[Agent Steel]

What if a man pays a prostitute for sex and she doesn't give it to him, and then a week later he sees her and rapes her, is that really rape seeing as though she agreed to it and she owes it to him?

[Rich]

What if a man pays a prostitute for sex and she doesn't give it to him, and then a week later he sees her and rapes her, is that really rape seeing as though she agreed to it and she owes it to him?

That should be legally classified as rape. We should limit the ability of people to make contracts. People should not be able to sell sex beyond the immediate future. So while the man should be entitled to a refund and a woman should potentially be liable to prosecution for fraud no man or woman should be in the position of being legally obligated to consent to sex.

Note one of the presumptions of a modern legal system is that people are not going to starve. This was not the case in pre modern societies. In pre modern societies people frequently entered slavery or semi slavery voluntarily in order to avoid starvation. My attitudes / sentiments / proclivities are broadly in harmony with modern values on sexual morality, bar the trans nonsense. Where I seem to differ from the majority is that I'm an avowed historical materialist. I just don't (intellectually) believe in absolute morality. I don't believe in morality disentangled from time and place. There were strong reasons why things were the way they were.

[pugsville]

What if a man pays a prostitute for sex and she doesn't give it to him, and then a week later he sees her and rapes her, is that really rape seeing as though she agreed to it and she owes it to him?

It's rape. He has a civil claim to get the money back.

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish What do you mean it's not black or white?

If it's a rape, then it's a rape. If it's a murder then it's a murder. If it fits the definition of the crimes, then that is what it is.

You want to change the definitions to suit your rape-loving agenda.

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish What do you mean it's not black or white?

If it's a rape, then it's a rape. If it's a murder then it's a murder. If it fits the definition of the crimes, then that is what it is.

That's not true. Not everything always fits into neat little boxes.

You want to talk about murder, I could give plenty of scenarios where it's not clear if a killing was really a murder or not. It could be in a grey zone, partially justified.

[Potemkin]

That's not true. Not everything always fits into neat little boxes.

You want to talk about murder, I could give plenty of scenarios where it's not clear if a killing was really a murder or not. It could be in a grey zone, partially justified.

You mean there are “legitimate” rapes and “non-legitimate” rapes? Tell me, @Puffer Fish, are the “legitimate” rapes the ones which cause spontaneous abortions of any fetus, or are these a different kind if rape? I’m confused.

[Puffer Fish]

You mean there are “legitimate” rapes and “non-legitimate” rapes? Tell me, @Puffer Fish, are the “legitimate” rapes the ones which cause spontaneous abortions of any fetus, or are these a different kind if rape? I’m confused. :?:

I mean some are actual rapes. Others were cases where the woman has had sex with the man multiple times before, or totally led him on into a sexual act.

[Rich]

So since we seem to be in the business of throwing out sex related questions. My question is: How does sex compare to driving?

So as I understand it in our culture driving is considered a complex and subtle task requiring a high degree of consciousness and awareness. Where as with sex the general cultural recommendation is that sex is best practised with a lowered level of consciousness at least until you get to know the person. I remember my first full sexual intercourse event, I had consumed so much alcohol that initially I couldn't hold an erection, so I had to put the young woman on hold and re-engage an hour to two later. Luckily the young woman was into me and it all worked out OK, but I imagine if I'd turned up to my first driving lesson in such a state and asked them to delay the lesson for a hour or two to give me a chance to sober up a bit, most driving instructors would not be so tolerant. But then I guess for the analogy to work the driving instructor would have had to been the pub / club with me getting smashed as well.

[pugsville]

I mean some are actual rapes. Others were cases where the woman has had sex with the man multiple times before, or totally led him on into a sexual act.

Or in other words other actual rapes.

[minivanburen]

I mean some are actual rapes. Others were cases where the woman has had sex with the man multiple times before, or totally led him on into a sexual act.

What does this even mean? Do you believe it's not rape if you start having sex with someone, they tell you to stop, and you keep having sex with them--even if they repeatedly tell you "no" and try to physically resist? Do you think it's not rape if you've had sex with that person before?

For your convenience, here is the federal statutory definition of rape ("sexual abuse"), 18 U.S.C. § 2242:

(1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping);

(2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or

(3) engages in a sexual act with another person without that other person’s consent, to include doing so through coercion

As you can see, whether the victim has previously had sex with that person is entirely immaterial to whether the victim has been raped. Or do you disagree with the federal statutory definition of rape? If so, how--specifically--do you disagree with it?

[Negotiator]

That she appeared to have talked with him normally is completely irrelevant.

