Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-17-2018, 10:47 AM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 418
Are prostitutes raped if they don't get paid?

Based on the locked thread further down, is a prostitute raped if the client doesn't pay or takes the money back? Would it be considered theft instead of goods and services?
  #2  
Old 02-17-2018, 10:52 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,463
And as a follow up question, is it considered health code violation if you contract the clap?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 02-17-2018 at 10:53 AM.
  #3  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:09 AM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt Maserschmidt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,572
You should specify this is a legal question, because it would be very easy to misread the thread title.
  #4  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:22 AM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 418
With prostitution illegal besides a few Nevada counties, I don't know if there is a legal answer or just a moral answer or opinion.
  #5  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:23 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 7,838
Nah, they've just been screwed over.
  #6  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:27 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,324
I think the bigger question being asked here is, if rape = sex without consent, can consent be conditional ("I'll let you have sex with me if X")? And what if the promised condition is not then fulfilled?
  #7  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:43 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,785
IANAL.

Prostitution is more illegal than not in the United States (although its legality does vary by jurisdiction). It's illegality is somewhat controversial. Be that as it may, transactions of the general form "I'll let you have sex with me if X", as Thudlow Boink puts it, would seem to constitute prostitution to the extent that they are formal, and nonbinding if informal. ("I'll make dinner if you wash the dishes" in the informal mode doesn't make for a recoverable injury if the speaker reneges on doing the dishwashing, or that's my nonlawyer understanding). On the other hand, consent to sex has been given additional gravitas, perhaps making it intrinsically a formal situation. (That seems implicit in the notion that if someone doesn't obtain explicit consent, we should consider them suspect of having committed a sexual assault).

My personal moral opinion is that sexual consent should not be conditional. A person has an absolute moral right to say "no" to sex but the absoluteness of that right does not apply to the setting of conditions (i.e., a person does not have the absolute right to have their conditions met or to have violations of those conditions treated as comparable to a violation of their right to say "no" in the first place).
  #8  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:47 AM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
My personal moral opinion is that sexual consent should not be conditional. A person has an absolute moral right to say "no" to sex but the absoluteness of that right does not apply to the setting of conditions (i.e., a person does not have the absolute right to have their conditions met or to have violations of those conditions treated as comparable to a violation of their right to say "no" in the first place).
You wouldn't consider "I'll have sex with you, but only if you use a condom?" to be a valid conditional consent?
  #9  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:50 AM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
You wouldn't consider "I'll have sex with you, but only if you use a condom?" to be a valid conditional consent?
The lack of condom or guys removing during the act is becoming an issue. It is called stealth sex.
  #10  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:58 AM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 39,888
Some people consider prostitution to be rape even if she is paid.
  #11  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:01 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,443
I'd say theft rather than rape.
  #12  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:04 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
Some people consider prostitution to be rape even if she is paid.
I'm not referring to human trafficking, white slavery prostitution with pimps and other elements. This is a person doing it on their free will and not out desperation or force.
  #13  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:04 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 27,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
You wouldn't consider "I'll have sex with you, but only if you use a condom?" to be a valid conditional consent?
If they agree to use one and guy doesn't (or takes it off at some point), it's illegal.
I don't know about rape, but it can be considered sexual assault and if they transmit a disease they know they have, that's illegal in and of itself (at least in some jurisdictions).

As UCBearcats said, it's called Stealth Sex, it's been making the rounds on social media for the last year or so. I'm not sure if anyone has laws in place for that, specifically, so they're using what they do have to prosecute.
  #14  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:27 PM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
You wouldn't consider "I'll have sex with you, but only if you use a condom?" to be a valid conditional consent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
The lack of condom or guys removing during the act is becoming an issue. It is called stealth sex.
I don't think violating it makes the sex nonconsensual, which is what we're discussing, whether violating a conditional clause makes the sex nonconsensual.

