Saturday, 3rd April, 2010.
In the lecture about prostitution, the question posed as to whether it was still considered to be prostitution if a person received an agreed sum of money for sex but then failed to supply it received a mixed response.
Whilst some thought it was prostitution because the individual concerned would still effectively be using their body to facilitate a monetary gain, others felt that it was not technically prostitution until the biological act of sex had taken place. Personally, my feelings on the subject would tend to indicate the latter, in that there would simply have been a breach of trust or verbal contract.
In relation to what would be considered to be an appropriate sum and fair price for such a service, I'm not really sure. Apparantly, in Roman times, prosititutes charged the equivalent of eight glasses of red wine: http://askville.amazon.com/Prostitutes-Roman-times-charged-equivalent-price-glasses-red-wine/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7068356. One person at the lecture, however, suggested that it would depend on the quality of the service!
In the event that you did feel that you had been short-changed, however, it's not really the sort of thing that you would want to pursue through the small claims courts is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment