In People v. Freeman (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 419, the Supreme Court noted that People v. Hill (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3d 525 had defined "lewd act" for purposes of prostitution so as to require that " '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.' " (Freeman, supra, at p. 424, italics omitted, quoting Hill, supra, at pp. 534-535.) Freeman then held that "in order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification." ( People v. Freeman, supra, 46 Cal. 3d at p. 424.) Thus, it adopted that portion of the Hill definition which required such a sexual purpose. However, it did not adopt that portion of the Hill definition which required the prostitute to touch the customer. To the contrary, it expressly refused to decide "whether or not prostitution must always involve a 'customer' . . . ." (Freeman, supra, at p. 424.)