Re:What's "lewd?"

Dear All

Speaking as a California attorney, working in civil litigation, first amendment rights and cyberspace law (including obscenity and child pornography), with some experience in criminal law too, here is an answer to the question "what is lewd?" This is from a case called "People v. Hill" and set the standard for "lewd" in 1980.  What I have done is simply post the opinion of the court below.  For those who don't want to read the court's opinion, the answer is this:

***For a "lewd" act to constitute "prostitution," the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute. Such bodily contact between the prostitute and the customer must also take place in exchange for money.***

The court's own words are below for those who like reading this kind of stuff

From People v. Hill (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3d 525, 534 [163 Cal. Rptr. 99]:

"In Pryor v. Municipal Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 238 [158 Cal.Rptr. 330, 599 P.2d 636], our California high court construed the terms "lewd" conduct and "dissolute" conduct in a well defined, limited manner so as to make the statutory provision satisfy constitutional standards of specificity. Accordingly, the Pryor court held that, in Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), "[the] terms 'lewd' and 'dissolute' in this section are synonymous, and refer to conduct which involves the touching of the genitals, buttocks, or female breast for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, annoyance or offense, . . ." n5 ( Id. at p. 256.)
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n5 Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), provides: "Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: [ para. ] (a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view."
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If the term "prostitution," as used in Penal Code sections 266h (pimping) and 266i (pandering), is to be construed to cover "lewd or dissolute acts between persons in return for money or other consideration," as set forth by the trial court in the instructions given in the case before us, a limitation of the meaning of the terms "lewd" and "dissolute," similar to that made by the Pryor court, must be applied to preclude the definition of "prostitution" in Penal Code sections 266h and 266i from being unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, we construe the term "prostitution," as used in Penal Code sections 266h and 266i, as meaning sexual intercourse between persons for money or other considerations and only those "lewd or dissolute" acts between persons for money or other consideration as set forth in the Pryor case.

The crime of disorderly conduct proscribed by Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), and dealt with in Pryor, involves only the "lewd" act of one person, committed in a "public place" or a "place open to the public or exposed to public view." But the "disorderly conduct" crime of "prostitution," proscribed by Penal Code section 647, subdivision (b), and which constitutes an essential element of the crimes of pimping and pandering, proscribed by Penal Code sections 266h and 266i, involves an act committed between two or more persons.

Application of the Pryor holding to the concept of a "lewd" or "dissolute" act as a part of the term "prostitution" involved in Penal Code sections 266h and 266i, compels a decision that, for a "lewd" or "dissolute" act to constitute "prostitution," the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute. Such bodily contact between the prostitute and the customer is required to satisfy the constitutional mandate of Pryor in light of the provisions of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (b), which define "prostitution" as including "any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration."

Sincerely
Alpha-Dog

In my prior post I wrote that:

***For a "lewd" act to constitute "prostitution," the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute. Such bodily contact between the prostitute and the customer must also take place in exchange for money.***

So much for "lewd".

It kind of goes without saying, but the People v. Hill court said it anyway: that an act of sexual intercourse in exchange for money is also prostitution

In short every one pursuing this hobby is committing a misdemeanor crime each time they pay a girl either for sex or for lewd acts.

By the way, I am not judging anyone here, I am simply sharing my professional knowledge of the law in order that everyone appreciates the risks.

Alpha-Dog

So then the answer to your questions is:

"Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman but was his behavior lewd?

Yes. Oral sex = lewd behavior under the law but it wasn't prostitution unless money or some other favors changed hands, i.e. if she did it for a price and he knowingly and willingly  paid it.  Remember, lewd behavior is not per se illegal, if it is consenting and private. If it is public, it can be illegal even if no money is involved, and of course once you are paying for it, you are up against the criminal statutes.

"I stick a bill in a lady's garter who just waved her **** in my face. Is that lewd behavior? Money changed hands too."

Lewd behavior requires physical contact between you and her breasts, buttocks or genitals, or physical contact between her and your sexual organ or buttocks. Lap dancing without touching is not "lewd" under the law.  If she rubs her groin against yours however, she is now being "lewd". Likewise if her hands touch your groin, that's lewd too.

In your hypo, you touched her thigh and you saw her sexual organs, and she did not touch you.  That's therefore not legally lewd for the purposes of discovering whether an act of prostitution took place.

Remember:

Lewd = physical contact with the sexual organs, buttocks or, in the case of a woman, the breasts.
Prostitution = sexual intercourse OR lewd behavior in exchange for money or other "consideration" (favors).

Let me state for the record that IMHO USA has laws about sex that place it alongside the most backward nations in the world.  Europe is many times more progressive. Even Canada is vastly superior when it comes to sex-working laws.

Sincerely
Alpha-Dog

A good point has also been made that lewd behavior can also involve touching your OWN breasts, genitals or buttocks.  

Masturbating with others watching who have paid you money to see you do it would thus also come under the general crime of prostitution.

Sincerley
Alpha-Dog