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?
And as a follow up question, is it considered health code violation if you contract the clap?
You should specify this is a legal question, because it would be very easy to misread the thread title.
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.
Nah, they’ve just been screwed over.
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?
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).
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.
Some people consider prostitution to be rape even if she is paid.
I’d say theft rather than rape.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But a condition of consent is gone. In my question, the client leaves without paying it picks up his payment on the way out.
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?
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.
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.