I'll start the bidding at $18.

She is hoping she nets up to ONE million dollars?

[edit.]!? She better pay her fair share of income taxes on that money......

I think her logic is flawed.  Who would pay a million dollars for an amateur?

I think what's really going on here is she's looking for someone "who is a genuine, overall nice person."  Hasn't she ever heard of Match.com?  EHarmony?  I think she's going to have a hard time finding a genuine overall nice person who also pays a fortune for sex.  She's either going to get a repulsive troll or a creep...or both.  Oh well, good luck to her!

Blue,

You may find your self in the middle of a prostitution sting.

Be careful.

Offering cash for sex is solicitation of prostitution. 

Whether it's on a street corner or on the Internet.

I think her logic is flawed.  Who would pay a million dollars for an amateur?

Well, in Victorian days they paid a high price for a "fresh," but the "fresh" subsequently paid a high price for being the cure.

Wow.. just.. wow.

Gross, Random.  Well, I think instead of a lie-detector test this woman needs a psychological evaluation.

Or else someone needs to tell her what actually happens when you lose your virginity.  Guess she must have learned about sex in Alaska.

Nah, if she'd learned in Alaska she'd be married to some snowmachine dude by now.

Blue  Better look at the small print.    It says she a 66 year old virgin.    She's been 22 three times.

tkozy, you need to brush up on your knowledge of prostitution laws. Ever hear of an overt act? Don't talk about something you know nothing about.

And Audrey, for $18, I don't care if she's 22 or 71. It's a bargain either way.  

I bet she's voting for Obama .Low IQ, and no morals

I would not do that to myself. That's for sure. It's awful.

Can a medical exam really tell if you're a virgin? I'm thinking that's not really possible.

I bet she's voting for Obama .Low IQ, and no morals

Compared to Bristol & Track?   Know what?  I bet *THEY* are voting for Obama.  They've seen Caribou Barbie at close range.

.

Robin, it can sometimes tell if you're *NOT*, but I think it's impossible to tell the other way.  I like Carrie Fisher's take on it in "Surrender the Pink."  Her heroine gave up her virginity three times--she'd been told it was supposed to be momentous, and the first two weren't, so she figured...

Virgin ??,,,,,,,,, how many times has it been glued back together ?

Blue,

Yes I have. When did you retire?

Forget Common Law. Was it before Common sense.

You offered money for sex. If you then had, or traveled with the intent to have sex with the individual and had the money in hand. You have now provided proof of intent to commit the crime of solicitation of prostitution. No need for you to exchange money. No need for you to actually have sex.

But you definitely must get back and watch some COPS reruns.

 If you agree to the act and had the means. You are guilty. Period.. 

Please read...

In criminal law, an Overt act (from French ouvert,open,adj.), an open act, one that can be clearly proved by evidence, and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit a crime. Therefore, it is an act that, while innocent per se, can potentially be used as evidence against someone during a trial to show his/her participation in a crime. For instance, a rental of a van and a purchase of a gun are overt acts as part of an assassination. The term is more particularly employed in cases of treason, which must be demonstrated by some overt or open act.

TK continues.

I do occasionally make mistakes. But in is infrequent. Especially in areas with which I made my profession.. One in which I spent a great time studying.

Nothing has changed Blue. You will save yourself a lot of personal embarrassment if you would pay me my due respect.

Or didn't you catch any of those public relations bulletins?

 But it's just a Raffle.....................................;=0

tk, why would I defiantly watch COPS reruns? That makes no sense at all.

And how many prostitutes have you arrested, and convicted, and how many prostitute stings have you been in charge of?

 If you raffle off sex. It's prostitution...

There is an exchange of goods. You provided money in hopes of receiving sex. You did not provide money in hopes of acquiring the pimp girls tuition bills.

You offered money. The purported reward was sex.. The act need not be consummated for the crime of solicitation of Prostitution.

Today she is pimping. When she gives it up. She is prostituting herself..

If you raffle off sex. It's prostitution...

And prostitution is legal where this is going to be done.

But supposing she raffled off the gift-wrapping on the box, then offered herself freely in gratitude to the person buying said gift-wrap? 

Robin

Depends.   If you're really curious I'll e-mail the answer to you.  There's no point in these guys hearing it.

Raffling off sex???   Sounds like the average marriage to me.

My first instinct was to say this person is a free-trade Republican but you can't say that any more. You'd have to say she was pro-free-trade and leave it at that. Let's take the issue of prostitution. Should it be legal? A classic liberal or secular conservative might say, Why not?  The transaction is between two adult private parties; there is mutual consent, the conduct occurs in private; if public solicitation is avoided, the public space is not directly affected. Fundamentalist Republican Robert George begs to differ.

The public has an interest in men not engaging in prostitutes; for when they do, they damage their own character; they render themselves less solid and reliable as husbands and fathers; they weaken their marriages and their ability to enter into good marriages and authentically model for others (including their children) the virtue of chastity on which the integrity of marriages and of marriage as an institution in any given society depends; they set bad examples for others.

Immoral decisions, in other words, are like environmental pollutants. They cannot be given the protection of the law because they affect others indirectly. Society as a whole has an obligation to protect its moral environment as much as its physical environment.  And this argument must logically extend far beyond mere commercial transactions like the purchasing of sex.  It must also logically include those noncommercial private immoral acts that also damage an individual's moral character, and so set bad examples, and contribute to the breakdown of society as a  whole.  George is admirable frank about this. He see some prudential, practical reasons why the government cannot outlaw all private vice. It would require the government to be able to police homes and bedrooms, and thus impose too great a burden on their security and sense of liberty, and be astronomically expensive.  the sheer number of cops required to prevent, say the unnatural evil of masturbation (as wrong, in George's view, as adultery, contraception, or lesbian sex) would be legion. But George sees no reason in principle to object to object to an idea.

