Failure to Pay a Prostitute: Rape or Theft?

[rah]

Prostitution is not rape, it's a business transaction.
Unless something changes during the transaction and she want's to back out and you force her after that.
Then it's rape, but i'd review the circumstances. As in this case where the man took a detour and the prostitutes probably weren't consensual at this point, so I'd call rape.

If you simply don't pay afterwards. Theft.
No different than dine and dash.

[Kidlicious]

If you judge by the effect on the victim it's definitely theft. Rape is much worse on the victim than what these prostitutes suffered.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


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.

Why are you telling me this? I said it's consent that matters, not "wanting" to have sex (which I interpreted as attraction to the person).

[rah]

More cloudy is when you have a harsh pimp involved where it's more like slavery. Threatens to beat/kill the girl if she doesn't whore for him.

Now if the John doesn't know the girl is being coerced and thinks it's a straight business transaction I would not consider it rape.

But if the John is aware of the coercion then I'd have to call it rape even though he's paying.

What do you guys think in this scenario?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Lorizael


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

Ah yes, the good ol' choice to starve.



I guess that this answers my question of what makes money so holy, that it justifies things otherwise unaceptable - money succesfully abstracts things enough so that the actions are sufficiently distanced from their real ramifications and can be rationalised as a "buisness transaction" Rape becomes prostitution, slavery becomes employment, feudalism becomes renting, famine becomes market prices, ect...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by General Ludd

Ah yes, the good ol' choice to starve.

Nope,
the good old choice to do another job that doesn´t involve sex.
Even if it is a more or less unqualified work, as charwoman, waitress or whatever.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Ah yes, the good ol' choice to starve.



I guess that this answers my question of what makes money so holy, that it justifies things otherwise unaceptable - money succesfully abstracts things enough so that the actions are sufficiently distanced from their real ramifications and can be rationalised as a "buisness transaction" Rape becomes prostitution, slavery becomes employment, feudalism becomes renting, famine becomes market prices, ect...

My god! That's amazing! Brilliant! If you just completely ignore the points I make and rant like an ideologue, it looks like you've won the debate.

Let me try.

I guess that this answers my question of what makes money so holy, that it justifies things otherwise unaceptable...

Another money hater. Look we don't need to hear any more of your Communist propaganda. Go to Cuba. Go to China. Go to Russia. You guys lost. The US won. Get over it.

[Alinestra Covelia]

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

I understand your comparison on a moral plane. I am sympathetic to the opinion that economic coercion is also a form of violence.

However, the legal interpretation generally does draw a distinction between them. As a public policy issue, it has much greater and more immediate onus to prevent violent physical crimes than it does to prevent coercion.

(This is not absolute, mind. Just relative. A quick look at antitrust laws will show that the government does indeed take a dim view of economic coercion... but that's a generally civil code of laws, and not a criminal code.)

In Anglo-American law, there are generally far stricter penalties for criminal infractions than for civil, so the determination of whether the man is guilty of rape (criminal) or contract breach (civil) is very important from a remedies viewpoint.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Another money hater. Look we don't need to hear any more of your Communist propaganda. Go to Cuba. Go to China. Go to Russia. You guys lost. The US won. Get over it.

Actually, China loves money. They officially inducted capitalists into the ranks of the Communist Party after Jiang Zemin's "Three Represents" doctrine.

They just pretend that Mao's ideals are strong

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Of course it's rape. Prostitution is rape.

She didn't enter into sex unwillingly but under the understanding that she would be paid for her services. He reneged on the agreement and didn't pay, therefore it is theft.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by General Ludd
If you rape a person and leave a hundred dollar bill behind, it is still rape.

But that is completely different - an agreement was entered into for her to provide sexual services in exchange for payment, not that he forcibly took and then left some money. By the same logic, you could say a husband and wife having sex is rape. Forcing someone to have sex with you is rape but if they consent, even if as services rendered, it is with consent. Regardless of what your opinion is on prostitution.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison Forcing someone to have sex with you is rape but if they consent, even if as services rendered, it is with consent.

The question comes as to whether a person's contractual consent can be honored by a court of law. The law will not respect any contract for illegal activities, so that throws the issue of consent into question.

Plenty of room for a good lawyer to move around in this issue. I like it!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Ah yes, the good ol' choice to starve.

No one is starving because they don't want to be a prostitute. They can eat at food kitchens and stay in shelters.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
The question comes as to whether a person's contractual consent can be honored by a court of law. The law will not respect any contract for illegal activities, so that throws the issue of consent into question.

Plenty of room for a good lawyer to move around in this issue. I like it!

No way that would remove the consent after the fact. Otherwise ALL prostitution would be rape, even if the guy did pay.

[Alinestra Covelia]

You never know. Courts in different jurisdictions have a way of coming up with their own, erm... "unique" interpretations of things.

But yes I would lean towards saying there would have to be express refusal for rape to occur. (Or other circumstances where consent is impossible, e.g. in underage sex or unconscious sex, where the individual cannot make an autonomous choice.)

Hence even if you view the illegal contract as a "lack of consent", it does NOT mean there was refusal. Merely a neutral lack of a "yes". Hence, we avoid the issue of rape by a clever dodge, which I gather is what lawyering is all about