When is rape not rape?

[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."

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.

I do not appreciate when folks use words inappropriately resulting later in deminishing of proper usage of word: It is not rape when a prostitute contracts to render services. When the woman agreed to render services and willingly entered into her clients vehicle, that was the binding of a contract in action. I believe the prostitute only cried rape because her client under contract refused to pay for services.

If it were rape, why would a woman ask for money during or after rape? I bet we would not have heard about the case had the man not being stingy and stupid.

 

[Dreamy]

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?

Interesting defense but because she only agreed to sex IF she was paid, he did indeed commit rape.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I do not appreciate when folks use words inappropriately resulting later in deminishing of proper usage of word: It is not rape when a prostitute contracts to render services. When the woman agreed to render services and willingly entered into her clients vehicle, that was the binding of a contract in action. I believe the prostitute only cried rape because her client under contract refused to pay for services.

If it were rape, why would a woman ask for money during or after rape? I bet we would not have heard about the case had the man not being stingy and stupid.

You are leaving out the "at knife-point" part of the equation. Once physical force becomes involved, its a rape.

 

[George Costanza]

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?

That's a rape. If he had "enjoyed her services" and then refused to pay, with no force or threat of force involved, it would have been a breach of contract.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

I think the first question would be, with your attitude, why would ANY man ever get in bed with you in the first place?

 

[LAfrique]

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.

I agree that a prostitute can be a rape victim if a party she had not consented to joins sexaul activity while she is with person she is under contract with, or if a previous client engages into sexual act with her without her consent.

 

[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?

Interesting defense but because she only agreed to sex IF she was paid, he did indeed commit rape.

It is not rape when a person agrees to engage in sexual acts for money and then is not paid later. Client can only be guilty for theft of services (and this can only hold in court if the court recognizes prostitution as legal occupation).

 

[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?

That's a rape. If he had "enjoyed her services" and then refused to pay, with no force or threat of force involved, it would have been a breach of contract.

It is not rape when a client enjoys services and beef-up by living a fetish, though he/she refuses to pay for services rendered. Prostitutes are sought after mostly for the purpose of fulfilling fantasies.

 

[Dreamy]

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?

Interesting defense but because she only agreed to sex IF she was paid, he did indeed commit rape.

It is not rape when a person agrees to engage in sexual acts for money and then is not paid later. Client can only be guilty for theft of services (and this can only hold in court if the court recognizes prostitution as legal occupation).

Not being an attorney I can't be certain but I see the point you are raising about the legality of prostitution but other rapes of pros have been prosecuted successfully in the past. It was a consensual sexual encounter until she was not paid is my take. Because he refused to pay BEFORE the sexual act and then chose to take her by force he did indeed commit rape imo.

 

[LAfrique]

Interesting defense but because she only agreed to sex IF she was paid, he did indeed commit rape.

It is not rape when a person agrees to engage in sexual acts for money and then is not paid later. Client can only be guilty for theft of services (and this can only hold in court if the court recognizes prostitution as legal occupation).

Not being an attorney I can't be certain but I see the point you are raising about the legality of prostitution but other rapes of pros have been prosecuted successfully in the past. It was a consensual sexual encounter until she was not paid is my take. Because he refused to pay BEFORE the sexual act and then chose to take her by force he did indeed commit rape imo.

If pay before service is the norm with prostitute, why then would a prostitute willingly enter enclosed area before she has been paid? Would that not be similar to a restaurant serving you food before receiving payment? You can allege that the food was not good and therefore you refused to pay.

Anyway, I do not see rape in this case. I think this case is mostly a case of wisen up, prostitute!

 

[Dreamy]

It is not rape when a person agrees to engage in sexual acts for money and then is not paid later. Client can only be guilty for theft of services (and this can only hold in court if the court recognizes prostitution as legal occupation).

Not being an attorney I can't be certain but I see the point you are raising about the legality of prostitution but other rapes of pros have been prosecuted successfully in the past. It was a consensual sexual encounter until she was not paid is my take. Because he refused to pay BEFORE the sexual act and then chose to take her by force he did indeed commit rape imo.

If pay before service is the norm with prostitute, why then would a prostitute willingly enter enclosed area before she has been paid? Would that not be similar to a restaurant serving you food before receiving payment? You can allege that the food was not good and therefore you refused to pay.

Anyway, I do not see rape in this case. I think this case is mostly a case of wisen up, prostitute!

I can't answer for how pros do their business but if a cop sees a pro exchanging money with a man in a car she is likely to get busted as is he. Most money changes hands behind the cover of a car or a door or an alley I would suspect. Street hookers generally take their "fee" up front.

I do not see the same analogy with food as related to sex but I suppose a few men might. lol

My understanding is she did want to be paid before the sex and he chose to take without paying. That is rape. I think the theft of service claim is the bogus one legally. Her "business" is currently illegal so I would think it might not be a charge that would stick.

 

[George Costanza]

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?

That's a rape. If he had "enjoyed her services" and then refused to pay, with no force or threat of force involved, it would have been a breach of contract.

It is not rape when a client enjoys services and beef-up by living a fetish, though he/she refuses to pay for services rendered. Prostitutes are sought after mostly for the purpose of fulfilling fantasies.

