|
LadyEllen -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/7/2007 7:10:46 AM)
|
The legal definitions of prostitution would be something interesting to look into, compared with the alleged offence in this instance. Stretching such definitions could well cause a lot of activities, even incidental and accidental, that are provided by pro-doms, to become prostitution - whilst at the same time those activities might certainly fall outside the definition, so providing a reasonable defence in an unbiased system. But then, it is to be assumed that in many ways the system will not be unbiased.
We would probably all say, that the provision of sexual services for money payment is prostitution. But, what are sexual services exactly? Certainly penetration must be considered, perhaps also oral sex and hand relief, and maybe therefore, other instances where bodily contact of some nature is made, which results in sexual climax. Is it prostitution at all though, if despite these circumstances, the client does not climax? Is it prostitution if the client climaxes from physical contact - from massage for instance, even where this has neither been agreed or paid for, and so is incidental or accidental to the provision of service? Is it prostitution if the client reaches sexual climax believing this is what he is paying for, even if the deliverer of the service refutes this? Do the same provisions and limitations apply equally to a homosexual or lesbian encounter in the same circumstances, or to instances where a male provides service to a female?
To my mind, there has to be a definite contract agreed, proposed by one side or the other which requires the deliberate delivery by one side of sufficient and direct physical contact with the other side to result specifically in sexual climax, in return for a prescribed payment in negotiable funds, for it to count as prostitution. Outside of such a definition, then every pro-dom whose client happens to climax during the proceedings, could count as a prostitute, not to mention the likes of qualified massage therapists, and that would clearly be a dangerous precedent for all.
If I were Mistress Sandra, or her friend NYdominatrix here, these are the kind of questions I would be looking into, and the kind of questions which could be resolved by way of the library, which should be able to give access to relevant legal statutes. By answering those questions for herself, she could then either admit the offence if what is alleged to have transpired falls within the definition, and plead mitigating circumstances such an entrapment etc, or be in a strong position to make an adequate defence. In the absence of any recording devices used to gather evidence, it should also be remembered that it is one person's word against another, and should it be possible, then perhaps sworn affidavits from other clients, to be given to the judge alone for the sake of anonymity, could be obtained to support a case that Mistress Sandra does not offer services that could be construed as prostitution, to her clients - and therefore would not have done so in this instance either.
But to be honest, though I wish for the best possible outcome in this case, to come to what is a public forum to request as I understand it, funds in money to be sent to aid someone acting in a professional capacity, is certainly not an approach that will get very far I feel. As a public forum, the membership are already on their guard in respect of requests for money and are cynical in the extreme about such. This is not to say that the story is in doubt, or the version of events given is in question; it is merely to say that support can be requested in many more forms, often better forms in terms of the response obtainable.
E
|
|
|
|