I'm on board with it being wrong, and with it being criminally wrong, but I would not subsume it into rape, a violation of the law respecting a person's authority to consent or withhold consent as far as sex is concerned.
  #15  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:54 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,113
Former sex crimes detective answer? It becomes rape as soon as consent is withdrawn. Absent any corroborating evidence the chances of such a case being prosecuted are practically zero. The chances of winning such a case is practically zero.
  #16  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:58 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Former sex crimes detective answer? It becomes rape as soon as consent is withdrawn. Absent any corroborating evidence the chances of such a case being prosecuted are practically zero. The chances of winning such a case is practically zero.
But consent was never withdrawn. The act happened with consent and then afterwards the agreed upon terms were not met.
  #17  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:04 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
But consent was never withdrawn. The act happened with consent and then afterwards the agreed upon terms were not met.
But a condition of consent is gone. In my question, the client leaves without paying it picks up his payment on the way out.
  #18  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:13 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Former sex crimes detective answer? It becomes rape as soon as consent is withdrawn.
Wait—are you saying that consent can be withdrawn after the fact? That any act of consensual sex can become a rape if either party, at any time afterward, decides to withdraw their consent?
  #19  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:24 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Former sex crimes detective answer? It becomes rape as soon as consent is withdrawn. Absent any corroborating evidence the chances of such a case being prosecuted are practically zero. The chances of winning such a case is practically zero.
That seems reasonable in theory (although hard to prosecute and win in practice) if 'as soon as consent is withdrawn' means during the sexual act. I can't see how withdrawing consent after the act could be considered rape legally even in theory.

Which would in general be the case for a john reneging on paying a prostitute or taking the money back. Seems like it would be robbery in theory if stealing the money back even in an illegal transaction. Whether just not paying would be covered by 'defrauding an innkeeper' laws in case of illegal services I don't know. But I don't see how it could be rape.

Although OTOH (and you aren't saying otherwise) there can be rape without explicit withholding of consent: woman unconscious, or somebody has sex with a woman in the dark under the ruse he is someone else who has consent. That doesn't have to be realized at the time by the woman to be a rape, seems to me. But I agree with those with a hard time seeing how conditional consent (as in yes to sex in exchange for money) becomes rape if the conditions aren't met *after* sex is finished.
  #20  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:42 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Former sex crimes detective answer? It becomes rape as soon as consent is withdrawn. Absent any corroborating evidence the chances of such a case being prosecuted are practically zero. The chances of winning such a case is practically zero.
Bzzzt, sorry wrong answer. It is not rape when consent is withdrawn. It becomes rape when the accused finds out that consent has been withdrawn or should have lax

*Guess you knew this, but simplified it for civilians.
**Question like this were a favourite in the criminal law papers.

In play: Is prostitution legal in jurisdiction? If so then it could be prosecuted with the local equivalent of “making off without paying”.

For rape. If he never intended to pay, then it might be rape. As the prostitute was miles as to the nature of the act. If he decided post coitus, then no.

Very unlikely to be prosecuted.
  #21  
Old 02-17-2018, 02:14 PM
mmmiiikkkeee mmmiiikkkeee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,539
Based on how I understand the typical female service provider prostitution transaction to occur, payment happens first, and the money is usually tucked securely away before anything substantial happens (this is what the hooker is really interested in after all). Money is not just casually left on the bed side table for the guy to decide whether to leave or not, or discussed after the fact.

So, most of the time the woman will eye the guy up, decide whether she'll go through with it (= consent), then take the money - which is now hers. I'm pretty sure this isn't a business where refunds are given, so who's money it is after it changes hands isn't in question.

They guy doesn't have the option to not pay; he does that up front. If after the fact he decides it wasn't worth the money, too bad. Any attempt to get all or some of the money back is a new deal, and if it ends up being done by force is then theft/robbery/whatever you want to call it.

I just don't see where "rape" could come into play here. Some other crime possibly (with a near-0% chance of ever being prosecuted), but not rape.

