Can a prostitute who agreed to sell sex claim rape? - Page 2 - 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.
#14957856
Like so many things today, our fanaticism to demand strict sentences while insisting rape be strictly defined leads to injustice. We need to leave wiggle room.
If a woman has had 30 sexual partners and with #31 she decides at the very last second to say no, then a 20 year sentence would be cruel and unreasonable based upon the harm done to her.
Even though our justice system really screws up sometimes, I still think we are better off to leave lots of room for case by case evaluations.
#14957858
Pants-of-dog wrote:The sexual history of the victim of a sexual assault should have no bearing on the trial or sentence of the perpetrator.


That is what I meant by strict guidelines and definitions being a detriment to justice. I do not think we can make that a solid yes or no. It may or may not be a factor in the harm done. Present the history to the judge in chambers and let him decide if it is relevant.
If she has had two sex partners, then no it is not relevant. If she has had 200, it certainly could be in determining the actual harm based upon the violence of the rape. If it was a violent rape, then it has no bearing. There is a never ending list of possibilities where a predetermined yes or no leads to injustice.
#14957860
[url=tagv.mohw.gov.tw/TAGVResources/upload/Resources/2013/1/Rape,%20Prostitution%20and%20Consent.pdf]Rape, Prostitution and Consent[/url]
Indeed, evidence from the cases discussed above indicates that sex workers engage, as a matter of routine, in detailed stipulation with clients and others over the nature of the sex acts they will (and will not) engage in. So sex workers would appear to be more actively involved in communication about consent, and nonconsent, than most other adults involved in sexual activity (see Hickman and Muehlenhard 1999).3

However, historically, sex workers were seen by the law as women without this agency, as women who were always consenting and therefore, were incapable of being raped. There is now at least the possibility that sex workers will be seen in a court as fully human beings with the capacity to say ‘no’ (or ‘yes’) to sexual intercourse.

Prostitutes just as any woman are involved in choosing what they find acceptable/tolerable sexually and aren’t in a state of constant consent to anyone and everything.
Rather they are more sensibly concieved as in a state of nonconsent until otherwise.
Their consent is based on their will as is anyones.
#14957861
Pants-of-dog wrote:So people who have had multiple sex partners are more deserving of being raped?


That is not what I said. You want rape defined as penetration without permission and illegal to bring up sexual history. We are currently discussing prostitutes. Don’t you think your strict guidelines make it very tempting to claim rape as a shakedown? All she need do is testify she said no and her pimp listening in heard her.
Bu your definitions, he is guilty of rape and gone for 20 years if he does not pay up.
#14957864
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

    A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

To argue that sex workers are not covered by rape shield laws is to have a double standard when it comes to law: i.e. that sex workers should not be protected by this law.
#14957869
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

    A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

To argue that sex workers are not covered by rape shield laws is to have a double standard when it comes to law: i.e. that sex workers should not be protected by this law.


Providing a law in a discussion about what the law should be is irrelevant. I never suggested they be treated separately. I suggested our laws should be general and decided on a case by case basis to not discriminate against anyone.
You want one definition applied to rape as if all rape creates the same degree of harm. There is a huge difference between bludgeoning someone into submission and them mumbling ‘no’ at the last second.
#14957870
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. This is incorrect.
How so?

One Degree wrote:That is what I meant by strict guidelines and definitions being a detriment to justice. I do not think we can make that a solid yes or no. It may or may not be a factor in the harm done. Present the history to the judge in chambers and let him decide if it is relevant.
If she has had two sex partners, then no it is not relevant. If she has had 200, it certainly could be in determining the actual harm based upon the violence of the rape. If it was a violent rape, then it has no bearing. There is a never ending list of possibilities where a predetermined yes or no leads to injustice.
See the way I see it; rape has become such a confusing subject because we had let it be vaguely defined. Traditionally rape involved force. We had gone from the traditional definition of rape to where if a woman simply does not give consent to sex it could be seen as rape even though there had been no resistance. We have guys in jail who had sex with women without force yet the women said she did not consent to it so it was deemed as rape.



There are obvious exceptions though, where rape can occur if a woman is drugged to be made enable to resist. But that is a different matter and can be easily proven with blood work these days.
Last edited by Albert on 28 Oct 2018 18:36, edited 1 time in total.
#14957871
Yes.

1- From a legal perspective, any action within the act of sex in which there was no prior agreement and concent to and felt to be violating her ( anything within the catagory of BDSM for example,or anal, among many other examples.) Can be legally filed as rape and she can charge you with it.

2- from an ethical stance, if the girl was practicing prostitution due to having no other option available and having to choose between providing basic living necessities through selling sex or having her life ruined, then even if concent was given, it is giving due to financial coersion and thus would also be considered rape. ( Most of such cases will be found in poverty raveged countries, war torn countries, refugee camps, etc).

The ethical arguement against poverty-caused prostitution and sweatshops is effectively the same one.
Both concented to the act ( selling sex or working in a sweatshop) but both did under financial coersion due to lack of other means of survival.
#14957872
One Degree wrote:Providing a law in a discussion about what the law should be is irrelevant. I never suggested they be treated separately. I suggested our laws should be general and decided on a case by case basis to not discriminate against anyone.
You want one definition applied to rape as if all rape creates the same degree of harm. There is a huge difference between bludgeoning someone into submission and them mumbling ‘no’ at the last second.


Edit: Your version is the lawyer’s version disregarding justice and only pursue legality. My view is based upon justice provided by wise judges who we trust to be fair and impartial.
#14957901
Albert wrote:How so?


People can change their minds.

Obviously.

—————————

Rape shield laws do not discriminate against anyone.

Instead, they protect sexual assault victims from being discriminated against by men who think it is okay to rape women who have had multiple sexual partners.
#14957907
Pants-of-dog wrote:There are different ways.

Anyway, people can obviously withdraw consent during sex. Whether or not it can be established afterwards does not change this.
So lets say a guy has sex with his wife and she want him to stop but he continues. This is rape in your mind and deserves a 20 year sentence.

A guy assaults and forces himself on a strange woman also gets 20 year sentence for rape.

These both incidents are rape in your mind and deserve equal punishment?
#14957908
Albert wrote:So lets say a guy has sex with his wife and she want him to stop but he continues. This is rape in your mind and deserves a 20 year sentence.

A guy assaults and forces himself on a strange woman also gets 20 year sentence for rape.

These both incidents are rape in your mind and deserve equal punishment?


Both are rape.

The only differences are a) one involves assault while the other does not, and b) one involves a stranger while the other does not.

If the sentence for rape is 20 years, then both should get it. And the man who was also guilty of assault should receive an additional sentence for also committing that crime.

Withdrawing consent during sex is still a thing, even if you think husbands should not get charged with a crime when they rape their wives.
#14957947
It's not messed up @Albert. It comes down to consent. If consent is revoked(at any time), or not given, then it is sexual assault if sex continues. It's really quite simple.

@Pants-of-dog is exactly right. It's not progressive insanity. It's pure logic.

As a comparison... People who agree to fight in a ring/octagon are not assaulting each other(consent to fight is given), but the moment one of them capitulates or gives up, it ends. If it doesn't then assault charges can be laid.
#14957952
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.
Last edited by Albert on 29 Oct 2018 00:48, edited 2 times in total.
Israelis nervous about BDS

Arabs may have Palestine only if israel allows it[…]

Supplemental reading in this thread: Consciousness[…]

Consciousness as content.

In the Age of AI (full film) | FRONTLINE https://w[…]

Trump and Russiagate

The burden of proof isn't on Trump. Nobody has to[…]