A prostitute can be raped?

[TexanStar]

There is nothing retroactive about it if the terms of consent (for the "overtime") were clear from the beginning and weren't complied with. There was never any consent for the overtime if payment is witheld. At the very least, this is sexual coersion and thus a sex crime -- and personally I have no problem calling it rape, as I've said, even if some jurisdictions might label rape in the legal sense more narrowly than I would tend to use the word. Consent was obtained via deception, which the Conditional Consent provision also covers, according to the source I posted above (which you should actually read before responding, rather than relying on my terse description).

I was assuming you would be familiar with the Assange allegations? Whether you believe them or not, the issue wasn't just over contraception, but whether a precondition was complied with while the victim was asleep.

If two people meet at a singles bar, present themselves as single, and hook up for sex, and one of them finds out later that the other is married and lied about it, do you think that's rape or a sex crime?

The law pretty clearly does not think it's criminal. Consent based on a lie is not a great situation, but it's not uncommon either. It falls into that bucket of shitty things that happen to people that aren't against the law.

There is precedent for rape by deception, but it's pretty narrowly applied (talking like < 5 convictions ever in US history).

 

[701757]

If two people meet at a singles bar, present themselves as single, and hook up for sex, and one of them finds out later that the other is married and lied about it, do you think that's rape or a sex crime?

The law pretty clearly does not think it's criminal. Consent based on a lie is not a great situation, but it's not uncommon either. It falls into that bucket of shitty things that happen to people that aren't against the law.

There is precedent for rape by deception, but it's pretty narrowly applied (talking like < 5 convictions ever in US history).

Here's the problem with your statement, you understand the question and you're actually arguing what the OP asked about.

You're supposed to argue things like why prostitution is bad and its legal status and shit.

/s

 

[swingfun]

Well you pay a prostituye to go away..not necessarily the sex.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Actually, in UK law, there is a concept of Conditional Consent which has been defined by the Crown Prosecution Service. It has been discussed as part of the Julian Assange case with regard to the establishment of consent being contingent upon the offender wearing a condom. I realise the contraception issue, as an example, is a slightly different scenario, so I hope this doesn't get me shouted at by the thread police.

Source

I don't know if there is an equivalent legal precedent in U.S. law, but since this is the worldwide web, the OP is from Spain, and the entire argument is based on a hypothetical -- and a poorly defined, highly unlikely one at that -- perhaps it would be more appropriate to be discussing whether the hypothetical case should be considered rape, and not whether the law does in fact consider it rape within a particular jurisdiction.

If the rules of the transaction between prostitute and client have been clearly communicated in advance, and the trick clearly breaks the terms of the transaction, then I have no problem considering that a sex crime and a rape. But I also would prefer a judge to cast a lighter sentence in such a case than for forcible rape.

But that is unreasonable.

What you folks keep mixing up is the notion of ASSAULT, versus AGREEMENT.

Breaking an agreement is NOT violence, Its NOT assault.
You say you would be WILLING to consider breaking an agreement to be equivalent to assault IF it involves sex.

So lets's explore the silliness of retroactive rape.

Let's say the agreement is that, if you have sex with me, today, that I will help you move to a new apartment five weeks from today.
Five weeks later... it so happens that I am in the hospital because of an auto accident and can not keep my end of the bargain.

Am I now a rapist?

Or, let's say that its the same agreement as above... only when the time comes to help you move, you inform me that you are moving to a new apartment, 2000 miles away in Canada.
I object, saying that my understanding was that the new apartment would be within the same basic area in which we both then currently lived and that I would NOT have agreed to the deal if I had been informed that apartment was in a another country and three time zones away.
My feeling is that you negotiated the deal in bad faith without sharing information related to the value of the exchange.
So I refuse to help you move.

Do you charge me with rape?

In both of these scenarios the exchange is the exact same agreement as the OP; Sex, in exchange for some consideration of commensurate value.

And no reasonable person would consider either of these scenarios to constitute rape. They are the same kind of agreement, in one of which I failed to keep my end due to unforeseen circumstances... the other due to a dispute over what had actually been agreed to in exchange.

