O’REGAN J and SACHS J state did not seek to challenge the assertion that in practice only the prostitutes were charged in terms of the section. [43] The natural reading of the section strikes at the prostitute who engages in sexual intercourse for reward which is provided by the client. The customer does not engage in sexual intercourse for any reward, on the ordinary understanding of that term. He (rarely she) engages in it for sexual gratification and to receive that gratification he furnishes the reward to the prostitute. It is this ordinary meaning of the provision which has been taken for granted until argument was presented in this case.10 [44] It should be recalled that until 1988 the law in South Africa, like that in many other Commonwealth countries, such as the United Kingdom, India, Australia and Canada, did not penalise prostitution as such, but only activities associated with it, such as pimping, soliciting and brothel-keeping. Clearly, in 1988 the Legislature intended to criminalise the conduct of the prostitute. Had it, however, intended to penalise the conduct of patronising a prostitute as well, it 10 As Milton and Cowling reason in their text SA Criminal Law and Procedure Vol III Statutory Offences: “These conclusions follow from the wording of the section. The subject is the person who has sexual relations for reward ‘with any other person’. It is thus the person who receives the reward who commits the offence. The person who gives the reward (the ‘other person’) is not the subject of the prohibition.” E3-82, note 1. 24