Criminal law, International

Company Insists That It Is Not Guilty of Prostitution In Hiring “Condom Testers”

A Chinese company raised an interesting statutory interpretation question with a job advertisement seeking “condom testers” in Shanghai. The ad declared that the company was looking to hire “lively and good-looking women” aged 18 to 25 to work for a salary of up to 3,000 yuan (US$480) per day. A company official identified as Chen insisted that, while the women are required to have sex, they are doing it for research and the company only hired the women because it cannot afford machines.

Chen says that they already have enough men. Chen assured people that “[i]n the tests, women usually don’t have such a tough job as only men are responsible for taking notes and getting test results.”

While the company has since taken down the advertisement, it received dozens of applicants.

In the United States, the standard definition of prostitution is:

(a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly:
(1) offers to engage, agrees to engage, or engages in sexual conduct for a fee; or
(2) solicits another in a public place to engage with him in sexual conduct for hire.

A “condom tester” would seem to be engaged in “sexual conduct for a fee” though the company is paying a “salary” rather than a per act fee. Indeed, this appears to be the distinction drawn by the company. Chen insists that the women were only required to do one “testing” a day and would not receive more pay for additional acts. Moreover, the company could argue that the male is not actually paying for sexual services since both parties are paid by a third party, the company.

Before one dismisses the legal interpretation, keep in mind that we allow people to have sex for money if they do so on film. We call them actors as opposed to prostitutes. What is the difference between paying a salary to “actors” as opposed to “testers”?

Source: Shanghai Daily

Kudos: Professor Don Clarke

36 thoughts on “Company Insists That It Is Not Guilty of Prostitution In Hiring “Condom Testers””

  2. ID, Here in the US they give you that twilight anasthesia so the procedure is a piece o’ cake. It’s the prep that sucks, drinking a gallon of nasty tasting stuff and sitting on the toilet 20 times! I got a 10 year clearance after my first one. You should have had many by now you old fart.

  3. By the definition posted, porn is prostitution.

    I think the difference usually is who is paying. A third party is paying – in this case a company that produces a product (just like with porn). If one of the participants or someone related to one of the participants is paying, it’s clearly prostitution… But if a third party is paying both parties (or either party), it wouldn’t seem like it would be…

    Or if it were, then porn would be, too.

  5. Blouise, Martha Raddatz hosted this week yesterday. Since she’s a military reporter she knows the practical side to long deployments w/o sex, something we discussed last week and mentioned it vis a vis Patreus and Allen. It really has to be tough when you’re deployed in a Muslim country. Not like the Gi’s had it in the UK, Germany and Italy during WW2. Or like the soldiers in Viet Nam or Korea.

  6. I wonder if they test the condoms using male on male sex? Maybe like Iran, China doesn’t have any homosexuals. But let’s be honest, anal sex is one of the most likely way for HIV to be transmitted. So, if you are a person who engages in anal sex you have a right to know it passes that test. I’m not gay..NTTAWWT. But the countdown to my digital rectal exam is coming up and that orefice is a tighter squeeze. It’s REALLY on my mind.

  7. We also have two astronaughts who could be charged under the Chinese definition of prostitution.

    “They lack the funds to buy testing equipment”

    Wow, that’s not something I would advertise if I was them. Enough money to make machinery but none to ensure quality assurance standards. Seems to be a common ailment of Chinese industry.

    Actually in a way this might be different nuance in management / labor relations. The treatment is the same, but at least the bosses are using protection.

  8. I have tested a lot of them and never know if they work or not. Of course I never caught nuttin nor have I contributed to the birthin of any babies.

  9. I would imagine the company not only has all the male testers it needs those employees are actually paying the company a salary rather than taking it 😉

  13. This is where the rubber meets the road. They are not having fun or getting paid to provide fun so therefore getting paid to test the rubber is not the same as getting paid to get someone to have fun. No pun intended on the fun pun.

  15. “Before one dismisses the legal interpretation, keep in mind that we allow people to have sex for money if they do so on film. We call them actors as opposed to prostitutes. What is the difference between paying a salary to “actors” as opposed to “testers”?”

    This seems to be a distinction without a difference.

  16. “Chen says that they already have enough men. Chen assured people that “[i]n the tests, women usually don’t have such a tough job as only men are responsible for taking notes and getting test results.”

    That’s one funny paragraph. Can’t you just envision the corporate bureaucrat in a white lab coat making this statement in all seriousness and with a straight face?

  17. Isn’t it the same as porn? If you pay for sex, its a crime. If you pay for sex and film it, its porn.

  18. Because. They can’t. Afford. The machines? (To be read in the voice of William Shatner, Stephen Hawking, or George Carlin.)

  19. Pingback: Chinese Company Seeks to Hire “Condom Testers,” Not Prostitutes | Barticles

Comments are closed.