A prostitute can be raped?

9

950483

Guest
@Creatorul @srk515 @swingfun .

Sex workers only have sex with you because they are coerced; they don't actually want to have sex with you. The whole point of it for shitbags like you is that you want to have sex with someone who does not want to have sex with you. So from your point of view whether it is technically rape or coercion is irrelevant, as long as the other person does not want sex.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,027
Media
0
Likes
3,963
Points
333
Location
United States
@Creatorul @srk515 @swingfun .

Sex workers only have sex with you because they are coerced; they don't actually want to have sex with you. The whole point of it for shitbags like you is that you want to have sex with someone who does not want to have sex with you. So from your point of view whether it is technically rape or coercion is irrelevant, as long as the other person does not want sex.

That's a bit unfair, isn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennF
7

701757

Guest
@Creatorul @srk515 @swingfun .

Sex workers only have sex with you because they are coerced; they don't actually want to have sex with you. The whole point of it for shitbags like you is that you want to have sex with someone who does not want to have sex with you. So from your point of view whether it is technically rape or coercion is irrelevant, as long as the other person does not want sex.
Lol way to assume I've had sex with a prostitute.
Besides, again, for the quadrillionth time, not the question. Will you ever answer the question itself? lol
 
9

950483

Guest
Lol way to assume I've had sex with a prostitute.
Besides, again, for the quadrillionth time, not the question. Will you ever answer the question itself? lol
It's not an assumption, it's an educated guess. Probably anyone who wasn't into it would be game though, they wouldn't necessarily have to be a sex worker.
 
7

701757

Guest
It's not an assumption, it's an educated guess. Probably anyone who wasn't into it would be game though, they wouldn't necessarily have to be a sex worker.
I wonder what part of your guess was "educated" lol.
Also your second sentence, what? Anyone who wasn't into what?

Most of the thread is about trying to guess what exactly the question is even, because everything the OP says is about as clear as mud.
Oh hell to the ass no. Read below:

Okay just assume that prostitution is legal because that's not relevant to the question.

Or how about this. Imagine that this sex is between two adults, one of the parties proclaims that he or she will keep having sex with the other party as long as the other party plays a video game with him or her afterwards. The other party accepts, finishes having sex but doesn't play the game. Does this mean that the other party raped him or her? I know it sounds ridiculous but you get the point.

For example, here's a sample response from a person who has successfully understood the question:

Actually, yours is an easier hypothetical to deal with, because you're narrowing down the question.

In your scenario...
* There is an agreement...
* Party A agrees to have sex, provided, that Party B plays a game afterwards.
* Party A fulfills their part of the agreement.
* Party B does not fulfill their part and breaches the agreement.

Consent was given as part of the agreement.
Criminal law doesn't recognize 'contingent consent'. And, while you can revoke consent at any time, you can't retroactively revoke consent. Therefore, it won't qualify as rape.

Now, is it all clear?
 
9

950483

Guest
You read very slowly. Can't wait up all night while you read Wiki. See ya tomorrow. :)
 
7

701757

Guest
You read very slowly. Can't wait up all night while you read Wiki. See ya tomorrow. :)
Lol if you want my attention faster, try quoting my post so I get a notification. I have no intention of responding to your "malignant narcissism" comment since you're trying to find increasingly more idiotic ways to avoid answering the question and trying to make ad hominem attacks in hopes of changing the topic. So many people with the mind of a 5 year old here it's quite remarkable. (see I can do it too, ohhhhhhhhhh! lol)

My comment explains the question well enough that a kindergarten student would understand. Now if you'd still rather continue with your personal attacks instead of answering the question in spite of all of that, that's fine, it's a forum after all and anyone can say whatever they want, it just makes you look dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Creatorul

Beedie Tijii

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 12, 2016
Posts
642
Media
1
Likes
1,827
Points
263
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Criminal law doesn't recognize 'contingent consent'. And, while you can revoke consent at any time, you can't retroactively revoke consent. Therefore, it won't qualify as rape.
Actually, in UK law, there is a concept of Conditional Consent which has been defined by the Crown Prosecution Service. It has been discussed as part of the Julian Assange case with regard to the establishment of consent being contingent upon the offender wearing a condom. I realise the contraception issue, as an example, is a slightly different scenario, so I hope this doesn't get me shouted at by the thread police. ;)

Source

I don't know if there is an equivalent legal precedent in U.S. law, but since this is the worldwide web, the OP is from Spain, and the entire argument is based on a hypothetical -- and a poorly defined, highly unlikely one at that -- perhaps it would be more appropriate to be discussing whether the hypothetical case should be considered rape, and not whether the law does in fact consider it rape within a particular jurisdiction.