If you consider the OP's scenario to be rape then you must also consider these two scenarios to ALSO be the equivalent of rape.

Or you are suggesting that trading sex for MONEY is the crucial criteria that makes the OP rape and these two scenarios something other than rape because the ONLY difference between them is that the OP describes trading a service for cash- and thesis two scenarios describe trading a service for a service of commensurate value.

So... MONEY makes it rape?

Or, are you going to see reason and realize that ALL three scenarios can not be rape because NONE of them involve any form of assault, but all three involve a dispute over Agreement.

Rape is an assault. It MUST be something you were forced to do against your will.

The OP and my other examples are ALL contracts.

You CAN NOT retroactively revoke consent.
Consent is a contract.
Either you entered into a contract, or you didn't.

If one party did not fulfill their obligations under the contract, that DOES NOT mean a contract was never entered into.

Your remedies are for BREACH of that contract. That is- the other person can only be held liable BECAUSE they AGREED to be liable.

That the John owed the Hooker money is proof that there was a contract. Just as a Contractor might go after you for refusing to pay for the job you hired him to do.


You have NO argument that the Hooker was assaulted. Ergo- imagining she was raped is something you are willing to consider ONLY because you have some special bias regarding anything related to genitals.

ANY OTHER SERVICE SHE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SELLING... say Massage- you would not be willing to call rape just because she didn't get paid.

Not paying your Masseuse is NOT a form of assault, happy ending or no.

 

[tarheel6]

But that is unreasonable.

What you folks keep mixing up is the notion of ASSAULT, versus AGREEMENT.

Breaking an agreement is NOT violence, Its NOT assault.
You say you would be WILLING to consider breaking an agreement to be equivalent to assault IF it involves sex.

So lets's explore the silliness of retroactive rape.

Let's say the agreement is that, if you have sex with me, today, that I will help you move to a new apartment five weeks from today.
Five weeks later... it so happens that I am in the hospital because of an auto accident and can not keep my end of the bargain.

Am I now a rapist?

Or, let's say that its the same agreement as above... only when the time comes to help you move, you inform me that you are moving to a new apartment, 2000 miles away in Canada.
I object, saying that my understanding was that the new apartment would be within the same basic area in which we both then currently lived and that I would NOT have agreed to the deal if I had been informed that apartment was in a another country and three time zones away.
My feeling is that you negotiated the deal in bad faith without sharing information related to the value of the exchange.
So I refuse to help you move.

Do you charge me with rape?

In both of these scenarios the exchange is the exact same agreement as the OP; Sex, in exchange for some consideration of commensurate value.

And no reasonable person would consider either of these scenarios to constitute rape. They are the same kind of agreement, in one of which I failed to keep my end due to unforeseen circumstances... the other due to a dispute over what had actually been agreed to in exchange.

If you consider the OP's scenario to be rape then you must also consider these two scenarios to ALSO be the equivalent of rape.

Or you are suggesting that trading sex for MONEY is the crucial criteria that makes the OP rape and these two scenarios something other than rape because the ONLY difference between them is that the OP describes trading a service for cash- and thesis two scenarios describe trading a service for a service of commensurate value.

So... MONEY makes it rape?

Or, are you going to see reason and realize that ALL three scenarios can not be rape because NONE of them involve any form of assault, but all three involve a dispute over Agreement.

Rape is an assault. It MUST be something you were forced to do against your will.

The OP and my other examples are ALL contracts.

You CAN NOT retroactively revoke consent.
Consent is a contract.
Either you entered into a contract, or you didn't.

If one party did not fulfill their obligations under the contract, that DOES NOT mean a contract was never entered into.

Your remedies are for BREACH of that contract. That is- the other person can only be held liable BECAUSE they AGREED to be liable.

That the John owed the Hooker money is proof that there was a contract. Just as a Contractor might go after you for refusing to pay for the job you hired him to do.


You have NO argument that the Hooker was assaulted. Ergo- imagining she was raped is something you are willing to consider ONLY because you have some special bias regarding anything related to genitals.

