• Welcome Notice

    Welcome Guest to SexForum!

    New Zealand’s Fastest Growing Adult Entertainment Forum!

The New Zealand Law that is written by Lawyers, therefore ambiguous. Condoms, Mandatory?

The New Zealand Law that is written by Lawyers, therefore ambiguous. Condoms, Mandatory?
E

EXIT431

New Member
28
12
3
The Law:
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.


High Court confirms scope of “all reasonable steps” obligation
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
In contracts where achieving a specific outcome is crucial but the exact steps to reach it are uncertain, parties often include a clause requiring one or both sides to take “reasonable steps” or to use “reasonable endeavours” to reach the desired result. This approach ensures a commitment to the goal while allowing flexibility in how it is pursued. The recent High Court decision in Remediation NZ Ltd v Enviro NZ Ltd confirms what taking “all reasonable steps” requires.
Key takeaways
A clause in a binding agreement requiring a party to take “all reasonable steps” to enter into a later contract can be enforceable (and was enforceable in this case);
A party who commits to taking “all reasonable steps” must exhaust all reasonable paths or actions to achieve the desired outcome;
An obligation to take “all reasonable steps” towards a particular outcome does not mean the particular outcome must occur.
 
An obligation to take “all reasonable steps” towards a particular outcome does not mean the particular outcome must occur.
Read it and Weep.
 
EXIT431 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
1/10
Fail

Here is the thing with the legal system, and the reason we have a government to pass laws, which are necessarily general, and courts to interpret whether and how those laws apply to specific circumstances.

You have cherry picked one line from that second-hand report of a legal decision, interpreted it in one way and presented it as definitive proof that your position is officially legally vindicated.

That isn't how the world works.

If we were in court and I were opposing counsel (and inept enough to quote a blog post as "evidence") I would point to the very first line of the "Key takeaways" you have included in your own quote as evidence of legal precedent supporting your case, which equally clearly states "A clause in a binding agreement requiring a party to take “all reasonable steps” to enter into a later contract can be enforceable (and was enforceable in this case);"
 
Ok, so, what does it mean then? In practice. Another legal opinion: All Reasonable steps in this section means acting with reasonable and best endeavours doing all it is reasonable in the circumstances.https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/all-reasonable-steps
 
What it means is that it's not a sure thing, either way. [That's why these arguments continue to rage. But the truth is that there is no definitive answer at this point in time.]

In the definitely unlikely but definitely possible event that you're ever prosecuted for breaching section 9 paragraph 1 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 "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."

Or paragraph 3 "A person who provides or receives commercial sexual services must take all other reasonable steps to minimise the risk of acquiring or transmitting sexually transmissible infections."

Then you may or may not be found guilty.

Depending on exactly what you did, exactly what she did, exactly what if any evidence is available, the quality of the prosecuting counsel, the quality of your counsel, and the inclinations and moods of the judge and/or jury.
 
I have searched for a written definition all reasonable steps, it is English Law, I gather, if it cannot be stated clearly what steps a SW must take, that can understood written in Crayon, then the Law has achieved 3 things for the Government, all Revenue related: A tax grab, and a decline in People seeking medical treatment for STDs, and Global Media coverage praising the Government. The Law is seen as definitive proof that a Condom must be used for all Penis activity. The reason why this is not the actual Law, when the intent has been trumpeted loudly and echoed across the world, may lie with the Lawyers, whose vague wording ensures that future decades of legal ambiguity can only be interpreted by Lawyers. Who will argue from each side what the Law means Time to use Grok..
 
Clarified somewhat:
Official guidance from the Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective (NZPC) interprets this as:
  • Providing, offering, or insisting on condoms/barriers.
  • Checking they are used correctly (e.g., properly fitted, not damaged, and kept on throughout the act).
  • Refusing to proceed without one if the other party resists.
  • For clients, this includes not removing a condom without consent (known as "stealthing"), as cases have resulted in fines.
Both parties share responsibility equally. A sex worker could breach the law by proceeding without a barrier despite a client's refusal, and a client could breach it by refusing or sabotaging barrier use.
if a Condom slips off in the course of movement without knowledge of either participants, what then? It happens often.
 
