In State v. Kittilstad (1999) 231 Wis.2d 245 [603 N.W.2d 732], the defendant, a Lutheran minister, let a series of young men stay at his home while they were studying at a local college. He repeatedly offered each of them money if they would have sex with a woman and let him watch. Each of them refused. Kittilstad, supra, 603 N.W.2d 732, 734-735. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that these actions, as shown at the preliminary hearing, supported a charge of solicitation of prostitution. Kittilstad, supra, 603 N.W.2d 732, 737-740. The defendant argued the conduct he had allegedly solicited did not constitute prostitution because he was only "attempting to facilitate voyeurism, not the providing of sex for a fee." Kittilstad, supra, 603 N.W.2d 732, 738. THE COURT DISAGREED: "Under the defendant's interpretation [the solicitation statute] would not apply to a situation in which a father pays someone to have sex with his son or a businessman pays someone to have sex with his client. The exclusion of these situations from the reach of the broad language of [the solicitation statute] would be unreasonable." Kittilstad, supra, 603 N.W.2d 732, 738-739. "Although it may be true that the crime of prostitution more typically involves the direct and knowing exchange of money by one person in return for sex from the other person, the plain language of [the prostitution statute] extends to other situations." Kittilstad, supra, 603 N.W.2d 732, 739.