One-way driving markets the polity that is Dutch

The government in the Netherlands has clarified that it is legal for driving instructors to offer lessons in return for sex, as long as the students are over the age of 18.

However, it is illegal to offer sex in return for lessons.

Transport minister Melanie Schultz van Haegen and Justice minister Ard van der Steur addressed the issue in response to a question tabled in parliament by Gert-Jan Segers of the socially conservative Christian Union party, noting that, although ‘undesirable’, offering driving lessons with sex as payment is not illegal.

There is more here, and for the pointer I thank Michael C.


Does this change the way we should compute GDP?

You are missing his point. He's not asking whether this is counted under the current rules, but whether this form of payment obviates the need for recalculating GDP.

Obviously this is not going to massive distortions to GDP, especially in comparison to say home cooking and cleaning.

*necessitates not obviates.

Is payment after, during or upfront - as in before, not front seat.

You don't learn how to drive in one lesson, so presumably it's "pay as you go".

Alas, the things that will pass away with the advent of driverless cars.

Rumor has it blow jobs from Big Blue aren't quite the same thing yet, but they are getting there.

So don't be too depressed.

One really wonders how the BTW (Belasting Toegevoegde Waarde, VAT) is collected, though.

I dont have a driving license hmmmmm

Does this mean that sex is acceptable as a tradable currency but not as a service?

The funniest thing is that this practice is frequent enough to have a commonly understood name ('ride for ride'). That being the case, it seems like it opens up all other sorts of other opportunities for enterprising Dutch service providers. Plumbing seems a natural extension -- it's done in the home already and is about as expensive as prostitution, so it seems there would be fewer problems working out the exchange rate.

Parallel porking.

Reminds me of the hypocrisy of people that believe it is morally repugnant for an employer to terminate a labor contract because the employee is gay... but it is ok for an employee to terminate a labor contract if their boss is gay.

Guess you can't expect logical consistency from people whose arguments are largely based on pathos.

Is this what they mean by "going Dutch"?

Comments for this post are closed