There are so many things today that don't really fit with the classic definitions, and "prostitution" is one of them. The classic, common folks' definition is "sex for money" - but what constitutes "sex" is what's in question now. I suspect that most people consider prostitution to involve a penis going into a vagina and that's it - because that's what "sex" was. The definition seems to have been expanded to include some activity that involves one or the other of those body parts, but not necessarily both. But "most people" don't talk about those things. "Normal" people don't do that - or get spanked or tied up.

But there's no question that there is some sexual gratification that goes along with BDSM activities. Is that "sex for money" even though no penis or vagina is involved? There's a legitimate case for including BDSM in the broad category of prostitution.

In Virginia, where I live, there was a law on the books for over 100 years, finally invalidated just three years ago, that declared acts of sodomy, even between consenting adults, a "crime against nature" and therefore a felony. I don't know if anyone ever got arrested for it.

As Ms. Ayn says, there has to be a test case, and I guess few are in a hurry to get that in the works. In the mean time, people are running scared. The All Things Spanking and Someone's Gonna Get It blogs have dropped their listings of pretty-well-vetted spankers, obviously bad for business on both sides. More than one pro domme I know has switched to a an e-mail host that's less (so far anyway) subject to data mining - though someone writing to them from a gmail address puts a hole in that attempt at security.

Who's next? What's next?