ANY OTHER SERVICE SHE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SELLING... say Massage- you would not be willing to call rape just because she didn't get paid.

Not paying your Masseuse is NOT a form of assault, happy ending or no.

Your examples are clever, but unpersuasive. Consent must be "informed" to be meaningful. Let's say you sign forms allowing for surgery, and are maimed by the procedure. The critical issue in any legal case would be whether the surgeon spelled out the foreseeable risks from the surgery.

There is a huge difference between gulling someone into sex with promises of love/money/security that are not truly intended and making promises that are heartfelt and realistic but are precluded by unforseen subsequent events.

 

[ronin001]

We have heard opinions on both sided of the OPs statement. I think that those members who think that it is not possible to rape a prostitute, should think about the relationship between a married man and a married woman. Technically the original marriage agreement is a contract between a man and woman. The original vows and many vows today refer to the couple having sex and having trouble.

Some cultures suggest that the woman must be obedient and available to her husband, at least to his sexual needs and desires. I believe that some women have successfully charged their husbands with rape, because she did not give consent. Even though they had a contract blessed in heaven and recognized in the courts

So if it is possible to rape a spouse, it must be permissible and reasonable that a man could rape someone he had paid relationship with

 

[TheRob]

A street prostitute sits and waits for customers. A customer stops prostitute climbs and car, go to a location more covert and have sex.

Coz client don`t pay for extra time prostitute go the police and said that client raped her. Him went to prison.
Can be rape in case when prostitutes who initially gave consent for sex?

obviously this depends for one thing on where it happened
I imagine it would be very difficult to prove in any event that someone had sex with you for 'longer' then you were ok with?
do you by chance have a link to a news story or article about this specific case?

 

[comoose]

Of they they can. Anyone at any time can decide they don't want to have sex. regardless of previous consent or occupation.

 

[wallyj84]

We have heard opinions on both sided of the OPs statement. I think that those members who think that it is not possible to rape a prostitute, should think about the relationship between a married man and a married woman. Technically the original marriage agreement is a contract between a man and woman. The original vows and many vows today refer to the couple having sex and having trouble.

Some cultures suggest that the woman must be obedient and available to her husband, at least to his sexual needs and desires. I believe that some women have successfully charged their husbands with rape, because she did not give consent. Even though they had a contract blessed in heaven and recognized in the courts

So if it is possible to rape a spouse, it must be permissible and reasonable that a man could rape someone he had paid relationship with

Ronin, I might have missed it, but who has really claimed that a prostitute can't be raped?

People have said that this particular situation, according to their reading of the OP, doesn't constitute rape but no one, at least as far as I remember, has claimed that a prostitute can't be raped.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Your examples are clever, but unpersuasive. Consent must be "informed" to be meaningful. Let's say you sign forms allowing for surgery, and are maimed by the procedure. The critical issue in any legal case would be whether the surgeon spelled out the foreseeable risks from the surgery.

There is a huge difference between gulling someone into sex with promises of love/money/security that are not truly intended and making promises that are heartfelt and realistic but are precluded by unforseen subsequent events.

You are wrong. Consent does not need to be "informed" to be "meaningful." Meaning has nothing to do with it.

There is NO meaning involved OTHER than the meaning inherent in the CONTRACT.
That is, Consent is a form of agreement.

If you are done wrong- you are only done wrong to the extent that the other party did not fulfill, nor disclose to you fully, the TERMS of the agreement.

WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION. That is, your legal redress is predicated upon the fact that you HAVE a contract. You HAVE an agreement. And your complaint is that the other party did not fulfill that agreement.

Now, the other party may argue that they were not fully informed, by you, of the terms of that agreement. That is not rape. That is a dispute over WHO is in breach.

In the case of material goods, a Judge might find that the contract was invalid because one party did not understand what the other party did ( which is why many contracts are written down ) and order the good returned. But in the case of services that can not be repossessed, the judge will order compensation in the form of money.

