This one's timely. At least for me.
I probably agree with Judge Wallace's opinion as a matter of precedent. Soliciting a prostitute is indeed a crime of moral turpitude.
But see if you agree with the following statement in the opinion: "[S]ex between an adult and a minor may be prohibited, but it is not inherently morally turpitudinous. . . . Prostitution, on the other hand, and solicitation thereof, always involves sexual exploitation." (Similarly: "[S]olicitation of prostitution is always base, vile and depraved.")
I wonder if Judge Wallace thinks the same is true about visiting a strip club. Or Anna Nicole Smith marrying J. Howard Marshall. Or the numerous "sugar daddy" web sites. Or visiting a Hooters.
Does trading sex (or other sexual/nonsexual conduct) for money always involve explotiation? Is it never truly consensual? Does it matter if you're trading sex as opposed to something else?
Maybe. Now onto my 1:00 p.m. "Law of Love" class. Which is all about precisely that.
