Log in

No account? Create an account

It not a joke!!! It is the truth!!!

Giving people what they want: violence and sloppy eating

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Non-payment of a prostitute = rape?
mini me + poo
Three separate places are currently debating this one. What do you think?

Poll #223691 He says 'I'll pay you later'. You have sex with him in the expectation of payment... but he doesn't pay.

Is this rape?

Morally yes, but not legally

  • 1
i'd say no, because the act at the time the act was consentual. it would be obtaining services with deceit/false pretense though!

So you'd say that when a prostitute has sex with someone, it's merely a physical transaction and she/he's not sharing a part of his/her self at the time and it is not at all personal? It depends on the sort of service the person in question provides. If some heart and effort is included in the fee and the bastard takes off without paying, I'd say that's rape.
You can't make a distinction here... I don't know too many sexworkers who just _fuck_. There's It's not an emotional violation, but it's still rape. Rape, on paper, is a physical thing. It leaves psychological scarring, yes, but on paper it's just physical. How bad it was shouldn't come into it.

(that is to say, all rapists should be treated like the animals they are and hoarded into prisons without release. If someone is that way inclined towards others in the population, they should not be a part of that population.
You also encounter issues like, 'she was raped but she's a hooker. he should get less punishment because she gives it away anyway!' when the person who raped her met her in a bar and she was friends with him, nothing to do with her job. That's what I had to deal with when I was raped this time last year, and I felt it looked so bad on paper, along with ineffective rape laws that try the victims rather than the rapists, that I didn't even bother reporting it or the bruises with a doctor.)

So you'd say that when a prostitute has sex with someone, it's merely a physical transaction and she/he's not sharing a part of his/her self at the time and it is not at all personal?

No, not at all actually, but i do feel the crux of rape is the consentuality of the act.

i see your point, but i would define rape as someone being forced into an act which is non consentual at the time of the act.

If you change your mind later about the consentuality i don't think that can be counted as rape. And if it was said that you could change your mind later on, that would set quite a dangerous precident.

That being said i would definitely say not paying would be a crime, but i really don't feel that it could be classed under the crime of 'rape'.

I feel a morally similar situation would be of an artist who gives someone their life's work, with the expectaition of being paid, only for the person to run off with it. Psychologically damaging, certainly.

Hmm....i know people who *just fuck* for fun,too.

And I know a girl who has been raped, a non sexworker...and there was no 'sharing' of anything emotional at the time.

The consent was conditional, though, and the conditions subsequently weren't met. I don't know the legal definition of rape well enough to comment, though. As to whether it's morally 'rape', that would depend on an agreed moral defintion of 'rape' the existence of which I'm not aware of. It is in the same moral ball-park, to my mind.

If it were a simple case of non-payment of services, that would be to say that prostitutes only provide services and nothing more. If that's the case, why are they so frowned upon as a whole? Something more is going on, or maybe pop will eat itself. It's too late to be having this discussion with myself :)

Tis a tricky one to be sure!

What about the case of the girl who is waiting till marriage, but decided to sleep with her fiance as they were going to get married, so that would be 'alright'. does it then become rape a year down the line when he decideds that he doesn't want to marry her?

if so, would it still be the case if she now thought waiting till marriage was a mugs game? The conditions of the initial act would still be broken.

As it happens, one of the cases the judges in the definitive case in England & Wales looked at involved a man in Australia arranging a fake wedding ceremony in order to have sex with the woman!

wow. he really was desperate to get laid!

Right. I'd consider it business fraud or theft.

Yes. Try getting someone who isn't a sexworker to recognise that though.
Money takes the place of consent. With no money, there is no consent. Who's the fool turning tricks without getting the money first, though? Perhaps they're a 'trusted' client who rips them off, I got done for $100 that way last week. I did get the other $550 out of him first, though, and I justified it by reasoning he'd brought champagne. It's lying to myself as he's an otherwise good client who spends much but often short changes me $50 or so. There's no sex, he just likes me fisting him. Next time I might just not cut my nails before he arrives and accidentally spike him once or twice. Grr to him!

I'd like to know how that's *not* rape.

By letting him shortchange you often, you set a precendent.

But if you feel reasonably alright with what you do profit, no harm.

I'd like to know how that's *not* rape. This statement confuses me...especially if the shortchanging is recurring (assuming that is what you were referring to)

I wish I could edit comments - that last line was misplaced. It was referring to the poll on it's own.

ah....that makes much more sense.

Because you either consent or you don't. If you say 'stop' in the middle of sex, it must be respected, but that doesn't make the sex before you say 'stop' non-consensual. So saying 'no' after the event is too late.

Consent can't be conditional and the cure is so simple - get the money first!


I would say it's not rape but it is very bad fraud/theft of services. I feel uncomfortable having my definition of rape watered down by a case where, for instance, the act could be turnedback fom rape into consenual sex by the payment being made later.

Re: Bad lock! No biscuit!

How about if the condition for consent was not 'you pay me at some point in the future', but 'you pay me promptly and without quibbling'?

Damn auto form completion! That subject line wasn't meant to be there.

Re: Bad lock! No biscuit!

I hadn't thought of that aspect, thanks.

Ethically, sure. Legally no. Legally, rape laws defend those forced, coerced or otherwise unwillingly had 'sex'.

It could be viewed as breach of contract,or theft. This is tricky (pardon any pun), when it happens somewhere where prostitution is not legal, and therefore is an invalid contract to begin with, however.

As a sexworker, I would warn, always get the money first!

I could only view it as rape if perhaps a sexworker was forced or coerced into sex when not in a sexwork context. Or, within a sexwork context, if there was never any 'business' done...say a man picks up a street girl, she gets in the car, he threatens her and rapes her, with no business being done.

Yep, even in the UK, where prostitution is legal, you can't enforce a contract based on sex.

Whilst I acknowledge other points I have to vote for 'no'. Rape is a forced non consensual act - non payment of services should not effect the fact that at the time it was consented to.

If the decision was that it was rape, where is the line drawn? Is having sex with your partner in the mistaken belief that they love you/behave in a certain way/like certain things/promise things rape at the future point you discover they have lied? How about after a relationship breaks down and love disappears - was some sex rape, and other sex just sex?

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I think the legal situation is right.

Where would you draw the line? "You said you'd respect me in the morning!"?

I think it's a gap in the law. I don't think it qualifies as rape, on balance. To some, rape involves force, violence, or threat of violence - fear - which is absent. To most, rape involves loss of self-determination over something intimate, which is present but qualified: It's retrospective, and could be fixed by a modest sum of money.

At the same time, I think it's far more morally reprehensible than mere theft because the sex worker has made an extraordinary personal concession by giving sex, and so not paying is demeaning and damaging. There ought to be a special legal concept for this, but it's tricky because (I feel) sex should not be an enforceable part of a contract. Some kind of "breach of intimate agreement" concept might work.

  • 1