Last edited by mmmiiikkkeee; 02-17-2018 at 02:17 PM.
  #22  
Old 02-17-2018, 02:28 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmiiikkkeee View Post
Based on how I understand the typical female service provider prostitution transaction to occur, payment happens first, and the money is usually tucked securely away before anything substantial happens (this is what the hooker is really interested in after all). Money is not just casually left on the bed side table for the guy to decide whether to leave or not, or discussed after the fact.

So, most of the time the woman will eye the guy up, decide whether she'll go through with it (= consent), then take the money - which is now hers. I'm pretty sure this isn't a business where refunds are given, so who's money it is after it changes hands isn't in question.

They guy doesn't have the option to not pay; he does that up front. If after the fact he decides it wasn't worth the money, too bad. Any attempt to get all or some of the money back is a new deal, and if it ends up being done by force is then theft/robbery/whatever you want to call it.

I just don't see where "rape" could come into play here. Some other crime possibly (with a near-0% chance of ever being prosecuted), but not rape.

That may be why the question a professor asked my class was, if a prostitute later finds out she was paid in counterfeit money, has she been raped?
  #23  
Old 02-17-2018, 02:28 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,443
The OP posits that the payment is supposed to be after the act. How it is done typically is irrelevant.

A service was performed and payment wasn't made. Similarly to if it were for house cleaning, it's theft of services. One twist is that the contract is for an illegal service but let's say it was in a place where prostitution is legal.
  #24  
Old 02-17-2018, 02:45 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Nah, they've just been screwed over.
I think the vernacular is “stiffed”.
  #25  
Old 02-17-2018, 03:01 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Wait—are you saying that consent can be withdrawn after the fact? That any act of consensual sex can become a rape if either party, at any time afterward, decides to withdraw their consent?
No it’s not retroactive. Sorry if I made it sound that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Which would in general be the case for a john reneging on paying a prostitute or taking the money back. Seems like it would be robbery in theory if stealing the money back even in an illegal transaction. Whether just not paying would be covered by 'defrauding an innkeeper' laws in case of illegal services I don't know. But I don't see how it could be rape.
It wouldn’t be rape.
Robbery or theft occurs whether or not it’s was a criminal transaction to begin with. For instance yiu don’t get a pass because the guy you pulled a gun on was supposed to deal you drugs.

Quote:
Although OTOH (and you aren't saying otherwise) there can be rape without explicit withholding of consent: woman unconscious, or somebody has sex with a woman in the dark under the ruse he is someone else who has consent. That doesn't have to be realized at the time by the woman to be a rape, seems to me. But I agree with those with a hard time seeing how conditional consent (as in yes to sex in exchange for money) becomes rape if the conditions aren't met *after* sex is finished.
In general (I can’t say for all 50 states) incapacitation is listed in the statute and not assumed to be under the umbrella of consent. Our statute specifically mentions victims that are temporarily or permanently incapacitated. I seem to remember a case in another state that separated some acts into a sodomy charge. Their rape statute mentioned incapacitation, the sodomy statute did not. Someone walked free or nearly so because of it. The legislature had to fix the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Bzzzt, sorry wrong answer. It is not rape when consent is withdrawn. It becomes rape when the accused finds out that consent has been withdrawn or should have lax

*Guess you knew this, but simplified it for civilians.
**Question like this were a favourite in the criminal law papers.

In play: Is prostitution legal in jurisdiction? If so then it could be prosecuted with the local equivalent of “making off without paying”.

For rape. If he never intended to pay, then it might be rape. As the prostitute was miles as to the nature of the act. If he decided post coitus, then no.

Very unlikely to be prosecuted.
Well counselor by withdrawn I meant in a way that made it known to the actor. Not the textbook answer bad marks for me.


