O’REGAN J and SACHS J “In principle there is no difference between a prostitute who receives money for her favours and her sister who receives, for rendering a similar service, a benefit or reward of a different kind, such as a paid-for weekend, a free holiday, board and lodging for a shorter or longer period, a night at the opera, or any other form of quid pro quo.”13 In support of its contention, the Court referred to the case of S v C14 where Van Dijkhorst J expressly rejected the contention that section 20(1)(aA) ought to be limited to acts committed by professional prostitutes. Dealing with the argument that the section should be strictly construed so as to be confined to those who habitually and indiscriminately engage in sexual relations for reward the learned judge said: “The wording of section 20(1)(aA) does not limit its offenders to the category of professional prostitutes. It clearly includes all who for reward have unlawful carnal intercourse or commit acts of indecency, the novice as well as the hardened streetwalker.”15 [48] The question in the present matter, then, is whether the section is reasonably capable of a 13 Above n 2 at 800H-I. 14 1992 (1) SACR 174 (W). 15 Id at 176F-G. 27