Wis. Stat. § 944.30
In order for a female prostitute to avoid prosecution upon equal protection grounds, it must be shown that the failure to prosecute male patrons was selective, persistent, discriminatory, and without justifiable prosecutorial discretion. State v. Johnson, 74 Wis. 2d 169, 246 N.W.2d 503 (1976). Prosecuting for solicitation under s. 939.30, rather than for prostitution under this section, did not deny equal protection. Sears v. State, 94 Wis. 2d 128, 287 N.W.2d 785 (1980). A prostitution raid focusing only on female participants amounts to selective prosecution in violation of equal protection. The applicable constitutional analysis is discussed. State v. McCollum, 159 Wis. 2d 184, 464 N.W.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1990). As long as someone compensates another for engaging in nonmarital sex, the elements of prostitution are met. The person making payment need not engage in the sexual act. State v. Kittilstad, 231 Wis. 2d 245, 603 N.W.2d 732 (1999), 98-1456. Since sub. (1) [now sub. (1m) (a)] requires a request for nonmarital sexual intercourse be coupled with the offer of anything of value, evidence that the defendant was willing to pay to watch the witness masturbate did not satisfy sub. (1). State v. Turnpaugh, 2007 WI App 222, 305 Wis. 2d 722, 741 N.W.2d 488, 06-2301.