We actually had a case similar to the OP recently. It was initially reported more rapey than the OP in that some force was reported. I wasn’t involved in the case so I don’t know every detail. I know the suspect is a scumbag who has skated on too many charges. It didn’t go anywhere because the victim was strung out on heroin when they were investigating, she was falling asleep during the interview, she was more worried about the money than any sexual assault, she had a rap sheet a mile long. It’s pretty much impossible to prosecute when there is no physical evidence and your only witness is not credible or reliable. The defendant doesn’t have to say a word and his prior bad acts can’t be mentioned. Unfortunately that leaves room for a lot of reasonable doubt.
  #26  
Old 02-17-2018, 03:41 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,177
Well, but is her consent not contingent upon payment? If she agrees to the act assuming that she will receive money and then does not, her consent is invalidated. Maybe not legally, per se, but logically. “Rape” is probably not the right word, more like some kind of molestation.
  #27  
Old 02-17-2018, 04:20 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,324
Consider some other examples of "contingent consent," involving the unisex aliases "Pat" and "Sam":

I. Pat consents to have sex with Sam because he/she believes Sam loves him/her.

II. Pat consents to have sex with Sam because he/she believes Sam is planning to marry him/her.

III. Pat consents to have sex with Sam because he/she believes this will be a one-time, no-strings-attached encounter.

IV. Pat consents to have sex with Sam because Pat believes that Sam will be a skillful and unselfish lover, good in bed.

V. Pat consents to have sex with Sam because Pat believes that Sam has no sexually transmittable diseases.

In each case, assume Pat would not have consented to have sex with Sam had he/she not believed this.

Each example can be broken down into Sub-example A, where Pat believes this because Sam told him/her so or otherwise led him/her to believe it, and Sub-example B, where Sam did not, and Pat only assumed or wanted to believe it was true. Sub-example A can be further broken down into Sub-sub-example A1 in which Sam also believed it but was mistaken, and Sub-sub-example A2 in which Sam did not believe it and was being deliberately deceptive in order to get sex.

In some of these cases, I would consider (or at least be open to considering) what Sam did morally wrong. In some I might consider (or at least be open to considering) that what Sam did was or should be legally wrong.

In none of them would I consider what Sam did to be rape. And none of them would I be comfortable labeling "nonconsensual" if Pat did, in fact, fully consent at the time, even if that consent was "under false pretenses"—though I am open to being convinced otherwise.
  #28  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:50 PM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post

V. Pat consents to have sex with Sam because Pat believes that Sam has no sexually transmittable diseases..
Not sure if that's rape, but it's certainly a very serious crime, more so if Sam is the male.
  #29  
Old 02-18-2018, 12:57 AM
mmmiiikkkeee mmmiiikkkeee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector_St_Clare View Post
Not sure if that's rape, but it's certainly a very serious crime, more so if Sam is the male.
Why would their respective sexes have anything to do with how certain it was that a crime was committed?

And why does one commit a serious crime if another believes something untrue about them?
  #30  
Old 02-18-2018, 12:59 AM
Jeff Lichtman's Avatar
Jeff Lichtman Jeff Lichtman is offline
Head Cheese
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: El Cerrito, CA
Posts: 4,083
It doesn't make sense to me to treat this as rape. As far as I know, there's nothing in any rape law about consent being contingent on anything happening in the future. Consent is either given at the time of the act, or it's not.

What we have here isn't rape, but contract violation or fraud (or both). Not paying for a service as agreed upon in advance is a contract violation. Allowing someone to perform a service for you when you don't intend to pay for it is fraud.
__________________
'Tis a pity that I have no gravy to put upon Uncle Hymie.
  #31  
Old 02-18-2018, 02:09 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lichtman View Post
It doesn't make sense to me to treat this as rape. As far as I know, there's nothing in any rape law about consent being contingent on anything happening in the future. Consent is either given at the time of the act, or it's not.
If consent is obtained by misleading a person as to the nature of the act, then consent has been obtained by fraud and therefore its rape. Never intending to pay, would come under this category. Deciding not to pay on a lark at the conclusion of the transaction, probably not.
  #32  
Old 02-18-2018, 05:01 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lichtman View Post
It doesn't make sense to me to treat this as rape. As far as I know, there's nothing in any rape law about consent being contingent on anything happening in the future. Consent is either given at the time of the act, or it's not.

