Sauna Club Golden Time - Bruggen

[Hessen Bub]

You will go on and on, right? She will not be punished as for her part she didn't vioolate the law. The client does.

It was vice versa until yesterday in Bavaria: The girls were breaking the law by providing BBBJ or BBFS, the client receiving it didn't.

Maybe you do not understand why, but this is how it is.

HB.

[Bfsie]

It is a common legal concept that when a law is fashioned for the purpose of protecting a protected class that such protected class cannot be prosecuted under that law. This legislative intent is memorialized into this law. Thus, the law is clear that one class of people (the prostitutes who are sought to be protected) cannot be prosecuted under this condom duty portion of the law, but rather the customers themselves. As the explanation section forms part of the legal text of this law that was drafted by the legislators, the courts will not ignore this text when interpreting the law (as you are for some reason insist on doing).

Don't use admire and thank, these kinds of childish words, let's stick the core. I just did an ethnic German girl (my regular) about 3 hours. I asked her about what we are discussing about since we are talking about it. She said that her brothel advised her that she can be prosecuted for BBBJ and other unlawful offenses related to condom duty after July 1st and if she is prosecuted and found guilty, she can be fined minimum 1000 euro and other punishments including imprisonment. But, just for fairness to you, she did say there is no direct fine for BBBJ and other sex acts without condom. On the other words, the fine has to come from her legal prosecution (meaning through court or pre bargain) and not from the spot as her customers may do.

In general, there is no law (including this law) in which offender can not be prosecuted if he or she violates the law. It is the question of how severe the punishment is, it is not the question of whether he / she can be prosecuted. It is almost laughable when you say, well, she violates the law, but she can not be prosecuted, like this case we are talking about. Can you give us an example that somebody violates certain law, but cannot be prosecuted?

Look, I know now (I didn't know you before) that you like to debate and have a lot of time. But not everybody has plenty of free time like you. At some point, I have to stop to do other things, but it doesn't mean you are right or I am right. I make my case and you make your case, we have to let readers decide who is right and who is wrong. Is that OK? I give you the last words and won't response to you anymore because I made my point and won't have time for this topic anymore. I let readers decide who is right and who is wrong.

[Pistons]

While I admire your persistence, I do not admire you reading comprehension. It is a common legal concept that when a law is fashioned for the purpose of protecting a protected class that such protected class cannot be prosecuted under that law. This legislative intent is memorialized into this law. Thus, the law is clear that one class of people (the prostitutes who are sought to be protected) cannot be prosecuted under this condom duty portion of the law, but rather the customers themselves.

But the law actually also mentions protecting the customers in addition to the prostitutes. So does that change this? And why would then only the customers paying for the sex be the ones to get fined? There is a breach in logics there to me.

[Hessen Bub]

I admire your patience, UH. I've given up. Some guys don't want to understand.

HB.

[UltraHappy]

It doesn't matter. Obligation is obligation. Violation is violation. Otherwise, the law doesn't need to include prostitutes in Paragraph 1 of Section 32 if prostitutes can not be prosecuted for the violation under Paragraph 1 of Section 32.

While I admire your persistence, I do not admire you reading comprehension. It is a common legal concept that when a law is fashioned for the purpose of protecting a protected class that such protected class cannot be prosecuted under that law. This legislative intent is memorialized into this law. Thus, the law is clear that one class of people (the prostitutes who are sought to be protected) cannot be prosecuted under this condom duty portion of the law, but rather the customers themselves. As the explanation section forms part of the legal text of this law that was drafted by the legislators, the courts will not ignore this text when interpreting the law (as you are for some reason insist on doing).

In this way, this German law follows the Scandinavian model, which is considered by many of the feminist ilk to be more progressive. It does not make sense to cherry-pick text out of a law and not read the text as a whole, because that is not what the courts do when they interpret laws. Instead, they endeavor to apply the law as it was intended. Thus, the interpretation of a law is interpreted in light of the legislative intent. Here, the text of the law could not be more clear. There is a certain obligation and the prostitute cannot be prosecuted for such violation. Instead, only the customer can be prosecuted for violation of that specific duty.

I don't want to talk about this subject after July 1st. anymore because it will be getting sensitive.

Thank you for agreeing to stop spreading misinformation about the new law. At the very least, this discussion should be moved out of this thread to the Lounge thread.

[UltraHappy]

I was too lazy to argue with you guys, frankly I didn't want to embarrass and disappoint you guys after your 6 months of discussion on this topic as one poster pointed out, which I didn't know. After all I am one of ISG's members. But July 1st is getting closer and some of you still seem to hold above WRONG notion. For the sake of ISG members' benefit and clarification, I spent some time to read the law and encourage other members to read it.

I admire your persistence.

The explanation makes clear that the condom requirement is for the protection of the prostitute and therefore the prostitute will not be prosecuted for this offense under the statute but rather the customer.

Indeed, to quote the explanation under Section 32, it states, "Violations of the condom requirement are therefore not prosecuted for prostitutes under this Act, but for customers. ".

The other posters already even cut and pasted this portion of the law for you. This legislative explanation forms part of the law and will be used to interpret the text of the law. Why do you choose to continue ignoring this key text?

Yes, the prostitutes can be prosecuted for other offenses under the law, for example, failing to register before December 31,2017 or failing to attend their annual counseling requirement, but the law is clear that they cannot be prosecuted for failing to adhere to the condom duty requirement.

[Hessen Bub]

Whatever any FAQ on a paysex site says: Working girls are not getting fined for providing BBBJ or BBFS. The clients are. That's what the law clearly states.

