When is rape not rape?

[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 **** 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?

No, the first question is, "Why do you insist on thinking that your opinion is worth a puddle of warm spit to me?"

 

[ginscpy]

The rapists alway claim it was "conscenual"

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Dimwit, at the point where he says, "I'm not giving you any money", it's without her consent. Hookers don't **** on spec.

 

[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?

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).

::sigh:: The problem here is your use of that phrase "then is not paid later". If you can find a prostitute anywhere on Earth who doesn't demand the cash up front before letting the client so much as touch her, please let us know.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Rape defined in the CA Penal Code:

261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or
developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and
this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing
the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant
to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1
(commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an
element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or
physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving
consent.
(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the person or another.

See: CA Codes (pen:261-269)

(2) applies to martial rape (see 262 CA PC).

Rape is rape in the case presented in the OP since a contract to commit an illegal act is not a legally enforceable contract.

 

[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?

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 really need to put aside your personal sexual fantasies and try to concentrate.

1) Prostitutes don't **** for free. Period, end of discussion. There is no "paying later". You ask her how much, she tells you, you either hand her the cash or drive away. This is not rocket science.

2) There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that the knife was some sort of kinky play that the woman agreed to, other than your own weird fixation on the idea. Even the defendant isn't making that claim.

3) I have no idea where you got this "prostitutes are sought for fulfilling fantasies" crap. Prostitutes are mostly sought for getting laid. Put down that copy of "Pretty Woman" and back away.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

News reports of testimony indicate that she was "negotiating" which service for what price when he fished his knife out from under the seat and then forced her to submit at knifepoint. He's done this several times, by-the-way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!

Are you retarded? Seriously, are you?

You DO realize that prostitution is illegal, right? You are no more going to see a prostitute taking cash out of a guy's hand right out on the street in front of God and everybody than you are going to see a drug dealer exchanging heroine for money that way.

Restaurants DO serve you food before you pay them. Know why? Because it's NOT ILLEGAL to sell food. They have the ability to have you arrested if you dine and dash. Prostitutes, on the other hand, have no such option. Oh, and you can "allege" anything about the food that you want, but you still have to pay if they don't choose to give you your dinner for free.

Getting into a man's car in no way conveys to him a right to have sex with you, any more than anything else does. No such right can EVER be conveyed.

Just for your clarification, the way this process (simplified) works is:

1) You drive up to the hooker and ask her the price.

2) She names the price.

3) You either agree to pay it, or you drive away.

4) If you agree to pay it, she enters your vehicle.

5) You hand over the money.

6) You drive to wherever you're going to have sex (one assumes you're not going to do it right there on a busy street).

7) She performs whatever service you paid for.

It does not take a genius to figure this shit out. Five seconds of common sense is all it takes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Wow, do YOU sound bitter.

I don't have sex with my husband in exchange for his "goods". What is this, 1898? I have my own stuff and my own ability to earn money and buy stuff, thanks. I have sex with my husband because I love him, and because I enjoy having sex with him.

If anyone's trading sex for things he wants, it's him giving it up in exchange for housekeeping and cooking services. Guess how quickly that laundry's gonna pile up if Momma ain't kept happy.

 

[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.

Wow, do YOU sound bitter.

I don't have sex with my husband in exchange for his "goods". What is this, 1898? I have my own stuff and my own ability to earn money and buy stuff, thanks. I have sex with my husband because I love him, and because I enjoy having sex with him.

If anyone's trading sex for things he wants, it's him giving it up in exchange for housekeeping and cooking services. Guess how quickly that laundry's gonna pile up if Momma ain't kept happy.

Not bitter at all. Just practical. I did mention that it all depends on how you would define the contract. She provides housekeeping, cleaning, child-care services. He provides the financial resources. Of course, that definition is largely out dated, given our 'modern' perspective. (It was really meant more as a tongue-in-cheek joke, though.)

 

[pinqy]

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 quite. While it varies from state to state, let's use my state of Virginia as a definition:

18.2-61. Rape.

A. If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim, he or she shall be guilty of rape.

Now, if the John contracts with the Prostitute to pay $100, they engage in sexual intercourse, and then he refuses to pay, you have a point. The sex was consenual, on promise of payment, and you can't retroactively remove consent.

However...in the case of the OP, BEFORE the sex act occurred, payment was refused, force was introduced, and the intercourse was against the Prostitute's will. Therefore, it's rape.

You seem to be claiming that once consent is given it cannot be withdrawn before the act occurs. This was long ruled to be false in the cases dealing with Marital rape. The claim was that the Marriage Vow was consent to sex and that that consent could never be withdrawn so even use of force was justified. That argument was ruled against decades ago. Consent can be withdrawn before the act, and in some states during the act. It can't be withdrawn after the act, except in cases of mistaken identity (where you believe you are giving consent to person A, but it's really person B) but that's a specific case where you did not consent to have sex with person B.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

News reports of testimony indicate that she was "negotiating" which service for what price when he fished his knife out from under the seat and then forced her to submit at knifepoint. He's done this several times, by-the-way.

Well, then, I'd say that settles it. It's rape.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Wow, do YOU sound bitter.

I don't have sex with my husband in exchange for his "goods". What is this, 1898? I have my own stuff and my own ability to earn money and buy stuff, thanks. I have sex with my husband because I love him, and because I enjoy having sex with him.

If anyone's trading sex for things he wants, it's him giving it up in exchange for housekeeping and cooking services. Guess how quickly that laundry's gonna pile up if Momma ain't kept happy.