It's a moot point.

The WG will make you use barrier protection as part of her consent to giving you any form of sexual activity that involves your pee pee and it entering any part of her body.
Refusal to use it will result in the booking being cancelled, at the very least.
It is after all her body, and her choice, and the use of protection is for her health/safety as well as yours, and I can guarantee that it would be universally required even if it were not legally required (I know for an almost certain fact that it would be, as it was universal practice back in the 1990s long before the PRA was even a thing).
So regardless of you deciding that the the law might be written ambiguously or not, it is going to be required before mr happy even gets close to miss coochie, and if you say no then you'll be invited to leave, if you try to (or succeed) in removing it you are going to have a visit from PC Plod followed shortly thereafter with a little expensive and embarrassing court time followed by a few years in a concrete cell where you'll be wishing condoms were in fact mandatory.

All your bit about the worker could refuse protection and force the client.
Total rot, as no worker would refuse to use protection ... just not gonna happen.
If it slips off what then?
This has happened to me a number of times during bookings, the answer is simple, You feel it starting to slip (you'll feel it trust me, unless you are really trying not to feel it slipping), you withdraw, inform the worker that you felt it starting to slip, and she will sort out a new condom and probably think good things about you because you acted responsibly ... fail to do so, and read my comment above about wishing for mandatory condoms while you are locked in a concrete cell with a dude who doesn't like sex offenders.

This isn't directed just at the OP as I don't fully understand their intention of raising the question, more just a general comment:
Stop trying to find justifications for no condom, just stop, it's all bollocks, moot, and makes you look bad.
Just cowboy up, wear the jimmy hat that will be both offered and required (I dislike them too, but it is part and parcel of punting) and enjoy your time with the nice lady who is sharing her bits with you, and it'll all be fun and trouble free.
 
Last edited:
Folks, breaking news, unprotected oral is the NORM, especially male on female. Fact, I have NEVER been asked to use a dental dam, EVER. Point me to a prosecution for someone providing or receiving said services.

If any posters on this thread have EVER given unprotected oral on a SW or received unprotected oral from a SW then those services were offered, accepted and performed by two consenting adults. So commenting to the contrary as staunch advocates of the law is therefore hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
I think the decision to wear protection should be left to the consenting adults to decide for themselves.
If both parties agree that they consent to having unprotected sex, then how is any of that the government's business?
 
Perhaps I've been exceptionally fortunate, but I can't recall ever having a police officer in the room during a punt to ensure compliance with the law.
 
EXIT431 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
If you look at steathing the men have been jailed
Dee said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
With a condom slipping or coming off its not something you feel all the time . If a girl is super wet you dont get much feeling so can come off without knowing . Also with pre cum it lubes the condom up inside , so it can feel if the condom is off but isnt so need to check just in case
 
Jessie45 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Felt it start to happen every single time.
Pulled out and looked, sure enough was right, the jimmy hat was starting to slide up.
Granted, sample size of one (but one with a penis that is not as sensitive as it once was), but multiple occasions.
Like you said yourself, look down and check.

But my comment in essence was not to cover the whole stealthing thing.
It was to cover the same idea that gets brought up about every 3-6 months here and place like here, which tries to argue the law isn't the law for whatever spurious reason, so that a certain type of guy can argue that they shouldn't have to wear a condom ... and we all know that is why this subject keeps recycling in a slightly different form so often, if we are even vaguely honest.
As I said in my post, condoms were a universally required thing by WGs at least as far back as the 1990s (when I was first old enough to partake), which was when sex for money was still illegal, so it isn't new.
Guys trying to find excuses that it isn't required isn't new either, but we need to stop and just accept what is instead of this constant tug of war that will never go anywhere and just makes us look like ignorant chuds.
Like I said, I personally don't like using them, know that I'd perform better and would enjoy the sensation more without, but they are there for a good reason, the health and safety of both participants, and that is reason enough for me to accept it without question or argument as to why it shouldn't be (which again, is why this subject keeps coming back).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top