• Welcome Notice

    Welcome Guest to SexForum!

    New Zealand’s Fastest Growing Adult Entertainment Forum!

VIP yes or no

Well I will tell you this guys. I now practice safe sex by not going to places like the Cock Spa because last time I did that I got such a fright when the... (lady?) opened the door I almost had a heart attack.

I also practice safe sex by trying to avoid B&S. Because one time I booked a lady that was a B&S so when she turned around to lead me into her B&S trap, I did a 180 and ran and I was in such a rush to get out of their I jumped off the deck and underestimated the height and tumbled over and landed on my back in a mud puddle. The embarrassment of it all made me even more desperate to get out of there and I managed to make it back to my car intact. But fuck that fall hurt, I swear I could have broken my back.
 
Another thing to consider that doesn't seem to have been brought up in this convo is the industry standard, or what is considered "normal" within the NZ sex work context. Aussie gets brought up a lot because there are more folks offering unprotected BJs, and it's pretty normalized to offer that there from what I've been told. If a worker wanted to only offer covered BJs, she'd probably lose a decent amount of bookings because clients can go to heaps of other workers and get the service uncovered.

Within NZ, it's "the norm" still in a lot of places (and within a lot of different sex worker demographics) to offer DATY without a dam. On this forum you can see plenty of posts that bring up dam usage in a review as a negative. Regardless of the workers preference on dental damn usage, they may not be able to enforce using them because they can't afford to. Unless/until the industry norm around dental dam usage shifts and it becomes as expected within a service as condoms for BJs are, enforcing dam usage can be a risk to the amount of work they'd get.

This is obviously not the case for every worker everywhere, I know plenty of very successful workers in different areas of the SW industry that enforce dental dams. Nobody yell at me.

Also a further perspective on the unprotected DATY, it's obviously the workers decision at the end of the day. She knows exactly when her last sexual health screening was and what the results were, but she doesn't know the clients. Any responsible sex worker stays on top of sexual health screenings and consider them a part of the job, whereas I know that the GenPop of NZ tends to put it in the same basket as a dental hygienist appointment. A vague awareness that you're probably due but organising it, taking the time off work and getting it done seems like a chore. You'll get around to it, eventually.
 
Ivy Brooke said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Under the PRA, a SW can refuse to see any client, or perform any activity whatsoever - absolutely as it should be.

My point, was one of statutory interpretation, and the fact that the commonly promulgated notion that DATY, sans dam/protection, is unlawful, is incorrect.

Having said that, both clients and SW should be highly selective as to whom they do what with, or whom they allow to do what to them. Taking things back to base level ……….. even kissing can be highly problematic …….. ☹️

In terms of the dental hygienist, I see mine every 6 months - without fail. Good teeth and oral hygiene are things to be proud of.

And no-one reading this, and presumably active in the industry, can say it’s beyond their reach.
 
Johnnymac said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Oh yeah I'm not commenting on the legal stuff, I cbf engaging with that side of the convo right now haha. Merely pointing out that equating condom usage for blowjobs to dams for DATY doesn't add up. I see this point used as a reason why we should offer uncovered BJs occasionally.

Also, whoever said that SWers probably wouldn't do it uncovered even if STIs didn't exist was CORRECT, at least for me lmfao. The war stories any escort can tell you about a rogue clients lack of personal hygiene? 'Naam flashbacks. Apparently cleaning their dicks thoroughly and to a "put it in someone's mouth" standard can be a real challenge, especially for the foreskin owners amongst us.

Also, good for you and your teeth health! Me too. Lumino dental plan, $24 a month and you get two free hygienist appts a year, free check ups, and 10% off all other work. Game changer.
 
The interpretation in this thread has been narrowly focused on the text of the statute.

"The meaning of legislation must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose and its context."

Legislation Act 2019 s 10(1)

Applying some jurisprudence, no judge is going to side with an interpretation that exempts unprotected DATY in certain circumstances.
 
OnlyHermes said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
What do you mean ‘certain circumstances’?

If you are saying that a reasonable judge would construe section 9 to mean a requirement for the mandatory use of barrier protection in relation to DATY. Then, I think you are wrong.

If that’s the case we’ll have to agree to disagree.
 
Johnnymac said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...

You may not have been following some of the more recent appellate level cases.

Disagree anyway as your construction relies on "similar" excluding "lesser" whereas Oxford defines "similar" as "having a significant or notable resemblance to". This assumes that you're correct about the empirical evidence being probative on the risk being lesser.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top