• Welcome Notice

    Welcome Guest to SexForum!

    New Zealand’s Fastest Growing Adult Entertainment Forum!

VIP yes or no

VIP yes or no
drash99nz said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
You are correct that is illegal and hypocritical. I don’t think it’s so much a legal or STI matter, I think many WG’s simply don’t want to suck a man’s dick raw, they might find the smell, size, or precum /cum in their mouth nasty, whereas getting paid to lie down and spread her legs doesn’t seem like such a bad deal.

That said, it would be less offensive to a client to explain it away as being unsanitary and illegal rather than uninterested in sucking their junk without rubber.
 
I have said this before but if they developed a cure for all STDs/STIs tomorrow and there was no more chance of catching anything. And they changed the laws so condoms were not required for sex workers. I still think a lot of sex workers would require their clients to use them because they think not using condoms for BJs and Sex is hygienic and gross. Plus they don't want to taste some random man's cum if they don't have to lol.
 
drash99nz said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
I have explained this many times on this (I think) and other forums. The PRA 2003 doesn’t proscribe unprotected cunnilingis. What the law requires is the use of a prophylactic sheath, or other protective barrier, where there is penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth …… and then adds ‘or another activity with a similar or greater risk of acquiring or transmitting sexually transmissible infections.’

At that point, we bring in the empirical scientific evidence which is that cunnilingus carries a LOWER risk, of STI transmission, than any of the penetrative sex acts described above.

So, accordingly, unprotected cunnilingus is NOT a proscribed (that is unlawful) activity under the PRA.

Not sure why so many people get this wrong, it’s really just a simple matter of applying science to the statute.
 
Last edited:
I hate to get into this as the PRA has been discussed many times before... But I did not read anything that specifically mentioned "penile" penetration. So I assume you can also interpret it to include penetration with the tongue... Some of the dental dam girls would probably argue that, and in fact you could also include french kissing if you really wanted.

But like all these acts and laws they are vague and open to interpretation... and as you know lawyers could argue for days from either position. So I wouldn't exactly say its a matter of applying science. They were probably purposely created to be a little vague as to give a little flexibility to the sex workers - which I am sure they hoped would be using a common sense approach.

You could also interpret "all reasonable steps" quite differently... they don't make custom condoms for my curvy pig's tail penis after all.
 
Either way if a girl is not wanting to give a safe or unsafe blowjob, arguing about its actual legalities, even if she uses it as an excuse is not going to change her mind.
 
You are correct @JohnnyPunter, penetration is not defined.

I agree with you, the PRA has deliberately been drafted so as to be open to interpretation. Cunnilingus is generally non-penetrative, and obviously it’s the woman’s call as to what she allows.

You and I don’t disagree on this. What annoys me is the many, on both sides of the bed, who assert that unprotected cunnilingus is ipso facto unlawful, when it’s not.
 
Last edited:
STIs are no joke. Don't put yourself and others at risk for momentary pleasure. Educate yourselves on STIs. Understand your risks and the consequences (most of the time it's not us that get hurt the most). Play it safe boys, play it safe.
 
Johnnymac said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer, but to me it's pretty clear.....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"9 Sex workers and clients must adopt safer sex practices​

(1)
A person must not provide or receive commercial sexual services unless he or she has taken all reasonable steps to ensure a prophylactic sheath or other appropriate barrier is used if those services involve vaginal, anal, or oral penetration or another activity with a similar or greater risk of acquiring or transmitting sexually transmissible infections."
 
Well for starters what do they mean by "safer"? I mean that could literally just mean doing a quick visual check of the penis before they accept it raw into their body. Because that is SAFER than just accepting it into their body without doing a visual check...

So does that sound like "very clear" legislation to you?

Surely you can see how the whole thing can be interpreted differently? I'm not encouraging ******* sex services here. I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out the problems with the legislation.
 
JohnnyPunter said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
You weren't the one asking what bit wasn't clear. Still keen to hear from the other guy who said it wasn't clear

But, in short, using a condom or a dam for oral or penetrative activities is safer than without.

Nothing is 'safe' in this world, there's risks crossing the road you might get hit by a car. It's minimizing risk and choosing safer options.

But, I know from previous posts you're OK with risking STI's for sake of a BBBJ from a SW, each to their own. Only pointing out the legislation around it is pretty clear which was the question I was answering
 
I'm just pointing out there is a level of vagueness to it which can be interpreted different, and it was probably designed that way. I presume Johnnymac also agrees with that.

But even if I have received BBBJ's from sex workers, I would have still employ safer sex practices... I wouldn't just do it with any worker and I would also make sure to at least do a visual inspection of their mouth first lmao. That is essentially safer sex.

The law doesn't define how much safer we have to be. Is wearing two condoms on your dick at the same time safer? Just in case one breaks. And I think performing cunnilingus, especially if you don't use your tongue to penetrate, presents less risk "of acquiring or transmitting sexually transmissible infections". So therefore it falls outside the "similar or greater risk" requirement.

Either way legal or illegal sex workers are only going to do what they are comfortable with doing anyway. As a whole they're generally much more willing to let you lick their pussies without a dam than to let you stick your dick in their mouth raw.
 
kiwi123 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
You didn’t have the decency to answer my question, so I’ll explain a little bit about how to interpret a statute.

In this statute, key words are ‘or another activity with a similar, or greater risk’. Then it’s a matter of fact - specially, venereology - as to whether unprotected cunnilingus carries a similar, or greater risk, relative to unprotected fellatio.

From my reading, the former carries a considerably lower disease transmission risk, than the latter. That being the case, it falls outside the ambit of the activities - whatever they are - covered by your highlighted phrase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top