Can a prostitute who agreed to sell sex claim rape? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14957953
It is legalese which comes from a society dominated by lawyers trained to be concerned about how to subvert the laws to their advantage without any consideration for justice.
Their argument simply does not care about fair and just. It is only important their view point is supported by the law. It must be made legal no matter who it hurts because that is how I want it to be.
We are an insane and vicious society patting ourselves on the back for our compassion and understanding. Lol
#14957957
One Degree wrote:It is legalese which comes from a society dominated by lawyers trained to be concerned about how to subvert the laws to their advantage without any consideration for justice.
Their argument simply does not care about fair and just. It is only important their view point is supported by the law. It must be made legal no matter who it hurts because that is how I want it to be.
We are an insane and vicious society patting ourselves on the back for our compassion and understanding. Lol



Edit: I will amend that last sentence. We are both. We can change to either in a second. Except we don’t usually understand enough to be truly compassionate.
#14957984
Albert wrote:Well obviously, but what you guys are not thinking about is how this impacts court procedure and execution of justice. These new definition of withdrawal of consent are meant to better combat abuse of women I get that, but it has created mess of things.

For example:
You have case where a woman and a man had sex; she claims she withdrew consent during sex, he on the others hand claims she did not. Edit: there are no evidence of struggle or harm done. How do you determine rape happened then? How do you establish consent in this situation?

But you have instances where guys go to jail out of these types of situations.


You said that consent being withdrawn during sex is nothing but nonsense.

I pointed out that it was a real thing. It happens. People change their mind.

You now seem to be agreeing that it is not nonsense, but is instead a real thing.

Now you are moving the goalposts and arguing that it is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This is true, because of the way laws are structured, and the fact that there is no physical evidence of forced sex.

But that does not change the fact that rape (i.e. sex without consent) happens when a person withdraws consent during sex and the other person does not stop.
#14957994
I want to try to clarify some things
The quote from Albert
This whole thing that consent can be withdrawn during sex is nothing but nonsense.

is plainly false in terms that people do change their minds and can for what ever reason go from wanting sex to not wanting it.
But I think one could already see that it would be ridiculous to believe people don't change their minds that could have already predicted that Albert was going to be talking about a situation in which someone changes their mind but doesn't communicate it and whether this is considered rape or not.

So I'll summarize that a man having sex with such an uncommunicative woman isn't going to be convicted of rape and its difficult to even imagine without further details why it would even be conceived as rape or even experienced as rape.

Because it seems odd that a woman just out of no where changes her mind and if she does change her mind then one would expect her to communicate it as women aren't just silent for no reason unless we consider there to be some sort of coercion or force that reasonably prevents her.
And if she chose to be silent without coercion, it likely to even be experienced as rape to the woman.
With vague language of her 'not wanting it', is probably in terms of her being okay with having sex but perhaps finding it unpleasant and tolerating it. Like a woman who perhaps doesn't give feedback to a partner who is doing a shit job (bad sex), which women is quite different to being raped even if unpleasant.

There is a onus on the woman to communicate when there is reasonable belief that consensual sex is being engaged with otherwise it would indeed result in the ridiculous conclusion that rape has occurred in a hypothetical example of a woman that without any motive changes her mind on wanting to have sex at all and is without anything to reasonable compel her silence doesn't communicate the change in her want to her partner.

Silence is only significant to consent in regards to what we consider sufficient conditions for a woman to meaningfully consent to something.
So that we might consider something rape for the severity of coerciveness whilst something else isn't.
The difference between a woman who sleeps with someone for fear of violence versus someone who sleeps with their boyfriend because they're afraid they'll be insulted/yelled at.
https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/72856/OSJCL_V2N1_333.pdf
The controlling issue in such cases, therefore, is not a factual question as to whether the women really want to have sex when they acquiesce under the pressure of circumstances-because they both do and do notbut a normative question as to whether in choosing sexual intercourse for themselves, they do so with the freedom the statute at hand regards as sufficient to leave the decision to them. Once one answers the latter question, one also knows what kinds of resistance they are and are not required to mount

To illustrate, recall Stella who felt forced to go along with her boyfriend's desire for sexual intercourse rather than be cursed. Did Stella really want to have sexual intercourse with her boyfriend? She did and she did not. She did not want to have sexual intercourse with her boyfriend when she was pushing his hands away from her underwear, because at that moment, she preferred physical resistance to sexual intercourse. Nor did she want it at the very moment of sexual intercourse, because she would not have gone along with him then if she had not been afraid of being cursed. Yet she also did want it at the very moment of sexual intercourse, because at that moment she preferred sexual intercourse to the alternative of being cursed. The legally-interesting question in Stella's case is not whether she actually consented to sexual intercourse in the context of feeling coerced-because, given that she decided to submit, she clearly did-but whether she prescriptively consented. The answer to the latter question has nothing to do with what Stella was thinking or what she expressed herself to be thinking. It has to do with the kinds of freedom the jurisdiction at hand believes women ought to possess for purposes of their sexual integrity.