What we have here isn't rape, but contract violation or fraud (or both). Not paying for a service as agreed upon in advance is a contract violation. Allowing someone to perform a service for you when you don't intend to pay for it is fraud.

Hmm. What happens if we remove the sexual component?

Let’s say that Bo the Boxer is negotiating compensation for an upcoming prizefight: he won’t do it for less than X, he offers to do it for Y, he accepts the counteroffer of Z. He then steps into the ring and soon gets punched in the face until he passes out.

Bo later regains consciousness and discovers that nobody intended to pay him a cent; the guy he fought was simply lying to him. And as Bo ponders the full ramifications of this, I simply walk up to Bo and start punching him in the face.

I’d be guilty of, what, battery? And what would the other guy be guilty of?
  #33  
Old 02-18-2018, 05:59 AM
pullin pullin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N Texas
Posts: 2,744
I wonder how this would play out in Texas, since our laws allow deadly force to retrieve "stolen" property. The prostitute can't actually retrieve her side of the bargain, but I wonder if she could collect her fee at gunpoint?

The reverse of this case has already happened here, where the john had paid but the prostitute refused "service", and he shot her to get his money back (she died later). He was acquitted of murder since he was retrieving stolen property. Seems to me it oughta work the other way around for the prostitutes.
  #34  
Old 02-18-2018, 07:56 AM
rbroome rbroome is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by pullin View Post
I wonder how this would play out in Texas, since our laws allow deadly force to retrieve "stolen" property. The prostitute can't actually retrieve her side of the bargain, but I wonder if she could collect her fee at gunpoint?

The reverse of this case has already happened here, where the john had paid but the prostitute refused "service", and he shot her to get his money back (she died later). He was acquitted of murder since he was retrieving stolen property. Seems to me it oughta work the other way around for the prostitutes.
You left out a crucial detail-it was at night. The law that gave him the ability to legally shoot her only applies at night. Why? Texas.

I imagine Texas changed the law-either to make it apply at all hours or remove the law. Not sure which.
  #35  
Old 02-18-2018, 08:18 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,322
Are plumbers enslaved when they don't get payed?
  #36  
Old 02-18-2018, 08:36 AM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,143
Just like all human beings, prostitutes are raped when they are forced or coerced to have sex they do not want to have. The OP’s question seems to suggest that he puts women into different categories of “humanness” and is yet another disturbing expression of the misogyny on this board.
  #37  
Old 02-18-2018, 08:48 AM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
You wouldn't consider "I'll have sex with you, but only if you use a condom?" to be a valid conditional consent?
I would say that is the agreed upon type of sex they are having.
  #38  
Old 02-18-2018, 09:12 AM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Just like all human beings, prostitutes are raped when they are forced or coerced to have sex they do not want to have. The OP’s question seems to suggest that he puts women into different categories of “humanness” and is yet another disturbing expression of the misogyny on this board.
That has a real 'woke' tone to it but the first sentence just states the obvious without answering the question raised. Which is under the category, 'what constitutes being forced or coerced?'. There's nothing 'misogynistic' about considering the specific case of refusal to pay for an act of prostitution after the fact, especially since a non-negligible proportion of prostitutes aren't female.

The question is whether not being later given a promised payment for consensual sex revokes the original consent and makes it rape. Seems to me the practical answer is 'obviously not'. A theoretical answer might toy with the idea that never having intended to pay would make it rape but I doubt that also even in theory. Fraud isn't rape.

Many prostitutes are coerced by third parties into the profession but that's beside the point of the question. Whatever conclusions one might draw about the culpability of the customer if somebody else is coercing the prostitute to be one, that culpability wouldn't depend on whether the customer paid or refused to pay.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-18-2018 at 09:14 AM.
  #39  
Old 02-18-2018, 09:48 AM
Riemann Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 4,864
Rape and other physical assault are in a different category to theft or breach of contract because most people do not consider their sexual or physical autonomy to be worth any amount of money. Loss of money and loss of sexual or physical integrity are in different categories that are not fungible.

