If you carry more than 2 condoms in DC...yer a whore!!!!

http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/once-twice-three-times-a-lady-of-the-night-dc-cops-can-arrest-you-for-carrying-more-than-two-condoms/

How stupid is this...wait, don't answer that.

Maybe we should just slap a big scarlet letter on our foreheads to distinguish us from those who get paid to do it.

(same girl, btw...don't hate)

Am I a whore, or is it just the ladies?

And that is exactly the point (so to speak) that is made by the blogger....

Many couples in the first throes of infatuation can be very....condom friendly.

Naturally! Perhaps it would be better if working girls, or just plain sexually active women have unprotected sex I suppose?
It makes more sense to get down on working girls who don't carry condoms!


This country just gets stupider and stupider. When will politicians learn to stay the hell out of people's bodies, bedrooms, and private lives?

:hide:

Otherwise you'd have to use one up between the checkout and the sidewalk.

And guess who will be targeted? Oh yeah, predominantly poor minority females, no matter how they are dressed.

Better get a good lawyer. Oh, I forgot, that costs a lot of money.

or worse?

& that right there is the action of a police state.

Prostitution is way, way down the list of crimes in terms of relevance(just higher than a major marijuana bust, IMO), but it's ridiculously easy to arrest people for.

I lived on Capp Street in San Francisco when I was a college student. I was sometimes mistaken for a prostitute by old dweebs driving by in their suburban vehicles (wishful thinking on those creeps' part). Fortunately, cops could always tell that I was a nice looking white girl, and I was never questioned.

Maybe the cops were smart and knew what they were doing. I like to think so, but I'll never truly know.

that they are allowed to have on their possession, and make it a law, or leave the women alone!

How's that for civil liberties?

this is so stupid it's hard to make sense of it, if you know what I mean.

WTF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Ray_Specs_(novelty)

Can't see the more than two condoms part of the law!

Who are you talking about?

You, if you are a woman, can be arrested for no other reason than walking through the "wrong" block, in DC. If you, (again if you are a woman) have more than 2 condoms, you will be charged with prostitution.

Setting aside the fact that this is a law written for selective prosecution and it's massive potential for abuse who in the hell thought it would be a good idea to encourage prostitutes not to use condoms?

Seriously. With this law DC is encouraging the spread of deadly disease.

The life of a street prostitute is enough of a nightmare without this.

...makes Nordic Baby Jesus cry.

They now criminalize any woman (and only women) who carry condoms, so now all women are going to be afraid to buy condoms. Women are often the responsible, taking care of birth control in their relationships. So now that's going to be a crime.

It has been a while since I've needed to buy condoms, but don't they still come in boxes of 3 and 12? So any woman who buys condoms is automatically breaking the law unless she buys singles?

Who the hell has sex and only needs one condom? :wtf:

If you are in a regular relationship who wants to buy condoms one at a time every time you have sex? That's what the 12 packs are for. You pick up one box every now and then and it lasts you a little while. Now they're making this illegal unless it's the guy who goes out and buys it.

Now women will have to trust men to buy condoms, and put up with their excuses when they don't. So the rate of unprotected sex will almost certainly increase.



What is the next thing that it will be legal for men to own, but illegal for women? All other forms of birth control? Sex toys? "God knows" that men need to regulate and control absolutely everything having to do with women's sex lives, don't you know. :sarcasm:

Then what? Investment accounts? Will we go back to the days when only men were trusted to own or control wealth? Or how about property?

Once we allow this kind of discrimination, even for a single product, regardless of the justification, the precedent is there that it is okay to discriminate and allow men to own things that women aren't allowed to own. There are groups out there would use that precedent and do their best to expand it in ugly ways.

"Move Along: Policing Sex Work in Washington DC"

The report seems worth reading, but the closest thing I find to the two condom claim in the OP is the following:

Anti-prostitution policies in D.C. pose serious threats to health and safety of community members identified or otherwise targeted as sex workers. Two policies stand out in particular: first, “move along” polices geared at cleansing certain neighborhoods of sex workers; and second, the use of condoms and safe sex as evidence to arrest or prosecute someone for prosecution and the related practice of confiscating and destroying condoms and other safe sex materials <at page 2>

I looked at the first ten websites I could find making this "you can be arrested as a prostitute in DC for having more than two condoms" claim; those that provided links all traced back to the change.org page

Conclusion: the Women's Rights page at change.org seems to have tried to point people towards the 2008 "Move Along" report with a somewhat inaccurate talking point; but instead of reading the report, people fostered an urban legend

:wow:

What year do we have? 1930?

we use condoms for birth control. So if they are in her luggage and I bring my family to DC on holiday and we are stopped driving in the wrong area she can go to jail if the condoms are in her bag? Here in France the public health workers pass out condoms to prostitutes.

"Umm, as much as I hate to ruin a good moral panic… By calling it “a move” and “is considered proof,” your phrasing implies that this is an explicit policy decision.

But in the article you link to from the Womensrights blog, it merely says “And they’ve been accused of using carrying three or more condoms as proof of intent to sell sex.” And if you follow that to the RH Reality Check blog, it only says that arrests based on carrying multiple condoms is “not uncommon,” and that “anecdotal evidence suggests” you can be arrested for having three or more.