If the rules of the transaction between prostitute and client have been clearly communicated in advance, and the trick clearly breaks the terms of the transaction, then I have no problem considering that a sex crime and a rape. But I also would prefer a judge to cast a lighter sentence in such a case than for forcible rape.
 
7

701757

Guest
Actually, in UK law, there is a concept of Conditional Consent which has been defined by the Crown Prosecution Service. It has been discussed as part of the Julian Assange case with regard to the establishment of consent being contingent upon the offender wearing a condom.
YOU MOTHERFUCKING F...

I realise the contraception issue, as an example, is a slightly different scenario, so I hope this doesn't get me shouted at by the thread police. ;)
Oh, carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Creatorul

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,975
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Sex workers only have sex with you because they are coerced; they don't actually want to have sex with you.

This is a broad generalization. Not all sex workers are victims. It's a pretty large industry and throwing everyone into one bucket doesn't help those who actually need it.
 
9

950483

Guest
This is a broad generalization. Not all sex workers are victims. It's a pretty large industry and throwing everyone into one bucket doesn't help those who actually need it.
It doesn't help that every time this topic comes up, some here feel the need to focus on the small minority who are doing it for enjoyment, as a hobby or a fetish. People who choose to believe in the 'happy hooker' stereotype, and that sex work is a really empowering choice, do so for a reason.

Not all sex workers are victims.
I said no such thing, but the sex industry as a whole is exploitative and very damaging to the individuals involved. I'd really like you to elaborate on what you mean by this exactly. My feeling is that sex workers are less likely to posses a 'victim mentality' than most.

Is your comment even relevant in a thread about person who, from what little information we do have, seems to be working on the street, and getting into cars, which is a miserable and dangerous life?
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Actually, in UK law, there is a concept of Conditional Consent which has been defined by the Crown Prosecution Service. It has been discussed as part of the Julian Assange case with regard to the establishment of consent being contingent upon the offender wearing a condom.

Well, there isn't a specific defense, that I'm aware of, however, this still isn't retroactive.

"Sure we can have sex if you wear a condom"
They proceed to kiss, fondling, oral... consent is still present.
They are about to get into fucking and he doesn't put a condom on... she has not given her consent yet.

So, I understand the UK concept as you describe it as more of a limited consent. The original hypothetical looks to revoke consent retroactively due to a future non-performance/compliance with a precondition. That would be tough in any system where no ex-post facto doctrines exist.
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
@Creatorul @srk515 @swingfun .

Sex workers only have sex with you because they are coerced; they don't actually want to have sex with you. The whole point of it for shitbags like you is that you want to have sex with someone who does not want to have sex with you. So from your point of view whether it is technically rape or coercion is irrelevant, as long as the other person does not want sex.

I'm not sure I agree with you and your underlying assumption. Sex workers are not "coerced". Only the sex worker knows whether they "want" or "don't actually want" to have sex with a particular person.

And "not wanting to have sex with someone" is not sufficient to call it "rape". Rape is forcibly having sex with someone who does not consent. The force doesn't have to be violent or physical. It can be coercive, emotional, or mental.

I've know, and met, and been friends with, sex workers who loved the sex or really looked forward to sex with certain people.
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
On the flip side of this, there are many women who don't want to have sex, but do so because they want a child, or want to manipulate/control someone. It's an oft used joke that most guys "pay" for sex with women, "one way or another". And while that is not a truism, it certainly describes a human trait.... Everyone prostitutes themselves in one way or another.

The question here isn't about the 'prostitution', but rather the 'consent' and 'rape'.
 

