When is rape not rape?

[gallantwarrior]

There's a case currently being tried here that has raised some interesting questions about defining rape. In a nutshell:

A serial rapist whose MO is to contract with a prostitute for services and after she has entered the car, he refuses to pay her and enjoys her services at knifepoint.

He's being prosecuted for rape but the defense claims that he's not guilty of anything more than theft of services and aggravated assault.

Opinions?

 

[October]

There's a case currently being tried here that has raised some interesting questions about defining rape. In a nutshell:

A serial rapist whose MO is to contract with a prostitute for services and after she has entered the car, he refuses to pay her and enjoys her services at knifepoint.

He's being prosecuted for rape but the defense claims that he's not guilty of anything more than theft of services and aggravated assault.

Opinions?

I'm afraid it's rape if the woman doesn't agree to it, sucks don't it? The theft argument is weak, if any thing the man could be charged for rape and theft. But the bottom line is if she says no, that also applies to if you don't pay, it's rape. Rape=not consenting to sex.

Now had she agreed to sex and they had sex before payment and then he didn't pay, that would be theft. Here he held her captive at knife point, his argument is laughable

 

[editec]

There's a case currently being tried here that has raised some interesting questions about defining rape. In a nutshell:

A serial rapist whose MO is to contract with a prostitute for services and after she has entered the car, he refuses to pay her and enjoys her services at knifepoint.

He's being prosecuted for rape but the defense claims that he's not guilty of anything more than theft of services and aggravated assault.

Opinions?

Violent rape at knifpoint is merely theft of services and aggravated assault?

What school did THAT LAWYER go to?

If the guy moved the car, or refused to let the women out of it, it's rape, assault, AND kidnapping.

Hanging offenses in some states.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The defense argument seems to be that the women had already agreed to provide sexual services and the matter is one of his refusing to pay the fee.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Looks like he'd planned it out ahead of time and wants to play semantics. He coerced her into it so yeah, it's rape.

 

[Katzndogz]

He's obviously guilty of rape. It's not like she voluntarily agreed to have sex with him and then after that he refused to pay her. She wanted her money up front, when he refused she said no. After that it was rape at knifepoint.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

When is rape not rape?

Um, when the person did not consent.

Goodness.

 

[AmyNation]

The defense argument seems to be that the women had already agreed to provide sexual services and the matter is one of his refusing to pay the fee.

You can rape your wife, even if she has previously had consentual sex with you, or even if she agreed to sex and then changed her mind.

Now, if the man had sex with the prostitutes and then refused to pay them, that wouldn't be rape. However since he had to hold them by knifepoint, and told them before the sex there would be no money, and they then changed their minds, it's rape.

 

[Noomi]

There's a case currently being tried here that has raised some interesting questions about defining rape. In a nutshell:

A serial rapist whose MO is to contract with a prostitute for services and after she has entered the car, he refuses to pay her and enjoys her services at knifepoint.

He's being prosecuted for rape but the defense claims that he's not guilty of anything more than theft of services and aggravated assault.

Opinions?

It was rape. I hardly think the woman would have agreed to have sex with him at knifepoint.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's a case currently being tried here that has raised some interesting questions about defining rape. In a nutshell:

A serial rapist whose MO is to contract with a prostitute for services and after she has entered the car, he refuses to pay her and enjoys her services at knifepoint.

He's being prosecuted for rape but the defense claims that he's not guilty of anything more than theft of services and aggravated assault.

Opinions?

My opinion is that the defense lawyer who came up with that argument is a misogynistic piece of shit who, if there were any justice in the universe, should be raped himself at least once. Belittle it NOW, shithead.

Prostitutes are women. They have the EXACT SAME right to their own bodies as any other woman - any other human being - does. It does not matter what reasons they do or don't have for agreeing to have sex. At the moment that they choose not to have sex, "enjoying" them without their agreement - what an absolutely putrid turn of phrase - is rape, regardless of what their reason was for choosing not to.

To say that having sex with a prostitute at knifepoint is only "theft of services" is to say that date rape is just being a REALLY bad date.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The defense argument seems to be that the women had already agreed to provide sexual services and the matter is one of his refusing to pay the fee.

If I agree to have sex with a man, and we're in bed making out, and he calls out another woman's name, and I say, "Get the fuck out, asshole!" and he whips out a knife and has sex with me anyway, did he rape me, or is it a lesser crime because I initially agreed to have sex?

I realize this might shock the asshole defense lawyer, but women DO have the right to change their minds. Even prostitutes.

 

[LAfrique]

There's a case currently being tried here that has raised some interesting questions about defining rape. In a nutshell:

A serial rapist whose MO is to contract with a prostitute for services and after she has entered the car, he refuses to pay her and enjoys her services at knifepoint.

He's being prosecuted for rape but the defense claims that he's not guilty of anything more than theft of services and aggravated assault.

Opinions?

I agree with the defense attorney that the person on trial here is guilty for theft of services, not rape. While rape is rape, one cannot cry rape after willingly submitting to sexual intercourse with a sadist.

