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.
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.
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.
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.
Seems like it would be fraud or breach of contract, not rape.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But an illegal contract is void ab initio, so if consent was given it is immaterial whether the prostitute was misled; she never had a legal claim to payment.
And yes, that’s another problem the sexworker has where the trade is not legalized and regulated: the law will not back a contract to engage in illegal activities.
As **DrCube **mentione, “rape by deception” is usually understood to be primarily about falsely representing the identity of the person involved.
Consent may be withdrawn at any point *during *a sexual encounter. Or it may turn out valid consent was *voided *because X, Y or Z action or circumstance that violates the consent happened before or during the act without knowledge of one or more parties (so “stealthing” is skating on thin ice). That is not the same as consent being withdrawn retroactively because you did not like the outcome.
Some time ago back at home we had in the books the distinct, separate and lesser crime of “seduction” which applied if you induced someone to have sex through false promises of marriage. That was ditched because it was written in a very patriarchal language (applied only to never-married females of the ages that require parental consent to marry).
Is this actually captured in real legislation, or an opinion of what the law should say?
So how does one determine if conditions have been met? There would be due diligence involved with a conditional consent/agreement on the part of those involved. If I hire a person to do work - on the condition that they have insurance - should I not put out some effort to check if they actually do?
One has to accept responsibility for their decisions at some point; if they accept flimsy or non-existent proof (like somebody’s word) of a condition they want, they’ve accepted it. People lie to each other daily, especially about sensitive personal information and when trying to convince others to do things. Can you imagine the ridicule I’d get if I tried to get the courts to prosecute a hooker for “raping” me because I contracted a disease from her - despite her claiming she had none after which I happily shagged her?