Failure to Pay a Prostitute: Rape or Theft?

[Perfection]

Well, I think an additional factor is that the man left them stranded on the streets too. So, while I don't think this was rape (provided the sex was consensual, which it may well have not been), I'm not shedding tears here because he still deserves a fairly harsh punishment.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Lorizael
If at any point the prostitute realizes what's going, changes her mind, and no longer wants to have sex it immediately becomes rape.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Ninot
I wonder how Vegas would prosecute this if the guy was going into legal brothels and running out without paying.

Breach of contract, fair and simple. The activity was legal, the woman gave consent, but he failed to give his legal consideration.

[Perfection]

I don't think one can withdraw consent for sex after sex has been completed.

[Elok]

Originally posted by General Ludd
What's so god damned holy about money that the exchange of currency makes an action, which is otherwise considered evil, acceptable?

It's not the money, it's the consent. She agrees to have sex, and that's it as far as the law is concerned (leaving out the legality of prostitution). It doesn't matter if she consents in exchange for money, because she feels sorry for the guy, or because they're at a wedding and it's making her desperate and lonely.

There's no reliable mechanism for determining whether a woman really *wants* to have sex that would stand up in a court of law, is there? Perhaps if we required all women to wear devices that measure moisture in their panties at all times...no, that wouldn't rule out the possibility of incontinence or a spilled drink. Darn.

[Shrapnel12]

If prostitution is legal where the act happened, then I think it should be theft of services. Also, in the case where the prostitute wants to stop the sex act in the middle if she somehow realizes the guy isn't going to pay, but he doesn't stop, I say it's rape, but a lesser form of rape. It's still illegal, but the sentence would be less (e.g. like different levels of murder).

If prostitution is illegal where the act happened, then I don't think it matters.

[Perfection]

Yeah and when I'd walk by the devices would short out from the ensuing tsumani.

[Kidlicious]

I think prostitutes do like to have sex. That's a big part of why they do it. I think charging money for sex is more sexist than paying for it.

[Dinner]

I'd say the hookers willingly had sex with him but got cheated out of payment for the services rendered. That the service rendered is illegal should result in both being locked up.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok


It's not the money, it's the consent. She agrees to have sex, and that's it as far as the law is concerned (leaving out the legality of prostitution). It doesn't matter if she consents in exchange for money, because she feels sorry for the guy, or because they're at a wedding and it's making her desperate and lonely.

But she's not agreeing to have sex with you. She's agreeing to allow you have sex with her, in exchange for money. If you point a gun at her and say you'll spare her life if you can **** her, she's not consenting to have sex just because she'd rather live - even though one could say that she's agreeing to it, given the choice.

Money, violence, what's the difference? We're talking about people needing to have sex for food, shelter, drug addictions, or to avoid violence. In most cases this is what most rape victims and prostitutes are facing, regardless.

btw Ludd, are consenting adult gay male prostitutes raped when they ply their trade?

"consulting adult gay male prostitutes"? Can you fit any more adjectives in there?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
There's no reliable mechanism for determining whether a woman really *wants* to have sex that would stand up in a court of law, is there? Perhaps if we required all women to wear devices that measure moisture in their panties at all times...no, that wouldn't rule out the possibility of incontinence or a spilled drink. Darn.

Consent, or whether a woman 'wants' it is about more than a physical reaction. To give one of many possible examples - if your wife/girlfriend was sufficiently physically attracted to someone to get wet, but was loyal enough to refuse the advances of the other man, it would still be rape if he took her by force.

No should mean no, whatever the state of physical arousal.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by General Ludd
"consulting adult gay male prostitutes"? Can you fit any more adjectives in there?

I said "consenting" not "consulting".

Stop trying to be a smart-arse and answer the question. I took care to specify the exact circumstances.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Money, violence, what's the difference?

The difference is choice. When one is confronted with violence, there is no choice. With money, there is a choice.

Many prostitutes choose to make their money through selling their body, when they could choose to make their money answering phones or waiting tables. If you choose to enter into the profession of prostitution and are not forced into it by circumstances beyond your control, then the sex you have is consensual and voluntary.

If you are forced into the profession by a specific person, then that's akin to slavery. If you are "forced" into it by the conditions and circumstances of society then that's a more esoteric debate, and I think the word rape is too emotional in its connotation to be useful.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by General Ludd


But she's not agreeing to have sex with you. She's agreeing to allow you have sex with her, in exchange for money. If you point a gun at her and say you'll spare her life if you can **** her, she's not consenting to have sex just because she'd rather live - even though one could say that she's agreeing to it, given the choice.

Money, violence, what's the difference? We're talking about people needing to have sex for food, shelter, drug addictions, or to avoid violence. In most cases this is what most rape victims and prostitutes are facing, regardless.

...

The difference is,
that the prostitutes could use other ways to make money,
for exaple by begging, doing a normal job and other things.
They could also aply for welfare.

If I point a gun at a ladies head and tel her that she can decide between having sex with me or a bulklet in her head, this lady has no chance to say "No" to having sex with me, at least if she wants to survive.

If however she is offering her body for money, she has evry chance to do other things to get money instead of prostitution (unless there is a pimp that forces her to do such things, of course ).
At every time (until the time when they do "it") she has the chance to walk away unharmed and not have sex with her customer, even after she has agreed to do "it" for a certain price, so everyting is consensual.


I´d go with Breech of contract.
They had an agreement about a service ("Sex") to be delivered for a certain amount of money. She fulfilled her part of the contract (i.e. having Sex with him) but he didn´t fulfill his part of the contract.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Breach of contract. I don't see this as rape in any way. During the act there was consent... the guy skipping out on payment doesn't figure. It's a decent argument (for rape), but it won't work.