I skimmed the entire Move Along Report PDF and also searched on the term “condom.” There is NOTHING about any formal policy that treats the carrying of protection as legal evidence of prostitution. As far as I can see, there are only reports of cops making arrests, on their own, on that basis.

That’s still an abusive, anti-woman, and socially harmful practice. I’m not arguing against that for a second. But I’m already seeing people on sites like Reddit and Digg talking as if Washington DC passed a *law* saying women can be arrested for having three or more condoms, that it’s part of this Prostitution-Free Zone program, and that ordinary women are somehow in grave danger of being arrested there purely on the basis of carrying a bunch of condoms in their purse.

I think there’s a kernel of truth to this story, obviously, but I’m watching it get further and further out of hand the further removed it gets from original sources. Straight up, is there any evidence that the “three condoms” thing exists on paper anywhere, or is it just something people are picking up from reading too fast?

C’mon, guys, I just got finished crowing at a bunch of conservatives who were spreading inane rumors about our president. I really want to believe that we’re the Good Guys and that we actually do our homework before we snap to conclusions. I *totally* support the cause of public reproductive health and better treatment of women, but now I’m worried we’re gonna start an urban legend that it’s “illegal for women to carry more than three condoms in Washington DC.” In fact, that legend seems to have already started. And that upsets me."

knows how long it will last?? Billy Mayes woulda been a great promoter... can't you just hear it now??

and limit the amount of legal products in your possession?

I thought that authority was determined by legislative powers.

leading to a blog leading to the law!

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1238,q,560843.asp

"Violations of the Prostitution Free Zone Law
Essentially, any group of two or more persons congregating in a Prostitution Free Zone for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses is violating the Prostitution Free Zone law. Among the circumstances which officers may consider in determining whether such a purpose is manifested would include the following:

The conduct of a person being observed, including that such person is behaving in a manner raising a reasonable belief that the person is engaging or is about to engage in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses, such as
Repeatedly beckoning to, stopping, attempting to stop, or attempting to engage passers-by in conversation for the purpose of prostitution
Stopping or attempting to stop motor vehicles for the purpose of prostitution
Repeatedly interfering with the free passage of other persons for the purpose of prostitution
Information from a reliable source indicating that a person being observed routinely engages in or is currently engaging in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses within the Prostitution Free Zone
Physical identification by an officer of the person as a member of a gang or association which engages in prostitution or prostitution-related offense
Knowledge by an officer that the person is a known participant in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses
Knowledge by an officer that any vehicle involved in the observed circumstances is registered to a known participant in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses, or a person for whom there is an outstanding arrest warrant for a crime involving prostitution or prostitution-related offenses. (Omnibus Public Safety Emergency Amendment Act of 2006, § 104(d)(2))
The presence of a listed circumstance may or may not be sufficient by itself to give rise to a reasonable belief that a person has congregated for the purpose of participating in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses. MPDC policy requires that the totality of the circumstances create a degree of articulable suspicion that would be sufficient to justify a “Terry” stop of two or more members of the group to investigate prostitution or prostitution-related offenses. Officers are prohibited from relying on stereotypes or “profiles,” but shall look for conduct that might have a relationship to prostitution or prostitution-related offenses and which can be clearly articulated.



"

On a cold November day the head of the Trojan Company took the podium.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the press, we at the Trojan Company are taking the opportunity of this Election Day to introduce our new Political Condoms."

'First, we have Independent Condoms. They come two per pack. One for Friday night, one for Saturday night."

"Next are Democratic Condoms. They come four per pack. Two for Friday, two for Saturday."

"And finally are Republican Condoms. They come ten per pack. One for 2009, one for 2010, one for 2011..."

own doing this--not an actual law:

lazlototh | Saturday January 9, 2010 12:15 am 7
Umm, as much as I hate to ruin a good moral panic… By calling it “a move” and “is considered proof,” your phrasing implies that this is an explicit policy decision.

But in the article you link to from the Womensrights blog, it merely says “And they’ve been accused of using carrying three or more condoms as proof of intent to sell sex.” And if you follow that to the RH Reality Check blog, it only says that arrests based on carrying multiple condoms is “not uncommon,” and that “anecdotal evidence suggests” you can be arrested for having three or more.

I skimmed the entire Move Along Report PDF and also searched on the term “condom.” There is NOTHING about any formal policy that treats the carrying of protection as legal evidence of prostitution. As far as I can see, there are only reports of cops making arrests, on their own, on that basis.

That’s still an abusive, anti-woman, and socially harmful practice. I’m not arguing against that for a second. But I’m already seeing people on sites like Reddit and Digg talking as if Washington DC passed a *law* saying women can be arrested for having three or more condoms, that it’s part of this Prostitution-Free Zone program, and that ordinary women are somehow in grave danger of being arrested there purely on the basis of carrying a bunch of condoms in their purse.
. . . . .

http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/once-twice-three-times-a-lady-of-the-night-dc-cops-can-arrest-you-for-carrying-more-than-two-condoms/