However, if a person has voluntarily decided that a limited sex act is worth exchanging for a certain amount of money (a prostitute, assuming prostitution is legal) or consented to limited physical harm in exchange for money (a pro boxer) then those people have themselves freely determined that these acts are (to them) fungible with a certain amount of money. They surely cannot withdraw this "consent to fungibility" after the fact. They would have been satisfied with payment for those services. So the crime committed by someone who fails to pay them for their services is no different from someone who fails to pay a plumber.

Of course, the "consent to fungibility" only applies to the specific acts that the prostitute and boxer have consented to make fungible. You can still rape a prostitute or assault a professional boxer.

Last edited by Riemann; 02-18-2018 at 09:53 AM.
  #40  
Old 02-18-2018, 10:17 AM
Riemann Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 4,864
And like Corry El, I can't see how it makes any difference whether someone intend to defraud them from the outset, since that has no impact on their free agreement to make these acts fungible with money.

The only thing that's not obvious here is what the crime should be if prostitution (or pro boxing, for that matter) is illegal.
  #41  
Old 02-18-2018, 12:30 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Just like all human beings, prostitutes are raped when they are forced or coerced to have sex they do not want to have. The OP’s question seems to suggest that he puts women into different categories of “humanness” and is yet another disturbing expression of the misogyny on this board.
Wow! If you look at all my posts in this thread, I'm specifically talking about a person doing this on their own free will. In no way have I dehumanized a prostitute let alone a female prostitute.

I think you should reread my posts and apologize.
  #42  
Old 02-18-2018, 01:28 PM
gigi gigi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Flatlander in NH
Posts: 25,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Just like all human beings, prostitutes are raped when they are forced or coerced to have sex they do not want to have. The OP’s question seems to suggest that he puts women into different categories of “humanness” and is yet another disturbing expression of the misogyny on this board.
Well, first of all, the OP did not specify the sex/gender of the prostitute, and the questions stands whether it is a female or male. Secondly, they had the sex they wanted to have, based on the assumption they would be paid as agreed.
  #43  
Old 02-18-2018, 01:50 PM
Jeff Lichtman's Avatar
Jeff Lichtman Jeff Lichtman is offline
Head Cheese
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: El Cerrito, CA
Posts: 4,083
Here's an analogous scenario. Suppose I go to a hotel, sneak into (or break into) one of the rooms, move in a bunch of my stuff and sleep there overnight. I have committed the crime of trespassing (and possibly other crimes).

Now suppose I go to the same hotel, agree to a price for a room, register at the desk, give them my credit card info, then move my stuff into the room and sleep there overnight. But before I check out I call my bank, cancel the credit card and dispute any charges by the hotel. I have breached my contract with the hotel, and I have committed the crime of defrauding an innkeeper. What I have not done is trespass - the hotel management and staff agreed to let me stay in the room before I moved in there.
__________________
'Tis a pity that I have no gravy to put upon Uncle Hymie.
  #44  
Old 02-18-2018, 02:02 PM
Riemann Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 4,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
You wouldn't consider "I'll have sex with you, but only if you use a condom?" to be a valid conditional consent?
Do people generally feel that "sex without a condom" constitutes a distinct sex act, comparable to anal vs vaginal sex, that requires separate consent? Or is violating one party's wish to use a condom "only" reckless exposure to STDs?

My gut feel is that it's distinct sex act, therefore rape without consent. It might be difficult to prove intent in practice, but that's a separate matter.

Last edited by Riemann; 02-18-2018 at 02:04 PM.
  #45  
Old 02-18-2018, 02:11 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,925
Seems like it would be fraud or breach of contract, not rape.
  #46  
Old 02-18-2018, 11:23 PM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmiiikkkeee View Post
Why would their respective sexes have anything to do with how certain it was that a crime was committed?

