i argue the creator of the post... in stating "inititially gave consent"... but i'm not a lawyer... perhaps those of us who view the sex went ON read the post... differently?
to me... initially in no way implies she consented the entire time...
both the police investigating and the judicial body that heard the case agreed it was rape... which is why him went to prison
and that context informs why some of us are calling it rape... and both law enforcement and the criminal justice system agreed
Look... You can READ things into what was said.... the post has enough info to make a declarative determination.
She consented to the transaction.... and her complaint was NOT that he went beyond her consent, her complaint was that he refused to PAY for that overage.
That right there tells you what she was upset over, and the specific parameter in which she felt she had been mistreated.
NO PERSON who was ACTUALLY raped, would state to their rapist in the minutes immediately after that they would feel better about the whole thing if the rapist just PAID them more money.
Really- its very clear. I am not saying that a Prostitute can not be raped because once she sell its, its JUST a commodity. That conversion of her sexual access to a commodity happens independently with every individual transaction.
She can refuse to have sex with any potential customer at her discretion. ( if uncoerced ) AND she CAN revoke consent in the middle of the act, if she chooses.
She didn't do either.
The fact that she sought additional payment, AFTERWARDS, is ample proof that she was still "on the clock" professionally, and had not revoked consent- she just wanted more money for more time.
In Addition, the post is unclear as to whether the prostitute made her BILLING policy clear prior to engaging in sex.
To wit: I once went to a bachelor party where a friend of mine paid for a lap dance for me. She took me into a back room and did the lap dance thing, and it seemed to me to go on for quite a long time.... I eventually asked her, directly, how much my friend had given her... and she told me he had paid for 5 minutes. I asked her why she hadn't stopped after five minutes, then? And she said I seemed to be enjoying it. I pointed out that she had heard my friend say he had bought me a lap dance... and she should have just delivered what was paid for and then INFORMED ME when that service was up so that I could DECIDE whether I wanted to pay for additional time.
She demanded $60 for the extra 10 minutes.
So let me ask you... was I liable for the money? She knew I had been told it was paid for. At no time did she inform me what the rate per five minutes was. Was it unreasonable for me to have the expectation that she was serving only what had been paid for in advance? Should I not have been informed when the meter started on a debt she would claim I owed?
And if, under those circumstance, I had refused to pay because I found her conduct dishonest.... would I have suddenly been a rapist? Or does ONLY penetration count?
JAILING a man as a violent sexual offender because he Paid for sex and the sex worker CLAIMS he went overtime and owed her more is Not reasonable, given the stigma attached to conviction for rape.
It EQUATES his conduct with the guy who stalks and then strangles women into submission to violent sexual assault. Because his record will say only "convicted rapist" without the additional narrative that it was really a dispute with a hooker over the fact that he didn't pay EXTRA.
If you want to suppose info not in the OP's scenario... then you can just as easily suppose that the john refused to pay extra simply because she had not stated any specific time limit to their activity nor informed him that overtime would be charged for.
As to your ASSUMPTION that the judge and the police agreed that it was rape, and so you tend to support that conclusion... that is a spurious argument.
That is the exact same argument that says- never mind the evidence- The Police ARRESTED him and a Judge CONVICTED him, so he MUST be guilty of something. By that logic, it would be impossible to exonerate an innocent man. Or it would be impossible to suggest that perhaps a law that incarcerates people for ten years over one once of weed is perhaps unjust.
Judges and Police ROUTINELY arrest, try and convict innocent people.
Judicial systems are provably biased and unfairly target those without the means to cogently defend themselves.
And the CHARGES you are brought up on, in almost ALL judicial systems worldwide, place a limit on the KIND of argument you are even allowed to make in your defense.
If she sold him "a fuck"- and he honestly felt that it was all just the same single fuck- then charging him as a rapist does not even
allow him to argue the Nature of the contract he entered into. Violent criminal offenses
do not allow a defense based upon Contract law.
His lawyer could stand up to argue that its really a breach contract case- and the judge would say ' your client is not charged with breach of contract he is charged with rape. She says she was raped. His semen was found inside her. And our law says that if a woman SAYS she was raped- and there is proof of sexual contact, then she was raped."
This is the problem with the concept of consent being revoked after the fact. How do you determine consent? Well, you are utterly relying upon the reportage of the person who is making the accusation; About their
state of mind at the moment it occurred.
Do we just TRUST their word? Or do we require evidence that the violation was coercive in SOME regard.
If people were NEVER caught making rape accusations that were untrue... then that might be reasonable... but people DO make false accusations. And given the stigma attached to being convicted of the same crime as a person who terrorizes someone into sexual submission, should we not keep the term RAPE attached to SOME standard candle of violence or coercion?
That is kinda my whole point. People are being charged with rape who OUGHT to be charged for theft or fraud BECAUSE rape is no longer being reasonably defined, Or because our puritanical system of laws does not allow for prostitution to be treated like any other legal service in the economy. i.e. If the court WILL NOT hear a case of contract law regarding an illegal activity... then the ONLY recourse the law is left with is to charge the guy with rape.
According to our actual LAWS in the US... a 17 year old boy having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend becomes a legally defined rapist if the sex continues past midnight into his 18th birthday.
Is THAT a reasonable interpretation of 'rape'? Does her boyfriend deserve to be on a sexual offenders register because the law has no more nuance than to arbitrarily make Him responsible, but NOT her, for the things they both agree to do, after a specific date?
The reason I keep offering analogies of lawyers or restaurants getting stiffed is because it is an effective means of separating whether you are succumbing to a knee jerk response over the fact that genitals were involved.
That is, if you posit the exact same sequence of conduct- in some OTHER areas than sex work- do you come up with the same conclusion that its a form of rape?
Here's one more. Say you worked all day at a job and then the boss demanded you put in overtime. When you get your check, you see that you were paid regular wages for the overtime, rather than time and a half as law requires.
You tell your Boss about the error but he states he has no intention of paying you the extra money you are legally owed.
Were you raped?
Take the DICK out of the scenario, and the answer becomes clear. You are crying rape ONLY because the transaction involved sex.
It may be
Legal to do that. But that does not make it ethically nor logically nor morally right to do so.
Its just another example of our abrahamic culture's schizophrenic dysfunction over everything involving our naughty bits.
