Diva of Debauched Domestic Diva notes a current law that one suspects has slightly, um, gendered origins
Did you know that in New York you can be stopped by the police on the street and if you have condoms on you they can be used as evidence that you were soliciting sex for money? Neither did I but I learned about it last night. SWP is working to try to get that law changed and that is what they are about. When Andrea Ritchie spoke last night and said this I thought to myself about the condoms I had in my pocketbook. I like to practice safe sex. I’m a huge advocate about sex safe just as I think all of us should be but I also should not be at risk for something just for the simple fact I carry condoms.
It’s hard to imagine this law ever being invoked against men, given that as far back as World War II U.S. soldiers were routinely provided with condoms, and given that for much of the time since it’s been practically cliché for men to keep a condom in their wallets “just in case” (a bad idea by the way.) And I don’t know how old the law is (I’m assuming Giuliani-era or earlier) but one has to assume they didn’t imagine that women who aren’t sex workers might be brazen enough to have “just in case” considerations of their own.
And to be fair that’s not too big a stretch. If the law dated back to, say, the 1970s before either health concerns about the Pill or HIV became well-known (and when the line in sex-education circles was “condoms are better than nothing… but only barely) it might have been the case that only women sex-workers would routinely carry condoms. Who knows?
But jimminy crickets, if the law is still on the books that’s a bug not a feature.
Submitted by 2880 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-04-25 11:27.
Well, a quick Google search turns up this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/25/nyregion/the-city-improper-search-cite...
case of condoms being used as evidence (and dismissed by the judge because not found till after the woman's arrest) in a case in January 1986, so whatever law's being referenced has to go back at least till then. That's still post-AIDS, but I'm guessing the law's older and goes back to pre-AIDS (but still should have long since been changed).
[Yup. It seems to me it's probably more often used (and may have been intended) as a harassment-facilitation law -- you want to get someone for something... sort of the equivalent of when they say a burnt-out tail light as reckless endangerment. Yes, it gets thrown out of court, possibly instantly, at the preliminary hearing... but they can hold you till then. Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Submitted by 2880 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-04-25 14:30.
I am pretty sure it's not a law, but evidence. In Kansas, if you have alligator clips in your glove box, and you are either under 30, wearing tie-dyes, or Hispanic or African American, it's likely they will be confiscated and you can be tried with possession of marijuana paraphernalia. There's no law per se against possessing either, but in practice, they become probable cause.
[Excellent point. And of course if you've recklessly endangering everyone with that broken tail light they've got cause to search your glove box too. So yeah, it's good for controlling the hippies and anyone else you'd rather not have in town. Thanks, PattyCake. --fl]
Submitted by 2880 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-04-25 21:52.
Figleaf--not quite: there IS a law against driving with a broken tail light but there is NO law against carrying condoms. What courts have said is that if the police search a woman with her permission and find she is carrying condoms, the police then can have "reasonable suspicion" that the crime of prostitution is being committed and can do a second search (say, of a nearby car) with no permission and no warrant. That's bad, but not so bad as you suggest.
[Thanks for clarifying, LP. And while you're right that it's not as extreme as I though it's still uncomfortably awkward. (One wonders if they could perform a similar search on men after finding condoms in their wallet on the assumption they were johns. )--fl]