Arkansas Women Beware, You May Attain an Unwanted Profession

Vice Discovered to be Alive and Active In Little Rock

            On Saturday February 5^th the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported the police have arrested six women, four for prostitution and two for sexual indecency charges. It seems that these women were all at a business establishment known as the “Paper Moon” where the Vice Squad officers raided and arrested the women.

            Police spokesman said the “investigation is ongoing” but “wouldn’t comment on how the Vice Squad conducted the investigation, but confirmed that officers did not receive any private dances.”  There was no report as to just how the officers viewed this undercover work. But the Police Spokesman did comment “(the Officers) in position to see … and proposition”.

            The horror of reading that such activities actually transpired in a business enterprise in the community was heightened upon reading the actual words of the Criminal Code allegedly broken by these women. Arkansas Code 5-70-102 describes “prostitution as when a person engages in or agrees or offers to engage in sexual activity in return of a fee or expectation”. (Emphasis mine).

            This could have chilling effects upon the romantic activities of women across the state. After all, some may actually be in violation of this statute and be completely innocent, well if not innocent at least unaware, of their new status as a prostitute.

            To explain, let’s look at a woman who may have the profession of, well, as a “Tinker, Baker or Candlestick Maker”. Or to update the professional opportunities for more modern times, let’s speculate that the woman in question is employed as say a banker, or lawyer, or such. She takes six or more trips with the same “boyfriend” to undisclosed, but fully paid for, locations over a short time frame, say 6 months. During that same time frame she also receives other “gifts” in excess of $50,000.00 from this same “boyfriend”. Of course you might argue that the “boyfriend”, unlike Elliot Spitzer, is pursuing this relationship for purely platonic reasons. I.E., there is no “hanky-panky”. But should the Devil have caught them both by the ‘pants’ so to speak has this “professional” women violated code 5-70-102 by “engaging in or agreeing to or offering to engage in sexual activity in return of a fee or expectation”? It’s the “expectation” word that might trip up most of them. After all, what is “expected” might be as innocent as, well, another all expense paid tryst/trip to an undisclosed location.

            I guess that she could always plead that the “gifts” were a complete surprise and in no way payment for favors. Or perhaps ‘poverty’ prevented her from paying her share of the expenses. But surely you can see the problem that women in Arkansas now face. Romantic trysts paid for by the ‘boyfriend’ followed up by ‘gifts’ from the “boyfriend” just might place them into a new unwanted Professional Class, based on Code 5-70-102.