So- if its an exchange... the moment you willingly enter into that exchange you have formed an agreement. A Contract.
THAT IS CONSENT.
The other party not holding their end up does not mean that a contract was not entered into at all. It means that they are at fault for not honoring that contract.

Assault MUST be against your will in the moment it occurs.

Any violation of an agreement is predicated upon the AGREEING part.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

PS- to wit:
Judges have little patience with the argument that you did not understand the terms of a contract you entered into.
Unless there is clear evidence of fraud on the part of one of the parties... Judges will assume that both parties understood the terms, because that is your OBLIGATION in entering into a contract.

The Hooker had no misunderstanding of the terms. The John MAY argue that he didn't understand that overtime would be compensated... but the judge would rule that he ACCEPTED the services...and that he obviously agreed to pay for those services.
The Hooker wins in contract law. ( if prostitution was a legal business enterprise )

But the fault in your logic is that, only because it involved sex, that his not paying caused the agreement to evaporate because consent was contingent upon payment. However... that is a time traveling patricide paradox. There would have been no sex without agreement. There was sex BECAUSE of an agreement. And you are saying the agreement never occurred.

But he did not force her to have sex, and he must have paid the initial charge up front.... so the payment contingency was met. And there must have been agreement. She simply wanted MORE for his going overtime.


Sorry- rape is not breach of contract. Its an assault upon a person. Its prosecuted as assault. and it carries criminal penalties reserved for assaults.

You are only excepting this particular contract scenario as rape BECAUSE its the bartering of sex. Because of a current vogue regrind attitudes toward sex. Because a dick went in her.
That is not reasonable, nor rational.
Can can offer NO analogies to any other similar scenario that supports your 'reasoning'

 

[deleted37010]

PS- to wit:
Judges have little patience with the argument that you did not understand the terms of a contract you entered into.
Unless there is clear evidence of fraud on the part of one of the parties... Judges will assume that both parties understood the terms, because that is your OBLIGATION in entering into a contract.

The Hooker had no misunderstanding of the terms. The John MAY argue that he didn't understand that overtime would be compensated... but the judge would rule that he ACCEPTED the services...and that he obviously agreed to pay for those services.
The Hooker wins in contract law. ( if prostitution was a legal business enterprise )

But the fault in your logic is that, only because it involved sex, that his not paying caused the agreement to evaporate because consent was contingent upon payment. However... that is a time traveling patricide paradox. There would have been no sex without agreement. There was sex BECAUSE of an agreement. And you are saying the agreement never occurred.

But he did not force her to have sex, and he must have paid the initial charge up front.... so the payment contingency was met. And there must have been agreement. She simply wanted MORE for his going overtime.


Sorry- rape is not breach of contract. Its an assault upon a person. Its prosecuted as assault. and it carries criminal penalties reserved for assaults.

You are only excepting this particular contract scenario as rape BECAUSE its the bartering of sex. Because of a current vogue regrind attitudes toward sex. Because a dick went in her.
That is not reasonable, nor rational.
Can can offer NO analogies to any other similar scenario that supports your 'reasoning'

help those of us who view this differently... and are not legally educated
three particulars in the OP statements and question
the prostitute told the police rape... the guy was arrested and the guy went to jail...

i presumed the police found sufficient evidence to support the prostitute's rape allegation because the police arrested him
i also presumed a court of law found him guilty of rape because he went to jail

i guess the police could have determined some contract violation and arrested him... and that's what he was convicted of and why he went to jail

 

[Phil Ayesho]

help those of us who view this differently... and are not legally educated
three particulars in the OP statements and question
the prostitute told the police rape... the guy was arrested and the guy went to jail...

i presumed the police found sufficient evidence to support the prostitute's rape allegation because the police arrested him
i also presumed a court of law found him guilty of rape because he went to jail

i guess the police could have determined some contract violation and arrested him... and that's what he was convicted of and why he went to jail

Presumption that law enforcement or justice departments have reason to accuse is specifically why innocent people DO get convicted of crimes.

