In the hypothetical above, I wasn’t necessarily talking about a set contract per se. I had at-will employment in mind. Like most jobs, the employee could quit whenever they chose.
I see the point about how each encounter should be consensual, but how is sex work different from retail work in this case? If a cashier says “I don’t want to wait on this person,” can they opt out? If you’re saying that sex workers have rights above and beyond those of other workers because of the emotional weight of the duties, that makes sense.
One of the most telling criticisms of (the late) Dennis Hof’s legal brothels in Nevada is that Hof gave out “comp chips” that the women working there had to honor - at a lower rate of compensation than usual. That always seemed like a violation to me, and something that, I assume, would not be tolerated under New Zealand law. Am I correct in this?
Banquet Bear, just so I understand you correctly, the only people who can employ sex workers continuously under New Zealand law are licensed brothel owner/operators. Is that the gist of your interpretation?
A brothel owner operator may employ one or more of the sex workers at their establishment for other tasks, then?
Can you combine the duties? Possibly. Should you? Probably not…adding sex work duties to other typical work tasks risks making everything revolve around the sex.
But here’s a story too interesting to not share:
I once knew a sex worker whose “day job” involved handling dead bodies in a mortuary. So, she is definitely intimate with naked bodies all day, just some are living and some are not.
…the hypothetical above asked specifically about New Zealand which does not have at-will employment. Sure: an employee can simply walk off the job: but that’s beside the point.
I quoted the exact specific law that explains why sex work is different to retail work in this case. It isn’t that each encounter **should **be consensual. Its that each encounter is **required **to be consensual and that consent can be withdrawn at any time. It isn’t about the “emotional weight of the duties.” Its because sex without consent is rape.
I’ve quoted the legislation and explained the circumstances as to why in New Zealand the laws were introduced. Sex workers lobbied for the law change. It was championed by both the political left and the political right. The legislation was designed to protect the rights of both sex workers and the people that frequented them.
This isn’t the case in Nevada. This isn’t the case in countries that have instituted the Nordic Model. This distinction is both relevant and important. The Nordic model is set up around a moral imperative: that sex work is wrong, it should be discouraged and eliminated, and that we should do that by targeting the client base. In Nevada the model is set up around protecting the rights of the brothel owner. Like most things in America it is capitalism unleashed: and it isn’t any surprise that an owner would give out “comp chips” which the workers would be obliged to honour.
That wouldn’t and couldn’t happen here. You cannot oblige a sex worker to honour a commitment.
It isn’t “my interpretation.” I’ve quoted the law. You are welcome to read it if you like and come up with your own interpretation.
You said in your OP that you weren’t wanting to “poke any bears with this question; it’s just something I’m curious about.”
But it looks like you are winding up to get ready to poke the bear. A brothel owner could employ sex workers at their establishment for other tasks. What they almost certainly wouldn’t be able to do would be to employ them to do secretarial duties **and ** to compel them to have sex with the brothel owner. If the intent of your OP was to ask the question “can a brothel owner ask a sex worker to also work at front desk reception” then the answer to that question is “yes they can.” But I don’t think that was the intent of the OP.
No, I’m not winding up to ask anything further, just seeking a better understanding of the New Zealand law and how it operates. My question really was whether or not someone could employ someone as a regular employee where sex work was considered part of the assigned tasks. You have explained that this is not the case. Thank you.
I’m really not trying to provoke you here; I’m just trying to understand. Of course I believe that any sex without consent is rape, but that principle extends to pretty much everything. Any act that someone does without consent is, at least, coercion. The psychological and emotional gravity associated with sexual issues elevates what would otherwise be coercion or assault to rape. This is, I presume, related to why non-citizen guest workers are not allowed to be sex workers. The danger of human trafficking for coerced sex work, i.e., rape, is so horrific that this entire category of worker must be excluded entirely.
I’m still a little hazy on how the law above works in simple practice in relation to regular employment. Is it correct to say that every paid sex act must be considered its own transaction, with consent and payment for that act alone, and that consent can be withdrawn at any time? Again, I’m not trying to provoke you. Believe it or not, we’re probably on the same side.
…I’ll quote the relevant section of the act again:
Its pretty straightforward and it all goes back to the basic premise that you can’t contract out of criminal law. You can’t write into a contract “you have to regularly steal money” and you can’t write into a contract “if you don’t like a customer you can kill them” and you can’t write into a contract “you must have sex even if you don’t consent.” You can pay in advance, you can pay for multiple sex sessions, but the sex worker has the right to withdraw consent at any time. If the sex worker does withdraw consent the client has the right to ask for a refund. However this isn’t a binary “consent withdrawn/sue for damages situation.” The unique circumstances of each individual dispute would be taken into account.
This isn’t a moral argument. This isn’t about the “emotional weight of the duties” or anything like that. Its just sex. All the legislation does is put in place a framework that allows transactions of a sexual nature to happen in a way that protects the health and safety of the sex worker. It contains appropriate and proportionate protections whilst not removing agency from sex workers. They can work for themselves if they like, they can work with a small group of other sex workers and they can do that without having to register with the government. Unlike other places like some states in Australia there is zero requirement for mandatory testing. The government even issued these occupational health guidelines for the industry.
I need to emphasise that the **only **reason we ended up with the legislation we have is because the process started from years of advocacy from sex workers, the process was guided by people from within the sex industry, and that the decision makers **listened **to what people in the sex industry had to say. So at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter what I have to say about the matter. It the people that work in the industry that you should be listening too.