And this is what relates to people calling prostitution rape in that they would emphasize the financial coercion involved in the circumstances for many prostitutes that undermines the sort of freedom thought necessary for minimum standard of sexual acts not to be criminal.
It's not that everyone who has sex for money is necessarily raped but the conditions that is predominant among those who do in actuality have sex for money who are desperate and lacking self direction in their own lives and are instead directed by the desperation of their circumstances.
The difficulty there of course is that we live in capitalist economy the world over where such financial coercion is normative to provide a 'service', to do a 'job' and not ultimately wrong by the standards of the economy no matter how much it offends any human and moral sensibility.
Where having sex for money becomes abstracted of its particularly and is seen like any other kind of work for money (ie abstract labor).

And as far as I know affirmative consent hasn't become the norm to rape/sexual assault cases, although might be garnering favor in the oddity that is Colleges adjudicating criminal matters in the US :hmm:
#14958078
Uh, why yes, prostitution is rape. The client exploits the economic, emotional or, in the case of human trafficking, simply physical weakness (compared to the guns etc of the criminals who keep the victim in check) of the prostitute in order to rape her.

If the prostitute says so or not doesnt matter. It is the obvious fact. If people just want to f* around, yes that happends. But such people dont actually demand money for that. If a prostitute sells sex, then its for the money, not because she "wants" to. There is no freedom of will involved here, she's dependent.

Besides, studies suggest most prostitutes have been raped before they turn prostitute. And human traffickers are known to rape their victims first before "offering" them. So again, yes prostitution is rape. Its very obvious to anyone who spent any amount with serious sources about this issue.
#14958090
Those who demand all rape be treated the same, will tomorrow demand we reduce the penalties for rape. This is the liberal tendency. They diminish the very thing they say they are for. If violent rape is the same thing as a wife saying ‘no’ then you will create a backlash at the injustice and demand penalties be reduced instead of admitting you were wrong to begin with.
#14958306
Two people are having sex when the smoke alarm goes. "Let's stop having sex and run away from the fire," says person one. "No I wanna finish first," says the other. "Stop this is dangerous." "I don't care." "Stop!" "No."

Is this rape Albert? What if they were in an office and the boss wouldn't let their employees leave during a fire alarm? What if a BDSM enthusiast uses their safe word and their partner repeatedly ignores and overrules them?

You may as well argue that planes can't be hijacked. The pilot already agreed to fly somewhere so if someone puts a gun to their head and forces them to change course they must have actually consented!
#14958333
Agent Steel wrote:So say he responds to an ad on the backpages, they agree to meet at a place, say $200 an hour for sex...Does that mean the guy is allowed to fuck her any way he wants to? Does he have to exhibit some restraint or is the girl technically his sex slave for the next hour?


Of course they can. Escorts only sell their time actually. Consensual sex is just assumed when buying that time. So if you do something the escort is not comfortable with and it is forced on them it is definately rape.

As for prostitutes who are street walkers, again buying sex is illegal. Any agreement between client and seller is not legally binding. So they have the right to turn down your request at any point - whether there has been an agreement or not.

Perhaps John's should consider these facts before buying sex if being accused of rape is a concern of theirs.
#14958337
Albert wrote:So how are you going to prove consent was withdrawn in the case I provided. The rest of what you wrote with your NPC logic I'm not even going to bother addressing.


You and POD are arguing two separate things Albert. A women can withdraw consent at any point and when doing so any sexual act forced on her then becomes rape. But you argue on the point of evidence. This doesn't matter. It is still rape. However rape is very difficult to prove in a court of law! It is a massive misnomer to believe that all rape claims are taken to court with no or little evidence and the ones that are, not all have convictions due to the strength of that evidence being very weak. So the simple answer is if the only evidence in a rape claim is one word against another, chances are it isn't even going to court. So stop crying out your victim tears.
#14958412
Albert wrote:So how are you going to prove consent was withdrawn in the case I provided. The rest of what you wrote with your NPC logic I'm not even going to bother addressing.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_ ... al_fallacy

    Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.[4]

Immoral? It is illegal. I was thinking of Nanc[…]

Ashes to ashes, Dust to dust Really fast and qui[…]

Should White House press conferences happen at my […]

And I always thought that money was evil, and tha[…]