The OP is not clear that She accused him of rape. So that's a good question, because if she accused him of rape, then SHE is guilty of a false allegation. He did not assault her against her will and so he can not have raped her. But if she cried rape- then the only evidence they need is a swab of his semen, or his stipulation to having had sex with her.
Again- if accused of assault... you CAN NOT argue contract law in your defense. Its just not allowed.

In areas where prostitution is illegal- the police CAN NOT treat it as contract law. If she told them the truth of it being a matter of not being paid, and they sympathize with the prostitute's complaint, they may have no other recourse but to charge him with rape.

Or- its possible that their Law makes the same argument that YOU do- that, in the special case of sexual barter, breach of contract retroactively revokes consent and coverts the sex into some kind of assault. However, just because that May be the law in Spain does not mean that such law is cogent, nor reasonable.
Laws get rewritten or rescinded all the time for being incoherent, or in violation of actual constitutional intent.

For example- it was, for a long time, legal in the US to deny gay people marriage. This was in direct opposition to the constitutional amendment demanding equal treatment under the law.
The fact the the supreme court did not overturn such laws earlier is NOT an artifact of solid legal argument, but evidence of cultural religious bias in their judgements.

The fact of its being incoherent is demonstrable thru argument in analogy.

If he had paid- she would not have turned him in, ergo SHE only felt mistreated in the aspect of payment. This proves there WAS an agreement in place when she had sex with him.
In EVERY other instance you can cite of a monetary/service transaction in which payment was not made... non-payment is NOT treated as a conversion to armed robbery.

Ergo- the only thing that makes THIS scenario "different" is the COMMODITY being traded for.
That is unequal treatment under the law. You are singling out sex for money and ONLY sex for money for this 'special' time traveling conversion of Agreement into Assault. Would you agree to this notion if the 'special' commodity was Pizza? That refusing to pay for a delivery pizza got you arrested for Assault but everything else was just an issue of non-paying a bill?

It does not matter if the local laws Say this is okay- its BAD Law predicated upon current vogue over sexual contact, and not in any argument at law.

You have NO precedent for this treatment of any trade agreement.

You either have to convert ALL post facto non-payment under contract as retroactive assault. Or you can treat it ALL as tort dispute... But you do not get a pass for capriciously deciding that a woman can sell physical contact as Massage- and it falls under tort law, but that if she touches his dick it gets treated under retroactive assault law.

That is not reasonable. Its an emotional reaction to the dick and that's all it is.



Here's another way to look at it.
It USED to be considered a valid argument, in court, to suggest that a woman who HAD been raped, was dressed in a manner that was 'ASKING FOR IT".
Many a Genuine rapist got off light or scott-free because of that argument.
Just because the law- or a Judge- allowed that argument, does that make it a good argument?

Today- in fighting that very tradition, we make the focus of such accusations the concept of consent. And in our zeal to expose and prosecute REAL 'date rape'... in which we can establish that consent was not given or was revoked, we are conflating simple transactional Agreements into convoluted retroactive renegations of consent to try and appear consistent about the concept of consent.


But I argue that MONEY does make the difference. The Moment the initiating wrong is about PAYMENT- it can not be about rape.
Her consent was NOT to engage in lovemaking. It was to TRADE one thing for another.

One more analogy.

If you sign an agreement to rent a motor scooter, and the handlebars come off and you break your arm in the crash. The fact that you suffered damages does NOT mean you did not agree to rent the motor scooter.
You may be entitled to damages... but you can not argue that you were FORCED to ride the unsafe scooter.

From the opposite side.... if in renting a safe scooter you agree to pay for mileage when you return the scooter and then you refuse to pay for that milage... that does not mean you and the scooter rental store did not enter into an agreement. In fact- it is the agreement itself that entitles the Scooter rental store to claim injury in the form of nonpayment. They still have the scooter ( just as the Hooker still HAS her body ) so you can not have stolen it. You stole the USE of it, which you both agreed to being worth a specific sum.

The hooker was damaged monetarily. NOT assaulted physically because an agreement was in place when contact occurred.
And convicting the John of rape is an unreasonable miscarriage of justice.