It proves nothing, it disproves nothing.

For example she could have acted "normally" simply out of fear of her rapist.

Not getting a rape kit etc as already explained however, that basically makes sure that the man wont be convicted either way, due to lack of evidence.

Rape is like the worst crime to handle in court, because theres usually only two witnesses - the potential rapist and the potential victim - and they say opposite things. Getting as much evidence as possible is therefore very important.

[Puffer Fish]

What does this even mean? Do you believe it's not rape if you start having sex with someone, they tell you to stop, and you keep having sex with them--even if they repeatedly tell you "no" and try to physically resist? Do you think it's not rape if you've had sex with that person before?

I mean some cases are a little bit less than rape, due to the background circumstances, and probably shouldn't be called "rape". Some other word might be more appropriate.

For your convenience, here is the federal statutory definition of rape ("sexual abuse"), 18 U.S.C. § 2242:

Modern law has been busy redefining the definition of what "rape" is.
Being that this is a political forum, and many of these laws were not completely without contention, I am going to refuse to let the wording in laws define what terms mean.

Just like I would not expect you to automatically accept that "abortion is murder" just because a law was passed saying that, for example.

As you can see, whether the victim has previously had sex with that person is entirely immaterial to whether the victim has been raped.

I'm sorry, I'm going to disagree with that. In my opinion it is very "material" to how much the offender should be punished, and even perhaps whether they should be punished, in some situations.

The use of the word "rape" is not really definite or specific enough in the type of situations we are discussing here.

Because we've discussed this before in several other threads, I'm not going to get off topic here with you about that.

The specific question in this thread is whether it is rape if she did not immediately leave him.

There are two sides to this: Whether it is rape (theoretically, if we knew for certain what actually happened), and whether it should be treated as rape (since we may have no way of knowing for certain what actually happened to that woman).

[Puffer Fish]

That she appeared to have talked with him normally is completely irrelevant.

It proves nothing, it disproves nothing.

For example she could have acted "normally" simply out of fear of her rapist.

I'm specifically imagining the situation where the woman has had a romantic/sexual relationship with the man before, then later gets "raped" by him (or whatever you want to call it), but then seems to continue staying with him romantically, when she is not coerced and its entirely her choice to do so.

Sorry, I thought that should have been obvious to you, but I guess not.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm specifically imagining the situation where the woman has had a romantic/sexual relationship with the man before, then later gets "raped" by him (or whatever you want to call it), but then seems to continue staying with him romantically, when she is not coerced and its entirely her choice to do so.

Sorry, I thought that should have been obvious to you, but I guess not.

The majority of people in abusive relationships tend to stay with their abusive partners afterwards. The main reasons are kids and money.

It is still abusive.

[Puffer Fish]

The majority of people in abusive relationships tend to stay with their abusive partners afterwards. The main reasons are kids and money.

It is still abusive.

I would argue that the fact they are staying can be used as an indicator that it is not of the most abusive type.

Though there are some exceptions and there are women with severe emotional dependency problems, who will stay with a man even though she should know that her life is imminently in danger.

I do not think we should make this a "Black and White" thing.

[Godstud]

I would argue that the fact they are staying can be used as an indicator that it is not of the most abusive type.

Oh fuck off. You're a misogynist who wants to normalize rape. Rape is rape. What you say is complete rubbish and only your idiotic and foolish opinion.

Though there are some exceptions and there are women with severe emotional dependency problems, who will stay with a man even though she should know that her life is imminently in danger.

So you think they should be taken advantage of and punished? That's what you imply with your stupid statements. You're fucked in the head.

I do not think we should make this a "Black and White" thing.

You do not think. It IS black and white. If sex is non-consensual then it is RAPE. You are simply too fucking ignorant and hate women far too much, to admit it.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would argue that the fact they are staying can be used as an indicator that it is not of the most abusive type.

Though there are some exceptions and there are women with severe emotional dependency problems, who will stay with a man even though she should know that her life is imminently in danger.

I do not think we should make this a "Black and White" thing.

Well, you would be wrong.

Tell you what, go find a psychologist who has studied this and see f they agree with you. Then post what they say here.

Also, do you have a wife or girlfriend?

[Negotiator]

I'm specifically imagining the situation where the woman has had a romantic/sexual relationship with the man before, then later gets "raped" by him (or whatever you want to call it), but then seems to continue staying with him romantically, when she is not coerced and its entirely her choice to do so.

Sorry, I thought that should have been obvious to you, but I guess not.

So basically you're unable to understand that people can lie and deceit.