It is, of course, true that prostitutes and their pimps are inviting and doing business with "the public" in a way that ordinary fornicators and adulterers are not.  and I can certainly see how this distinction could be relevant to the prudential reasoning of legislators considering enactment or repeal of legal prohibitions of noncommercial sexual vice.  What I cannot se, however, is the ground for claiming that a strict principle of justice excludes the criminal prohibition of noncommercial sexual vice.

This is the reason fundamentalists were so outraged by the Supreme Court's decision to declare unconstitutional the arrest of two Texas men in their own bedroom for the crime of non-procreative sex.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in descent in Lawrence v. Texas argued that the notion of inviolable, constitutionally protected privacy for adult consensual sex would render all sorts of moral prohibitions impossible:

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, beastiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers [v. Hardwick] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effor to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding... This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."

By "morals legislation," Scalia means the ability of the government to criminalize private, adult, consensual activity, like masturbation or sex outside marriage. For Scalia, there is no constitutional freedom to have sex in one's own bedroom, to consume pornography, or even to masturbate. The government has a direct interest in monitoring and restraining such behaviors to uphold public morals.

What happens to the idea of freedom here?

Blue,

 Read again Blue. Definitely.. You didn't give me a minute to proof read my posts. I have become an obsession with you. You need to have that looked at..

Maybe you need a vacation from your vacation.

Prostitution arrests?

Most likely about the same number as most of the DA Corp...

Random,

Solicitation of prostitution is not lawful where Blue offered the money. (yes I know he was kidding but one more overt act and the kidding excuse no longer holds water.). Therefore a crime of solicitation has been committed.

I didn't read where the pimpterest was also a registered prostitute.

Doesn't that kind of spoil the maidenhead?

Also, The fact that the act is to be performed in a legal zone. Does not make an offer to perform sex for money a righteous act. If the offer were made too or from a zone in which prostitution is illegal.

If it were not so. Then any act performed in an vehicle could be legitimized.

Free practice before we reached the promised land..

As an example I will offer up Internet gambling..

There's a very fine line between this 22 year old auctioning herself off and a Bakersfield Bachelor being auctioned off for charity.   Flesh peddling is flesh peddling regardless of the reason.

Okay,,,, you say paying for SEX is Prostitution, just for the record, you can go down and pick one up a lot cheaper than marrying it.   You will never pay so much for Sex until you marry it and then it really cost.   All together, I've been married 38 years and I still haven't paid it off.

Pay checks are handed over every day for it.

Audrey,

It isn't really a whole, 'line'.

It's just a short sentence. Maybe just a night in jail.

Spelled:

You either offer or accept sex for money.

(I think my grammar is correct. I tend to run on past the bell a lot.)

Sorry for the lame joke. I don't always intend to be a Drip. But after all, I spent 7.5 years in the army.

How many times has a guy come across some sort of ad of, "Hi, we're hot college babes and need money..." Very old come-on.

And take a lie detector to "prove" her virginity? Is she also going to swear on a bible?

It's been 4 hours since I made my offer of $18, and still she has not responded. So I'm gonna up it to $19. And I swear to God husbandmaterial, if you bid $20 for her, I will trump you with $21.

And I swear to God husbandmaterial, if you bid $20 for her, I will trump you with $21.

I'd prefer to send her the forms to get a Pell Grant. I don't think this is a serious quest for an education. $21.00 wouldn't even pay for her lunch at the student union and I think Barack Obama's serious pursuit of getting a college education for those how desire it is a more noble and worthwhile cause.  I don't have the luxury of trivializing the importance of both the importance of education and the value that the Republican Party used to own, namely, limited government interference in the lives of Americans.  If this woman wants to whore herself, I'm in favor of her doing so, but I think she ought to be more candid and just say she's selling her body for money instead of prey upon the emotions of a world of horny men to make a sales pitch.  I respect the street-walkers on the streets of Anchorage more than I do this person. At least they call it what it is - making a living.

 BEWARE, BEWARE professor Robinson, that could very well be a picture of her sister,,, BEWARE, BEWARE, she might be able to win a Beautiful pageant in a Moose line up.

The 22-year old virgins that I know aren't the type who would auction off their hymens.  Something doesn't add up.

 Wouldn't it be the shits if it turned out to be a guy ??? LOL LOL

It would be like a sports car with a stick shift. LOL LOL

Here's more..... http://www.ibnlive.com/news...

Gets better all the time, her Sister is already a call girl. my oh my

a legal Nevada brothel, where her sister already works.

tk says

You may find your self in the middle of a prostitution sting.

Be careful.

Offering cash for sex is solicitation of prostitution. 

Whether it's on a street corner or on the Internet.

legal legal legal legal

 Country,

Go back and read my post.

It makes no difference that the sex is in a legal brothel

The solicitation done in Bakersfield, over the Internet from Bakersfield, is a violation of Bakersfield and California Law.

Solicitation for prostitution does not require that the sex act be performed.

Offering money for sex is in itself, solicitation.

If you make the offer and have the means to complete the act. You are guilty.

PERIOD!!!!

If the young lady in anyway assists you in retrieving your reward.

I would argue she would be subject to arrest in California if she were to come here.

The act does not have to be performed to convict for prostitution.

And her post pleads guilty to offering sex for cash.

I would also argue that the Ranch is willing to spend years in court defending those involved.

The attention would be worth the lawyers fees.

Simply cross the boarder and place yor bid,,,,, any more questions ?

Kountry,

I never ask you a question.