Beedie Tijii

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 12, 2016
Posts
642
Media
1
Likes
1,827
Points
263
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, there isn't a specific defense, that I'm aware of, however, this still isn't retroactive.

"Sure we can have sex if you wear a condom"
They proceed to kiss, fondling, oral... consent is still present.
They are about to get into fucking and he doesn't put a condom on... she has not given her consent yet.

So, I understand the UK concept as you describe it as more of a limited consent. The original hypothetical looks to revoke consent retroactively due to a future non-performance/compliance with a precondition. That would be tough in any system where no ex-post facto doctrines exist.
There is nothing retroactive about it if the terms of consent (for the "overtime") were clear from the beginning and weren't complied with. There was never any consent for the overtime if payment is witheld. At the very least, this is sexual coersion and thus a sex crime -- and personally I have no problem calling it rape, as I've said, even if some jurisdictions might label rape in the legal sense more narrowly than I would tend to use the word. Consent was obtained via deception, which the Conditional Consent provision also covers, according to the source I posted above (which you should actually read before responding, rather than relying on my terse description).

I was assuming you would be familiar with the Assange allegations? Whether you believe them or not, the issue wasn't just over contraception, but whether a precondition was complied with while the victim was asleep.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,975
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It doesn't help that every time this topic comes up, some here feel the need to focus on the small minority who are doing it for enjoyment, as a hobby or a fetish. People who choose to believe in the 'happy hooker' stereotype, and that sex work is a really empowering choice, do so for a reason.


I said no such thing, but the sex industry as a whole is exploitative and very damaging to the individuals involved. I'd really like you to elaborate on what you mean by this exactly. My feeling is that sex workers are less likely to posses a 'victim mentality' than most.

Is your comment even relevant in a thread about person who, from what little information we do have, seems to be working on the street, and getting into cars, which is a miserable and dangerous life?

We butt heads on this, but I think you have this rigid worldview about victims and victimization that you broadly apply to all of these types of discussions in a way that muddies the conversation and derails the topic.

The question at hand is whether or not prostitutes can be raped. Whether or not they enjoy their work when not being raped is wholly irrelevant to that question.

I'm not going to get drawn into these side discussions with you except to point out, as I already did, that I disagree with your generalization as a generalization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Creatorul

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There is nothing retroactive about it if the terms of consent (for the "overtime") were clear from the beginning and weren't complied with. There was never any consent for the overtime if payment is witheld. At the very least, this is sexual coersion and thus a sex crime -- and personally I have no problem calling it rape, as I've said, even if some jurisdictions might label rape in the legal sense more narrowly than I would tend to use the word. Consent was obtained via deception, which the Conditional Consent provision also covers, according to the source I posted above (which you should actually read before responding, rather than relying on my terse description).

I was assuming you would be familiar with the Assange allegations? Whether you believe them or not, the issue wasn't just over contraception, but whether a precondition was complied with while the victim was asleep.

I am aware of the Assange situation and defense, although I question its applicability.

As for the OP original hypothetical, we aren't told about an agreement of "overtime". Let's assume there was, then the risk of collection falls to the sex worker. Which is no different than if the sex worker didn't get paid for the original agreement.

An action cannot be considered forced, and thus rape, if payment is made, but not forced, if payment is withheld after the fact. The nature of the consent doesn't change ex-post facto.

There was no coercion, but there was persuasion and salesmanship involved. It is not uncommon for a professional to clock watch and short change a client, nor is it uncommon for an hourly worker to milk the time for extras. That's the nature of pay-for-service industries... either use fix priced/prepay or take the risk of giving credit.

Or, take this outside of sex... does failure to pay for extra work by a cleaning service that spent an hour extra mopping your floors make it slavery, or forced labor? The answer is obviously, No. They consented to do the extra work and the client reneged on the payment, but the consent by the worker was real and genuine. With the clear understanding there would be payment afterwards.

Now, while there is a civil case to be made that the client fails to meet their obligation and pay. If the services were legal, then they can sue in civil court for monetary damages, it doesn't make the consent or services forced and subject to criminal charges.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,790
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
It doesn't help that every time this topic comes up, some here feel the need to focus on the small minority who are doing it for enjoyment, as a hobby or a fetish. People who choose to believe in the 'happy hooker' stereotype, and that sex work is a really empowering choice, do so for a reason.


