•

2y ago

Because it's porn. Shes not a prostitute, shes an entertainer. Its the same loophole pornstars use.

Upvote

6

Downvote

Share

u/Traditional_Rice264 avatar

Traditional_Rice264

•

2y ago

That’s like 6 people a day she’s obviously capping.

Upvote

3

Downvote

Share

NucularOrchid

•

2y ago

Was it illegal where she's from? I know it ain't illegal everywhere.

Or because she's making content. Making porn isn't illegal.

Upvote

2

Downvote

Share

u/MurphysParadox avatar

MurphysParadox

•

2y ago

Local laws differ, but generally just saying you did something illegal is not grounds to be arrested and charged (for the most part). People lie on the internet all the time. "They made blog post saying they accepted money for sex" is not going to go over well as the key evidence in a criminal trial.

Now, if there's a murder investigation and someone releases a song with lyrics referring to details only the murderer would know, it is a different kind of situation. Or if there is already an operation in the interviewee's area, the police may prioritize her in their sting, but that is rare. And she may not have even been having sex in that area, which would make it not that department's jurisdiction.

The typical focus for such operations is to shut down pimps who are forcing people to be prostitutes, using with a side of human trafficking. It isn't about just punishing women who accept money for sex.

Now, bragging about making over a quarter million is a great way to come to the attention of the IRS, so she better claim it all as income and pay appropriate taxes on it. But that's because the IRS doesn't care about how you get your income, just that you pay taxes on that income.

Upvote

2

Downvote

Share

MontCoDubV

•

2y ago

In a technical, legal sense, the fan isn't paying for sex with her. He's paying to meet a celebrity (like how you pay to meet celebrities at signing appearances), or they're paying her to be an actress in a porn video they're making for content, or they're reimbursing her for travel expenses plus a stipend and she's choosing to have sex with him on her own, absent any money.

Of course, the reality of the situation is he's paying for sex. And if authorities really wanted to make a case about it, they probably could get her for prostitution and the guys for soliciting prostitution. But there's enough plausible deniability that a prosecutor would have to do some work to make the case, and nobody is really pushing to prosecute. So why bother wasting the prosecutor's and the court's time?

Upvote

1

Downvote

Share

markedasred

•

2y ago

I can't make sense of 122 hookups over a 3 week period unless it's all online, then in which case no actual act of prostitution (god I hate that word, they are sex workers) was enacted with physical contact. So no victim, unless you count the possibility of tax evasion, but who knows about that?.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899251&forum_id=2...id..#50105677)