Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





This would never stand up in any court especially since the Lawrence vs Texas Supreme Court precedent decision.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
Lawrence vs. Texas actually dealt with sodomy laws, but the case has BROAD IMPLICATIONS into other areas such as sexual PRIVACY, discrimination, fornication and prostitution.
More info here: http://www.sexwork.com/legal/LawrencevsTexas.html
That is SO STUPID! I'm not saying it's okay to cheat on your spouse or trade drugs for sex or anything like that, but it is really a PERSONAL matter. (and the LIFE in prison thing is just too ridiculous to talk about) I don't see any mention of strip clubs, in this article... although I suppose it could still apply if there is actual sex involved.
If you think school is hard, try being stupid.
I'm fascinated by this kind of thing. As much as I understand the deeper reasons underlying it (I have a degree in gender studies) I'll never really get how on earth the government can justify legislating the consensual sexual activities of adults.
Last edited by Dottie Rebel; 01-17-2007 at 02:55 AM.
Note to self: Never dance in Michigan....

Yeah agree, staying away from Michigan!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070118...t_070118055859
Will be interesting to see if this law is ever tested and if any prosecutor will attempt to file formal charges, especially in lieu of the Lawrence vs. Texas decision that implies Prostitution, Polygamy, and Fornication laws are essentially VOID.
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/LawrencevsTexas.html
Last edited by laplover69; 01-21-2007 at 04:57 AM.





^^^ from a standpoint of legal precedent and legal logic, there is clearly a problem with the Lawrence v Texas Supreme Court decision. Either the gov't doesn't have any power to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults (and presumeably consenting animals as well LOL - should a 'baaaaaaaa' be taken for consent ? ), or it does have such power to regulate private sexual conduct in all forms. There are clearly 'equal treatment under the law' problems with exempting gay male sex and at the same time still outlawing polygamy for example.
When it comes to paid consensual sex though, the new element of 'regulation of commerce' comes in which arguably provides different constitutional grounds for the regulation of prostitution. Again trying to apply consistent logic, Lawrence v Texas may very well be interpreted as providing dancers the right to provide FREE consensual sex to private dance customers in the VIP room, but not PAID consensual sex.
Wow, he should of had his affair in Florida. In our courts they don't give a rats ass about adultry. Would never even be heard in our courts.
Two consenting adults who are married and screwing around are stupid imo...but leave them alone...sheesh.
Agree with you for the most part Melonie. The line between fornication and prostitution is very thin since the Lawrence decision IMHO. It is common knowledge that many "escorts" do NOT accept cash in their hands, rather the $$$ is put on a table or whatever so that it's implied that the customer is not paying explicitly just for "sex"... Whether or not the "escorting" business has essentially been legalized as a result of the Lawrence decision is another question that begs to be tested, as does what actually constitutes "PRIVATE ROOMS" i.e. would a closed door VIP room be considered private enough that whatever two consenting adults are doing is truly THEIR business and therefore they are insulated from prosecution under prostition laws? More cases are coming down the courts and testing just how broad the implications of the Lawrence vs. Texas case can be... See other posts at http://www.sexwork.com/legal/LawrencevsTexas.html
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71320
Honestly, I would be a little suprised if they didn't distinguish the Texas decision - as I mentioned before, it deals, fairly integrally, with equality rights; because comments CAN be interpreted as generally disallowing all non-"harm principle" laws regarding sex doesn't mean that they are LIKELY to be.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
Bookmarks