You are correct. In the example you give, that would not be a rape because the initial sex was consensual, even though under false pretenses, assuming the John had no intention of paying from the start. The operative word is "consensual." Once the woman is forced to do something against her will, it becomes a rape.

You are overlooking this latter aspect.

 

[George Costanza]

It is not rape when a person agrees to engage in sexual acts for money and then is not paid later. Client can only be guilty for theft of services (and this can only hold in court if the court recognizes prostitution as legal occupation).

Not being an attorney I can't be certain but I see the point you are raising about the legality of prostitution but other rapes of pros have been prosecuted successfully in the past. It was a consensual sexual encounter until she was not paid is my take. Because he refused to pay BEFORE the sexual act and then chose to take her by force he did indeed commit rape imo.

If pay before service is the norm with prostitute, why then would a prostitute willingly enter enclosed area before she has been paid? Would that not be similar to a restaurant serving you food before receiving payment? You can allege that the food was not good and therefore you refused to pay.

Anyway, I do not see rape in this case. I think this case is mostly a case of wisen up, prostitute!

The food analogy is not a valid one. In order for the food analogy to be the same as the situation with the hooker, it would have to go down like this: Guy goes into a restaurant. (Sounds like the lead-in to a joke.) He orders. The waitress says: "OK, but in this restaurant, you have to pay up front." Guy says, I'm not paying up front, pulls a knife, and forces the waitress to bring the food anyway. That would be a robbery.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Just an observation: Depending on how precisely one defines contractual commerce, marriage is nothing more than legalized and socially sanctioned prostitution. After all, she exchanges her services for his goods.

 

[AmyNation]

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.

Just an observation: Depending on how precisely one defines contractual commerce, marriage is nothing more than legalized and socially sanctioned prostitution. After all, she exchanges her services for his goods.

And suddenly it feels like 1952 in here. Let me take my shoes off and head to the kitchen to make you a sandwich.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Just an observation: Depending on how precisely one defines contractual commerce, marriage is nothing more than legalized and socially sanctioned prostitution. After all, she exchanges her services for his goods.

And suddenly it feels like 1952 in here. Let me take my shoes off and head to the kitchen to make you a sandwich.

Not too much mayo and lightly toast the bread. Oh, and bring a cold brew while you're up.

 

[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?

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.

My, my, my. Aren't YOU just the expert on projecting your own personal bullshit into a news story?

Would you care to show me where the woman in question "willingly submitted to sexual intercourse with a sadist"? I'm not seeing any "willing submission" there, unless you're one of those people who thinks it's possible for a woman's behavior to imply agreement to anyone who wants her, or to somehow nullify her right to say no.

Whatever tangents you want to wander down about "maybe it was a kinky scene involving a knife" are a waste of time unless you can show where even THE DEFENDANT has made that claim. All he's saying is, "I decided to take what I wanted without paying for it", and since what he wanted was sex (and the woman pretty certainly objected to giving him sex without money), that would be rape. Pure and simple.

It's never a good idea to encourage people to think there are exceptions to "No means no".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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."

Amazingly enough, quoting the OP's word choice doesn't constitute proof of much other than the OP's viewpoint.

Also, the "contract for services" consisted of "you give me money, and I'll have sex with you". Even YOU admit that he breached any such contract by pulling a knife instead of giving her money, which would certainly at least imply that she was unwilling at that point to provide HER side of the "contract". Since her side of the "contract" was sex, and it was taken without her being willing . . . Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the definition of "rape", isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You're still projecting your own personal bullshit onto the situation with absolutely nothing else to prove that it's relevant.

Without an actual news source being provided, it's hard to be sure, but it appears that the defendant himself isn't even using "kinky" as an explanation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I do not appreciate when folks use words inappropriately resulting later in deminishing of proper usage of word: It is not rape when a prostitute contracts to render services. When the woman agreed to render services and willingly entered into her clients vehicle, that was the binding of a contract in action. I believe the prostitute only cried rape because her client under contract refused to pay for services.

If it were rape, why would a woman ask for money during or after rape? I bet we would not have heard about the case had the man not being stingy and stupid.

If you don't like word-twisting, why are you doing it? And in your case, it's not the "proper usage" that's being diminished, it's the sovereignty of a woman's body, simply because you're feeling judgemental about what she chooses to do with it.

It's not rape to have sex with a prostitute who has agreed to have sex with you and whom you have paid, that's quite true. It IS, however, rape to say, "I don't want to pay" and instead force her to have sex with you for free at knifepoint. There is nothing "contractual" about that, unless you think she told the guy, "Hey, forget the money, how about you just pull a knife instead?"

There is NOTHING "binding" about agreeing to have sex, by the way, and it really disturbs me that you think there is. Women retain the right to change their minds and say no (so do men, btw). There is NEVER a point at which you have a RIGHT to have sexual intercourse with someone.

No prostitute on the planet, no matter how dumb, is going to let the sex proceed before the money is ponied up. And I simply can't imagine a prostitute who would remain willing to have sex after being told that the money isn't coming. So he had sex with her against her will, and I'm pretty sure that's the dictionary definition of "rape".

Where, may I ask, is the evidence that she "asked for money during or after the rape", as you say she did? And no, we never would have heard about this if the man hadn't been stingy and stupid enough to rape her rather than just paying her.