Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

Flip

Original poster

German male escort's data hidden from paternity suit woman

13 replies

LurkingHusband · 02/05/2017 16:06

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39777609

A woman who got pregnant after having sex with a male escort in a German hotel has failed in a legal battle to find out his name.

The hotel where they spent three nights in 2010, in the city of Halle, does not have to tell her the man's name, a court in Munich ruled.

The man's right to privacy outweighed the woman's claim for child support payments from him, the ruling said.

(contd)

OP posts:

lessworriedaboutthecat · 02/05/2017 18:22

I think that's fair enough really if you pay to have unprotected sex with an escort and then get pregnant then hell mend you.

Lweji · 02/05/2017 18:27

Even if she knew who he was, it would be unfair to claim maintenance from him, IMO. Unless she suspected him of not using condoms without her knowledge.

AmeliaLion · 02/05/2017 18:29

Surely the child's right to proper support outweighs the right of privacy? Or is the German state offering to pick up the tab?

InfinityPlusOne · 02/05/2017 18:35

I'd have preferred it if they also ordered that the child could find out his identity at the age of 18 as I strongly feel that children have a right to know their parentage.

What would happen in the reverse case? If a female escort got pregnant and knew who the father was, would the same apply?

It's probably different in Germany as their law on prostitution is very different to U.K. Doubt the court ruling would be the same here.

Asmoto · 02/05/2017 18:40

Reading the article, it seems the decision was made because there were four men with the same name staying at the hotel at the same time, and the woman didn't have enough detail to confirm which one was the escort - so it was more about protecting random innocent people than preserving the rights of the escort.

MrsHathaway · 02/05/2017 18:40

It wasn't clear in the report I read whether she knew about the non-use of condoms. In some jurisdictions (including Germany? anyone know?) if you consent to protected sex and your partner doesn't use protection then it's rape.

Presumably data protection goes out of the window if the police are pursuing enquiries about a rape or similar serious assault. One would hope, anyway.

Peanutbuttercheese · 02/05/2017 18:42

She paid for sex, I hope the child in all this is ok but she did something that many men do and are judged for doing and rightly so.

HildaOg · 03/05/2017 11:38

She didn't know which man it was so they can't invade the privacy of all the men of the same name that night to find him. Quite rightly.

If a female prostitute got pregnant by a paying customer would he have legal rights to find her or should he? I don't think he should and neither should it be the case with the genders reversed. She exploited his body for her own pleasure, she shouldn't be entitled to stay in his life or claim money from him. She got the service she paid for, the rest is her responsibility since she had all the rights to do as she wanted.

Dervel · 03/05/2017 13:55

It's not about her rights, it's about the rights of the child. Which in my view should outweigh anything else. Male escorts do not occupy some special moral category. Sex is sex and if he didn't suit up beforehand he's taking on the same risks as any other man who does so.

Lweji · 04/05/2017 07:55

But sperm donors are (were) not expected to pay maintenance, even knowing they will father children.

prh47bridge · 04/05/2017 22:59

The issue is that she only knows the first name of the father and even that might not be correct (indeed, as he was an escort there is a good chance it wasn't). There were four men in the hotel that night with the first name in question. She would therefore be getting the personal data of at least 3 men who were not involved and it is quite possible that all 4 were not involved. There is absolutely no reason she should be given personal information about men other than the father. If she knew who the father was it would probably be a different matter.

The headline is wrong in implying that the escort's data is specifically being hidden from the woman. She doesn't know who the escort is. There is no proof he is one of the men for whom she was requesting personal data. It is quite possible that none of them are escorts and none of them is the father of her child.

Gallavich · 04/05/2017 23:01

Meh
Doesn't matter if he was being paid, he should still have worn a condom and he should still pay child support IMO

corythatwas · 05/05/2017 09:11

What phd said.

Flip