If a male were to answer an ad on some website, by text, and someone answered back by text, volunteering a price. Then the male answered back stating that he would like to see the person in the ad at some point in the future without ever following up. Has any offense been committed?
You need to state what state, as various states have slightly different rules.
As a second issue, proving that person A, was same person A texting on phone, is usually a separate issue that a defense atty can have fun with.
Not in the State of Texas. I do not speak to what the law is in any other state.
Newbie members friendly.Troll inhospitable & I have an ever growing troll ignore list!!!
I’m your Huckleberry and this hobby is just my game. Ladies, just say when!!
#Pussy Posse founding member
If you’re BSC, probably BSC, a drama Queen/King, WK or troll, DON’T PM me or post in my threads
Thanks for your cooperation.
Email for issues is support@ourhome2.net The verification process is HERE The review gremlin patch is HERE
The current statutes are pretty clear on charges for public solicitation and/or if any actor (e.g. the customer) agrees to to engage in a sexual activity in exchange for a fee (or something of value). Refer to Texas Penal Code 43.02.
Technically speaking all they need to prove an act of soliciting or agreeing to engage in prostitution is the agreement itself, not the exchange of the money, nor the act of performing a sexual service.
You have only implicated you might "like to" see the person but you have not actually committed to a bonafide agreement. In the very, very strictness terms one might say this could technically be close to a crime (but it's not in this form).
Also, proving anything, especially over texts, identities of the people, no money ever exchanged hands, no "date" or "appt" was ever set, and no activities performed (nor did you actually say you would pay a price, no, you said "I would like to see you"). Therefore, I don't see any practical reason or possibility that anyone should worry about such a situation. No prosecutor would endeavor to go after it, the defenses are too numerous (i.e. stolen phone, someone else did it.... among many others), and a clear cut bonafide agreement and date to commit said crime have not been laid out at all.
The statutes do only require an agreement, however, you have not really agreed to anything specific in the case you presented, not to mention it would be full of holes for prosecutors, they simply couldn't prove anything (much less that it was actually *you*), and therefore it's not really a crime in that sense.
I believe that is where Doc was going if may be so bold as to assume what he was thinking; from that vantage I do agree with Doc and wouldn't worry about it.
-MG
Pardon me MG, the OP asked a simple legal question. I gave him a simple, correct answer.
Yep, I didn't say you didn't Doc. Did you think I was saying you didn't answer correctly?
Indeed it's a simple question but as you well know many topics in life don't always have super simple answers. The yes or no part I suppose one could say *is* simple, but giving people reasons, background info, things they can fact check or research themselves, etc... typically requires considerably more. I often like to provide additional thought provoking details that allow people to dig deeper than they might have without the info and validate it themselves.
I'm in agreement with you but due to the fact that no actual monetary exchange needs to take place to be charged I thought it helpful to provide additional material; I'm not disagreeing though.
-MG
Posting Permissions