24 h to go.

HB.

[Polyamorist]

A dick has a sad life. His hair is a mess, his family is nuts, his neighbor's an asshole, his bestfriend's a pussy and his owner beats him. By the time July 1 arrives he is locked in a straitjacket.

[Sirioja]

BBBJ business is much worse than punters thought with the WGs whom punters have never done before. You are right. As I wrote before:

I'm pretty sure CIM girls specialists will keep on for 50 for BBBJ + 50 for CIM, because they would lose too much business. Mercedes need gas.

But most of time, attractive girls for me are not CIM specialist and I don't plan to pay more than 100 for 1 hour, with DFK and foreplay, in Germany, so new game to play, to get for this rate. My standard room.

[Bfsie]

If really also prosecuted for WGs, then BBBJ will become more complicated with new girls. I was right to work on regulars.

BBBJ business is much worse than punters thought with the WGs whom punters have never done before. You are right. As I wrote before:

As precaution and current strategy, I think that regular punters maybe should try to know as many WGs as possible personally now so that even after the raids the WGs were still willing to provide BBBJ to you because they knew that most likely you were not an undercover police officer.

[ExpatLover]

I was too lazy to argue with you guys, frankly I didn't want to embarrass and disappoint you guys after your 6 months of discussion on this topic as one poster pointed out, which I didn't know. After all I am one of ISG's members. But July 1st is getting closer and some of you still seem to hold above WRONG notion. For the sake of ISG members' benefit and clarification, I spent some time to read the law and encourage other members to read it.

Under the section 32, paragraph 1 states "customers and clients of prostitutes and sex workers have to take care that condoms be used during sexual intercourse. ".

Explanations (quote):

"In the interest of prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and thus introduced to protect both prostitutes and of their clients or customers and indirectly affected persons and the general public by paragraph 1, an obligation of prostitutes and their customers and clients to use condoms during pecuniary intercourse. Under intercourse fall next to the vaginal and oral and anal sex.".

It is clear for me at least that the use of the condom will be generalized in the coming weeks like in France, Italy, etc. Where it is close to impossible to get a BBBJ except you know the girl. There is no nostalgia to have, it is like that let s adapt to it.

[Sirioja]

I was too lazy to argue with you guys, frankly I didn't want to embarrass and disappoint you guys after your 6 months of discussion on this topic as one poster pointed out, which I didn't know. After all I am one of ISG's members. But July 1st is getting closer and some of you still seem to hold above WRONG notion. For the sake of ISG members' benefit and clarification, I spent some time to read the law and encourage other members to read it.

Under the section 32, paragraph 1 states "customers and clients of prostitutes and sex workers have to take care that condoms be used during sexual intercourse. ".

Explanations (quote):

"In the interest of prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and thus introduced to protect both prostitutes and of their clients or customers and indirectly affected persons and the general public by paragraph 1, an obligation of prostitutes and their customers and clients to use condoms during pecuniary intercourse. Under intercourse fall next to the vaginal and oral and anal sex.".

Then, CIM girls specialists will lose fast 50 business and will have to train their vagina to work more.

If really also prosecuted for WGs, then BBBJ will become more complicated with new girls. I was right to work on regulars.

[Bfsie]

Nope. As I said: Prostitutes will NOT get fined for doing BBFS or BBBJ. That's what the passage "Verstoesse gegen die Kondompflicht sind daher fuer Prostituierte nach diesem Gesetz nicht bugeldbewehrt, jedoch fuer Kunden " says.

HB.

HB seems to be correct on this matter.

I was too lazy to argue with you guys, frankly I didn't want to embarrass and disappoint you guys after your 6 months of discussion on this topic as one poster pointed out, which I didn't know. After all I am one of ISG's members. But July 1st is getting closer and some of you still seem to hold above WRONG notion. For the sake of ISG members' benefit and clarification, I spent some time to read the law and encourage other members to read it.

Under the section 32, paragraph 1 states "customers and clients of prostitutes and sex workers have to take care that condoms be used during sexual intercourse."

Explanations (quote):

"In the interest of prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and thus introduced to protect both prostitutes and of their clients or customers and indirectly affected persons and the general public by paragraph 1, an obligation of prostitutes and their customers and clients to use condoms during pecuniary intercourse. Under intercourse fall next to the vaginal and oral and anal sex.".


As it states, it is very clear to me that wearing condom is an obligation of prostitutes, not only of their customers and clients. We all know now that any prostitute who violates any obligation is subject to a fine of 1000 euro.

I encourage everybody to read it and judge for yourself.

You can choose English (Engels as it shows on the site) language on upper-right corner of the link page.

http://www.6profis.de/lp/prostschg/faq.php

[Sirioja]

Except a few still busy, most of girls have less business, so why do you want they lose your regular business? New law is to protect their health, but they will decide about their new way for business, if they decide to keep on providing or not, for free or for extra rate?

I never force girls, I manage about their sexual potential, so I don't worry about future, I'm pretty sure I will keep on getting what I enjoy for 100 for 1 full hour, sometimes a bit longer, in NRW. Hessen don't worth for me at the moment. I have enough great girls at GT and LR, even I don t plan to return to LR at the moment. GT will be my Germany Summer playfield. Switzerland and Wellcum. At will be to recover for my sporty holidays, just to recover, not to spend my holidays. More attractive places like Dolomiti for holidays.

[Claude Challe]

In which case the 1000 euros fine would be applied then?