Not bitter at all. Just practical. I did mention that it all depends on how you would define the contract. She provides housekeeping, cleaning, child-care services. He provides the financial resources. Of course, that definition is largely out dated, given our 'modern' perspective. (It was really meant more as a tongue-in-cheek joke, though.)

I know you were joking. I was teasing back about the "bitter" part. However, there really are idiots out there who think of marriage that way, and it's usually because their own marriages sucked so badly.

Frankly, I never really thought about it as a contract in that sense. The things I do and contribute in my marriage, such as housekeeping and cooking and childcare, are simply things one needs to do in order to have a decent, livable life. Ditto for whichever of us is working at earning money at that point. I view the marriage as combining forces to handle mundane issues and make life more enjoyable for both of us more than I view it as trade and commerce.

 

[Katzndogz]

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 **** 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.

A prostitute has to give the money back. He's due a refund.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Wow, do YOU sound bitter.

I don't have sex with my husband in exchange for his "goods". What is this, 1898? I have my own stuff and my own ability to earn money and buy stuff, thanks. I have sex with my husband because I love him, and because I enjoy having sex with him.

If anyone's trading sex for things he wants, it's him giving it up in exchange for housekeeping and cooking services. Guess how quickly that laundry's gonna pile up if Momma ain't kept happy.

Not bitter at all. Just practical. I did mention that it all depends on how you would define the contract. She provides housekeeping, cleaning, child-care services. He provides the financial resources. Of course, that definition is largely out dated, given our 'modern' perspective. (It was really meant more as a tongue-in-cheek joke, though.)

I know you were joking. I was teasing back about the "bitter" part. However, there really are idiots out there who think of marriage that way, and it's usually because their own marriages sucked so badly.

Frankly, I never really thought about it as a contract in that sense. The things I do and contribute in my marriage, such as housekeeping and cooking and childcare, are simply things one needs to do in order to have a decent, livable life. Ditto for whichever of us is working at earning money at that point. I view the marriage as combining forces to handle mundane issues and make life more enjoyable for both of us more than I view it as trade and commerce.

I view it more as a contract of mutual support. Each partner assumes certain responsibilities and roles. With luck, the partnership will develop into a compatible and ongoing evolution of understanding and support for each other.

I suppose in most ways, my partner and I have something like a marriage. Our skills compliment each other and each of us gains at least one other person to rely upon if need arises. Of course, for reasons obvious (and not so obvious), the usual physical arrangement in a marriage does not exist, but it is not missed by either of us. Whenever teased by the others about our "relationship", I usually quip: "We're not in love, we're incorporated."

 

[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 **** 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.

A prostitute has to give the money back. He's due a refund.

As far as I'm concerned, she's welcome to give him the knife back . . . preferably in his balls.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not bitter at all. Just practical. I did mention that it all depends on how you would define the contract. She provides housekeeping, cleaning, child-care services. He provides the financial resources. Of course, that definition is largely out dated, given our 'modern' perspective. (It was really meant more as a tongue-in-cheek joke, though.)

I know you were joking. I was teasing back about the "bitter" part. However, there really are idiots out there who think of marriage that way, and it's usually because their own marriages sucked so badly.

Frankly, I never really thought about it as a contract in that sense. The things I do and contribute in my marriage, such as housekeeping and cooking and childcare, are simply things one needs to do in order to have a decent, livable life. Ditto for whichever of us is working at earning money at that point. I view the marriage as combining forces to handle mundane issues and make life more enjoyable for both of us more than I view it as trade and commerce.

I view it more as a contract of mutual support. Each partner assumes certain responsibilities and roles. With luck, the partnership will develop into a compatible and ongoing evolution of understanding and support for each other.

I suppose in most ways, my partner and I have something like a marriage. Our skills compliment each other and each of us gains at least one other person to rely upon if need arises. Of course, for reasons obvious (and not so obvious), the usual physical arrangement in a marriage does not exist, but it is not missed by either of us. Whenever teased by the others about our "relationship", I usually quip: "We're not in love, we're incorporated."

Exactly.

I cannot tell you how much it means to me when the feces hits the oscillating air circulator to know that I don't have to come up with a solution all by myself.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I know you were joking. I was teasing back about the "bitter" part. However, there really are idiots out there who think of marriage that way, and it's usually because their own marriages sucked so badly.

Frankly, I never really thought about it as a contract in that sense. The things I do and contribute in my marriage, such as housekeeping and cooking and childcare, are simply things one needs to do in order to have a decent, livable life. Ditto for whichever of us is working at earning money at that point. I view the marriage as combining forces to handle mundane issues and make life more enjoyable for both of us more than I view it as trade and commerce.

I view it more as a contract of mutual support. Each partner assumes certain responsibilities and roles. With luck, the partnership will develop into a compatible and ongoing evolution of understanding and support for each other.

I suppose in most ways, my partner and I have something like a marriage. Our skills compliment each other and each of us gains at least one other person to rely upon if need arises. Of course, for reasons obvious (and not so obvious), the usual physical arrangement in a marriage does not exist, but it is not missed by either of us. Whenever teased by the others about our "relationship", I usually quip: "We're not in love, we're incorporated."

Exactly.

I cannot tell you how much it means to me when the feces hits the oscillating air circulator to know that I don't have to come up with a solution all by myself.

In my case, I'm the problem-solver. My partner does a few things extremely well, things I am capable of doing for myself, but often do not have the time or desire to do them. I suppose one of the most difficult things to do in a symbiotic relationship like ours is to learn not to ***** about how he does things, as long as the results are what were intended in the first place. (A courtesy he does not reciprocate.)