and companionship?

    Now that statement sounds like the result of a bitter divorce, something I thankfully have never gone through.

    1. If one assumes that no woman has ever wanted sex or companionship, the definition would surely apply.

      1. We are all prostitutes.

  30. The way the actual law is worded seems to specifically exempt the actual prostitute and target the person running the prostitute:

    “…other than as a prostitute being compensated for personally rendered prostitution services, pursuant to an agreement…”

    So the sugar daddies are in the clear, but if you’re an aspie who needs your buddy to meet girls for you, they’ll need to be very clear with everyone that you’re actually the one buying the drinks.

    1. Does not exempt the person “buying” the service. So sugar daddies – or sugar mamas – are _not_ in the clear. They would still be exposed to prosecution for engaging “in any conduct that institutes, aids or facilitates an act or enterprise of prostitution.”

  31. Buying a woman a drink or taking a woman out to dinner and then “getting lucky” will be promoting prostitution in Oregon. Whee!

  32. My girlfriend is really going to be pissed when she finds out she now has to buy her own weed.

    1. Millenials hardest hit

  33. You don’t pay prostitutes for sex. You pay them to go away afterwards.

    It’s a lot like divorce that way, but prostitutes are much less expensive than divorce.

  34. (Removes “Ass, gas or grass, nobody rides for free” bumper sticker from VW van, walks away nonchalantly whistling)

      1. That’s what I get for reading the article instead of the comments, a mistake I won’t make again.

        1. My only goal is to get you back in line.

  35. Slightly OT:

    Three women pick up a hitch-hiker and force him to have sex so they can ‘harvest his semen’ in latest ‘sperm collector’ attack to hit Zimbabwe

    It is feared a trio of sperm collectors are on the run in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
    Police say the three women raped a hitchhiker and made off with his semen
    Similar sexual attacks have occurred in the country for several years now
    The attackers are thought to use the semen in their witchcraft ‘juju’ rituals

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..babwe.html

    1. How do we import this problem here?

      1. Without the aids

    2. I wonder, could a ‘semen harvester’ could conducct their business as a small farm? They could get farm subsidies or write off expenses.

      Farming equipment ?
      Sale of eggs and animals ?

  36. I’m sorry honey but legally I can no longer do the dishes

  37. Start making extra money each week… This is an awesome side work for anybody… The best part about it is that you can do this job from your couch at home and get paid from 100 to 2000 bucks every week… hw Apply now and receive your first check at the end of this week

    ——— http://www.workprospects.com

    1. Is prospecting for someone to perform the ‘hoboken cobbler squat’ for a net-cam considered sex-trafficking?

      Skynet, you may be in trouble.

  38. Are the involved parties mentally capable of having consensual sex? Do the involved parties have the mental wherewithal to sell or buy something from another?

    They do on all counts. What’s the fucking problem then?

  39. I predict that within a year there will be a Reason article about the young man who tried to help the bi-polar young woman, who slept with him and turned around and claimed he “used/abused her” when she goes from manic to depression mode. And he is being prosecuted under this law.

  40. STEVE SMITH NOT EXCHANGE ANYTHING OF VALUE – JUST RAPE! STEVE SMITH SAFE FROM THIS LAW!

  41. “Belles said this will allow more prosecutions without the need for evidence of money being exchanged to prove one of the elements of the crime,” KTVZ notes.

    Who are we kidding?

    1. Hey, c’mon… did sex happen? There was obviously some patriarchical oppression involved then.

      No other evidence needed.

    2. So if I”m readng this right, the law is effictivly going after pimps who get something other than money. Or as RC Dean pointed out not proving one of the elements of the crime as it’s unlikely that a pimp is not getting money for promoting prostitution.

  42. Check out Nita Belles here.

    http://inourbackyard.org/about/

    Would or wouldn’t?
    Good girl or bad girl when she was 18?

  43. “Under a measure passed unanimously by state Senators this week, the offense of “promoting prostitution” will include not just facilitating sexual services for a fee but also receiving goods, services, or anything of value in exchange for aiding, promoting, or “caus(ing) someone to engage” in prostitution.”

    This isn’t changing the rules of prostitution itself. It’s not about the exchange of sex for goods/money. It changes the rules for *promoting* the exchange of sex for goods/money. In other words: “Exchanging anything of value for [the promotion of] sex will soon be a crime in Oregon.”

  44. Nice for me. No more gifts for my girlfriend …

    Bad for me. No more meals from my girlfriend …

  45. This is the left building its legacy just, before it dies – turning reductio ad absurdum arguments into law – making the argument for prostitution’s legality part of its illegality.

  46. Just another Democrat who wants to force her left liberal beliefs on everyone else!

  47. Easy fix… but officer… “I only paid her to go away” .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.