And why does one commit a serious crime if another believes something untrue about them?
Um, because M to F transmission of STDs is much easier than the other way around. There are also differences *on the average* in terms of how men and women think about sex (not in every case, but on the average), and so that has some weight I think, but the more important issue here is that lying about std status is actually legitimately more dangerous in one case than the other.

Sexual consent can be conditional- if the conditions aren’t met, then there isn’t any consent.
  #47  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:33 AM
DrCube DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 6,944
Rape is when you don't consent to sex. Prostitutes (usually) consent. Note this doesn't mean prostitutes can't be raped.

It's the same as any other job. If I hire a roofer to come replace my roof, and then I refuse to pay him, I have committed the crime of fraud, or theft of services, or just civil breech of contract. But I did not commit the crime of slavery or forced labor or kidnapping or anything like that. Similarly, a prostitute who didn't get paid was defrauded (if it was intentional) or had a contract broken (if not), but she was not raped.

For the record I feel the same way about sneaky-condom removal or poor guys pretending to be rich (or jerks pretending to be nice) in order to get laid. It's complete asshole behavior and it's morally wrong, but it isn't rape.
  #48  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:47 AM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Rape is when you don't consent to sex. Prostitutes (usually) consent. Note this doesn't mean prostitutes can't be raped.
They consent conditionally, if you don't meet the conditions the consent doesn't exist.

If you get sex by pretending to impersonate someone's boyfriend, that's rape too.
  #49  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:52 AM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector_St_Clare View Post
Um, because M to F transmission of STDs is much easier than the other way around. There are also differences *on the average* in terms of how men and women think about sex (not in every case, but on the average), and so that has some weight I think, but the more important issue here is that lying about std status is actually legitimately more dangerous in one case than the other.

Sexual consent can be conditional- if the conditions aren’t met, then there isn’t any consent.
On the first yes on average but once you're talking about criminal law it gets dicey to make distinctions about individuals based on their group unless it's something categorically physically different. And pointing out past cases that violated this idea but are now held in universal disdain I think only strengthens the point.

On the second, IMO it just doesn't work logically in rape=sex without consent to allow a broad concept of retroactive removal or 'annulment' of consent to be included. If 'conditions aren't fulfilled' cancels consent, everyone who ever convinced another to have sex on a false promise of marriage or 'taking the relationship to the next level' was a rapist. That can't be taken seriously IMO as a legal concept. It devalues the actual crime of rape which occurs when somebody is forced to have sex after refusing before or during, or isn't legally able to decide (too intoxicated, a minor, a prisoner, etc.)

Perhaps one could fit the trick no-condom case, along with the case of a person who disguises themselves as someone else who does have consent (in the dark say), into rape by putting it in the category 'partner unable to give consent'. Because the person didn't know something fundamental about *the sex act itself* (if no condom is a different sex act, and not knowing who is actually asking for sex is pretty fundamental to the act too). But a broader principal of consent being invalidated by non-fulfillment of conditions after and separate from the sex act (like monetary payment, marriage, etc) doesn't work well IMO, not to call such situations rape.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-19-2018 at 09:56 AM.
  #50  
Old 02-19-2018, 11:25 AM
DrCube DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 6,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector_St_Clare View Post
They consent conditionally, if you don't meet the conditions the consent doesn't exist.

If you get sex by pretending to impersonate someone's boyfriend, that's rape too.
That's not really how it works. If the prostitute said "pay first or you aren't getting any" and the john forces her to have sex anyway, that's rape. If she says "let's do it now and you can pay me after" then she consented to sex with him, whether he follows through and pays her or not.

Impersonating someone is still rape though, like the old movie trope of identical twins. Consenting to sex with Bill does not imply consent to sex with his identical twin Barry.

But consent to sex with Bill who you think is rich is consent to sex with Bill, even if it turns out he isn't rich after all. It's shitty behavior of Bill to misrepresent his financial status for the purposes of getting sex, but it isn't rape.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017