I said no such thing, but the sex industry as a whole is exploitative and very damaging to the individuals involved. I'd really like you to elaborate on what you mean by this exactly. My feeling is that sex workers are less likely to posses a 'victim mentality' than most.

Is your comment even relevant in a thread about person who, from what little information we do have, seems to be working on the street, and getting into cars, which is a miserable and dangerous life?


Walmart is exploitative of their workers and in paying them so little that working a 39 hour week still requires them to seek government assistance just to eat or pay rent they do a lot of damage to the ability of their own staff to feel self reliant or that their labor is of any value. Hating your job or being victimized by systemic poverty is a phenomenon that has nothing whatsoever to do with it being sex.
Treating sex work as being any different than any other means of earning a living is an artifact of puritanical sexual shame, and nothing else.

I have to agree with you that sex work is most often bad for the person who does it. But that has NOTHING to do with it being sex work, and everything to do with it being illegal and socially stigmatized.

Aside from the obvious greater exposure to STD's ( a danger that the merely promiscuous also share ) All of the primary damaging things about sex work are directly attributable to it being an underground enterprise, dealing in cash, that no one is going to report being stolen or even earned.

Prostitutes share all the dangers that a drug mule risks. They end up being taken advantage of BECAUSE they can not simply seek the same protection from police and governmental agencies as any other worker.
Pimps are NO DIFFERENT than the mafia wise guys who extract protection money from store owners under threat of violence.

People who live in the marginalized world of illicit and stigmatized behaviors have a strong incentive to manufacture personal narratives of victimization. Like every convicted criminal claiming he was framed, its a trope.

Just as some waitresses often learn that slightly larger breasts nets them larger tips- and so stuff their bras- Prostitutes learn that a narrative of victimhood can get them extra pay... thru sympathetic response from their customers.
In fact- most prostitute's customers are significantly older, and a solid narrative of victimization is a means to evoke a man's fatherly instinct to protect others.
This literally can make their job safer.

A narrative of victimization has also become the primary means by which any group can achieve political change or fairer treatment.
The pressure society places upon folks to invent a narrative of victimization astounding.
And, of course, in many cases, people who end up in prostitution HAVE been sexually victimized in their youth. But there is no proof that that has any correlation to becoming a prostitute- Partly because you can not trust that all self reportage is true- given the above listed incentives for invention of victimization stories; And partly because of the fact that the vast majority of people who have had molestation or incest experiences do NOT become prostitutes.

Kinsey found that over 30% of all people he interviewed had had some kind of sexual experiences as children.
While he found that early experiences had an effect on their sexuality... there was no evidence that such experiences affected the overall course of their life.

But this was data collected in an era when Americans did not believe in the victim narrative as the excuse for bad choices.
Today- EVERYONE is looking for someone else to blame for how their lives ended up, because we, as a society, have come to believe that victimization is exculpatory.

And in Believing that we CAN be victimized, we ARE.
Children hang themselves over mean tweets BECAUSE we have taught them that words have the power to harm. And so they obsess over words said, and thereby elevate them into trauma. I was raised in an era in which we were taught that mere words can NEVER harm.

A child is molested... And, today, even if it is never discovered, the child is raised in a society where there is an ongoing and vocally hysteric narrative about such experiences being damaging in a way that is life altering- and so the child and young adult learns to fixate on their own victimization.
Myself- I was lucky to have been molested in an era when such things were not openly discussed... and so left to simply come to grips with it without the intense cultural pressure guiding me into feeling like a victim. And because of that, I don't feel like a victim about it.

There is real suffering. I have arthritis from a lifetime of hard use of my hands in making a living... and it hurts and limits me.
But Most of the suffering we endure is mental- is emotional.

And in that measure, We suffer precisely the level of trauma that we have convinced ourselves to BE trauma.

Sex and sexuality is so clothed in conflicted narratives that most of us simply can not just LOOK at the thing dispassionately and objectively for what it truly is.