Is this how feminist anti-prostitution laws work? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/the-campaign-to-criminalise-paying-for-sex-is-anti-male-and-illo/

There have been several nations adopting the policy of prosecuting men (Johns) for paying for prostitutes, but making the act of selling sex legal. The intent is to provide a legal shield so women won't avoid the police when assaulted. I think this approach creates some weird legal conditions and I just want to make sure this is how it works. If I'm wrong please educate me.

Most of these John laws are outside of the USA (Norway, Sweden, France, Canada). The history of English/American law on prostitution was usually base on the logic of nuisance laws (and morality). Hawking sex on the corner or public spaces could be seen as zoning issue. As I comprehend it, escorts don't do the following things to avoid prosecution for prostitution: 1) Don't specifically offer sex for money. A euphemism like escort, companionship, or the “girl friend experience” is used. 2) Don't make an offer in public space, like a street corner. 3) Don't make an offer for sex in a public accommodation, like a hotel.

Situation #1: Under the old system if a woman was a prostitute she might charge $100 for an hour for a specific sex act. If people detected her offer, then she and the John could be arrested. Under the new system If a women offers $100 for specific sex act nothing happens until a John pays her, then only he can be arrested. What if the prostitute offers $200 for a specific sex act, but then offers $100 for companionship for an hour. The John pays $100 for companionship and then woman decides to have sex with him. As a defense the man can say he only wanted companionship, but the woman decided to have sex with him anyway. This would mean that law intended to get women off the streets might actually make it legal for women to offer sex in public? Isn't this a way to identify women who are willing to sell sex? Is this how this works?

Situation #2: American laws have provisions against entrapment. This basically means the police can't do something illegal to get you to break the law. Law enforcement has to trick you into making the specific offer. So in the USA the offering of sex is illegal and buying of sex is illegal. In these other jurisdictions does that mean there is no entrapment because offering sex is legal? Does entrapment even mean anything in non-American jurisdictions?

Situation #3: What are the range of these laws? Is just in public spaces? Is just for specific sex acts or for any sex for money? If you pay an employee and have sex with them is that prostitution? What about mistresses? What about porn? Say you join a porn production society. You pay for a John and girl to film themselves. You let the John and the girl decide if the film is worth producing. If either says the film isn't good enough it's destroyed. Then he hires you to make a film starring yourself and a hot girl. Would this be legal? Is there any way to keep people from finding a way around a moral law? Is this law intended to only punish men who aren't rich enough to fly to Germany (or other places like Nevada) where prostitution is legal?

Situtation #4: Let's say you wan't to destroy someone (the Mark). You just find a sexy person (the sexpot) to have sex with the Mark. After a while a the sexpot says something like, “If you don't give a $20 so I can get that outfit, I'm not going to have sex with you.” Does this mean you can lure someone to their legal destruction sexually? Can you string the Mark along for 10 or 20 separate counts? Is it blackmail if you don't specifically say your going to blackmail them? Does is it work with men and women, or do those laws just make it illegal to buy sex from women? How many legislators who voted for a John law can be trapped like this? How many prominent lesbian feminist activists can be trapped by bisexual sex workers who hate John laws?

Situation #5: You're in a reddit thread and you do any of the following:

A) refuse to accept that people can't figure out a way to exchange sex for resources in a way that legally gets around a stupid anti-prostitution statute.

B) refuse to accept that women have the right to bargain the use of the their bodies as a service because they are adults and don't all deserve to be treated like infants, but instead believe women are owners of their men and hence selling something would make them equals in a transaction. (because the only other time I can think of where 2 people knowingly and willfully participate in an exchange and one person is prosecuted and the other never prosecuted is statutory rape.)

C) refuse to accept that some where in the world reasonable people will make prostitution legal.

D) refuse to accept that completely denying an outlet for male sexual desire except as either a state sponsored ownership of a man by a woman through marriage or by negotiated approval by a woman in which the act of sex can never be discussed as part of the negotiation is misandry.

E) Ignore the moral hazard of giving sex partners the ability to accuse someone of the crime of prostitution, when the other sex partner was the one who planned the crime. (Think of the personal destruction that an angry wife can create to start a divorce proceeding by offering her husband sex for money, or getting her friend to do it).

If you do any of the proceeding is it better to consider yourself stupid, hypocritical, both, or is there some other answer I am missing?

Don't take this as legal advice. Consult your own legal expert. Don't take this as moral advice. I'm just curious how these laws are supposed to work. I also want to troll people using logic.

Sincerelyish,

Logical-Troll