Let me seize this opportunity to state that I am an advocate against rape and an advocate for abortion the result of rape. On the other hand however, women ought to understand that when they decide to act the prostitute, men interpret this line of work as means through which they can fulfill their fantasies. Thus, a woman playing the prostitute should always bear in mind that her customer may very well turn out to be kinky (as in this case) or even be the likes of Andrew Luster.

 

[AmyNation]

There's a case currently being tried here that has raised some interesting questions about defining rape. In a nutshell:

A serial rapist whose MO is to contract with a prostitute for services and after she has entered the car, he refuses to pay her and enjoys her services at knifepoint.

He's being prosecuted for rape but the defense claims that he's not guilty of anything more than theft of services and aggravated assault.

Opinions?

I agree with the defense attorney that the person on trial here is guilty for theft of services, not rape. While rape is rape, one cannot cry rape after willingly submitting to sexual intercourse with a sadist.

Let me seize this opportunity to state that I am an advocate against rape and an advocate for abortion the result of rape. On the other hand however, women ought to understand that when they decide to act the prostitute, men interpret this line of work as means through which they can fulfill their fantasies. Thus, a woman playing the prostitute should always bear in mind that her customer may very well turn out to be kinky (as in this case) or even be the likes of Andrew Luster.

 

[martybegan]

He's obviously guilty of rape. It's not like she voluntarily agreed to have sex with him and then after that he refused to pay her. She wanted her money up front, when he refused she said no. After that it was rape at knifepoint.

The use of a weapon is the clincher here. A weapon implies force, and removes the ability of the person to resist due to fear for thier well being.

 

[LAfrique]

He's obviously guilty of rape. It's not like she voluntarily agreed to have sex with him and then after that he refused to pay her. She wanted her money up front, when he refused she said no. After that it was rape at knifepoint.

The woman was a prostitute who contracted to render services to client who turned out to be kinky plus. "... contract with a prostitute for services."

 

[LAfrique]

He's obviously guilty of rape. It's not like she voluntarily agreed to have sex with him and then after that he refused to pay her. She wanted her money up front, when he refused she said no. After that it was rape at knifepoint.

The use of a weapon is the clincher here. A weapon implies force, and removes the ability of the person to resist due to fear for thier well being.

Or the use of weapon could simply mean being kinky. Therefore, a woman playing the prostitute should always bear in mind that her client may very well turn out to be kinky or even be the likes of Andrew Luster.

 

[LAfrique]

There's a case currently being tried here that has raised some interesting questions about defining rape. In a nutshell:

A serial rapist whose MO is to contract with a prostitute for services and after she has entered the car, he refuses to pay her and enjoys her services at knifepoint.

He's being prosecuted for rape but the defense claims that he's not guilty of anything more than theft of services and aggravated assault.

Opinions?

I agree with the defense attorney that the person on trial here is guilty for theft of services, not rape. While rape is rape, one cannot cry rape after willingly submitting to sexual intercourse with a sadist.

Let me seize this opportunity to state that I am an advocate against rape and an advocate for abortion the result of rape. On the other hand however, women ought to understand that when they decide to act the prostitute, men interpret this line of work as means through which they can fulfill their fantasies. Thus, a woman playing the prostitute should always bear in mind that her customer may very well turn out to be kinky (as in this case) or even be the likes of Andrew Luster.

Just being realistic. The truth shall set thee free.

 

[AmyNation]

He's obviously guilty of rape. It's not like she voluntarily agreed to have sex with him and then after that he refused to pay her. She wanted her money up front, when he refused she said no. After that it was rape at knifepoint.

The woman was a prostitute who contracted to render services to client who turned out to be kinky plus. "... contract with a prostitute for services."

Except in order to have a contract two parties have to come to an agreement, which they obviously didn't. The rapist is not even disputing that they did, he's saying he raped them, but it's ok because she was selling it anyway.

If you dig ditches for a living, and I take you by knifepoint, and force you to dig ditches for me, is that "theft of services"? Of course not, its kidnapping at the very least.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's the timing. I can't think of a prostitute that would have sex with anyone and didn't get their money up front. If she voluntarily engaged in sex and then asked to be paid afterwards, it's theft of services.

There are still people who believe that prostitutes cannot be raped because they have sex for money. In reality prostitutes are no different than any other woman who has sex for love instead of money. Yet we do not accept claims of rape from women who voluntarily engage in sex then find out their man never loved them in the first place.

 

[pinqy]

He's obviously guilty of rape. It's not like she voluntarily agreed to have sex with him and then after that he refused to pay her. She wanted her money up front, when he refused she said no. After that it was rape at knifepoint.

The woman was a prostitute who contracted to render services to client who turned out to be kinky plus. "... contract with a prostitute for services."

Except in order to have a contract two parties have to come to an agreement, which they obviously didn't. The rapist is not even disputing that they did, he's saying he raped them, but it's ok because she was selling it anyway.

If you dig ditches for a living, and I take you by knifepoint, and force you to dig ditches for me, is that "theft of services"? Of course not, its kidnapping at the very least.

Better example would be assaulting a boxer or other professional fighter. Just because they get paid to fight, doesn't mean it's not assault to attack them.