Spud147

Am I the only one left wondering if I missed a huge part of the story?!? I wasn't really surprised or shocked by any of that. I mean, major ick factor with the behavior but I'm cynical enough to assume this kind of thing is part of the NBA lifestyle.

I love watching basketball but I've never really had any desire to hang out with the players.

And I'm not painting every player with the same brush, obviously there are exceptions (Martell's Gramma would kick his behind from Canada to Mexico if he tried something like this), but celebrities live completely different lifestyles than most of us.

dudleysghost

Just for the record: Live sex shows are not presently illegal in the State of Oregon. They don't have to be "simulated" (whatever that means) to be permissible. Real sex shows are permissible, according to the precedent established in the 9/29/2005 Oregon Supreme Court ruling in the case of State of Oregon vs. Ciancanelli.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S49707.htm

This is recent law, and the reasoning was widely disputed by many, but the ruling is clear and the DA probably knows that. My guess is that by implying in his memo that the established precedent wasn't clear, the DA was making a subtle note that he didn't agree with it in the first place.

barfo

So, if I pay two other people to have sex, that's ok, but I can't pay someone to have sex with me? That seems a bit bizarre.

What if I find a friend, (let's call him, say, "Love"), and he pays for a sex show between me and hooker A, while I pay for a sex show between him and hooker B. Is that legal? What if we don't happen to watch the sex shows we paid for?

I think I'll start a new business - it will match up guys who want to pay for each others' legal "live sex shows". Naturally, they won't need to meet each other - they are philanthropists who just want to help others. And, of course, I'll match them up with women wanting to participate.

Now I just need me a purple cadillac...

barfo

FeloniusThunk

And yet, isn't this exactly how por movies/magazines are made? They appear to be legal, too (uh, not that I know where to get them or anything). So I guess this is like a Puritan-based law: it's only illegal when someone's enjoying it.

__________________
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty." -- George Bernard Shaw

tlong

barfo's bringing sexy back.

Oldmangrouch

A couple of comments:

A) Better make sure you pay *both* participants, and neither is paying you.

B) Better make sure there is an audience and/or camera present. It has to be an artistic presentation of some kind to claim free speech protection.

__________________
We enter this life naked, wet, and hungry - and it only gets worse!

dudleysghost

Good questions. It seems bizarre to me as well. I think the legal standard is that someone has to be watching or filming and be able to plausibly argue that the act is taking place for the enjoyment of the observer. So your hypothetical service might work, but it would require the guys matched up to actually watch each other, or otherwise they would have no way to plausibly argue that they are paying for the priviledge of viewing rather than participating.