 

[tarheel6]

You are wrong. Consent does not need to be "informed" to be "meaningful." Meaning has nothing to do with it.

There is NO meaning involved OTHER than the meaning inherent in the CONTRACT.
That is, Consent is a form of agreement.

If you are done wrong- you are only done wrong to the extent that the other party did not fulfill, nor disclose to you fully, the TERMS of the agreement.

WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION. That is, your legal redress is predicated upon the fact that you HAVE a contract. You HAVE an agreement. And your complaint is that the other party did not fulfill that agreement.

Now, the other party may argue that they were not fully informed, by you, of the terms of that agreement. That is not rape. That is a dispute over WHO is in breach.

In the case of material goods, a Judge might find that the contract was invalid because one party did not understand what the other party did ( which is why many contracts are written down ) and order the good returned. But in the case of services that can not be repossessed, the judge will order compensation in the form of money.

So- if its an exchange... the moment you willingly enter into that exchange you have formed an agreement. A Contract.
THAT IS CONSENT.
The other party not holding their end up does not mean that a contract was not entered into at all. It means that they are at fault for not honoring that contract.

Assault MUST be against your will in the moment it occurs.

If the legal basis for the crime or cause of action were breach of contract, some of what you say would be pertinent. But in the case of an assault or, more accurately, a battery, the legal basis for the action is not contract. It exists in the law, either as a tort or a criminal battery. Consent in the case of rape (or in my example a botched surgery) is a DEFENSE, rather than an ELEMENT of the cause of action. Ct.

You are wrong. Consent does not need to be "informed" to be "meaningful." Meaning has nothing to do with it.

There is NO meaning involved OTHER than the meaning inherent in the CONTRACT.
That is, Consent is a form of agreement.

If you are done wrong- you are only done wrong to the extent that the other party did not fulfill, nor disclose to you fully, the TERMS of the agreement.

WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION. That is, your legal redress is predicated upon the fact that you HAVE a contract. You HAVE an agreement. And your complaint is that the other party did not fulfill that agreement.

Now, the other party may argue that they were not fully informed, by you, of the terms of that agreement. That is not rape. That is a dispute over WHO is in breach.

In the case of material goods, a Judge might find that the contract was invalid because one party did not understand what the other party did ( which is why many contracts are written down ) and order the good returned. But in the case of services that can not be repossessed, the judge will order compensation in the form of money.

So- if its an exchange... the moment you willingly enter into that exchange you have formed an agreement. A Contract.
THAT IS CONSENT.
The other party not holding their end up does not mean that a contract was not entered into at all. It means that they are at fault for not honoring that contract.

Assault MUST be against your will in the moment it occurs.

Any violation of an agreement is predicated upon the AGREEING part.

Your argument reads like you have legal training. If so, I suspect you'll recognize your errors once they're pointed out. The scenarios discussed here are not about contracts. Rape, and the botched surgery analogy I advanced, are rooted in tort and/or criminal law, not contract. Agreement (or meeting of the minds) is the basis to make a promise legally binding as a contract, but these situations do not arise in contract. Rape is a form of battery. Consent or agreement is a defense, not an element of the action. Moreover, your argument is tautological. Because you incorrectly assume the legal framework is contract, you require agreement for that contract to exist. As contract is not the basis for the legal cause of action, the lack of agreement doesn't defeat the legal basis for action, it merely denies the accused of an important defense. Moreover, even in contractual arrangements agreements are not static. You can consent/agree and then terms change and you can withdraw it. If party B oversteps the agreement, s/he breaches, and party A's agreement isn't a defense.

 

[tarheel6]

PS- to wit:
Judges have little patience with the argument that you did not understand the terms of a contract you entered into.
Unless there is clear evidence of fraud on the part of one of the parties... Judges will assume that both parties understood the terms, because that is your OBLIGATION in entering into a contract.

The Hooker had no misunderstanding of the terms. The John MAY argue that he didn't understand that overtime would be compensated... but the judge would rule that he ACCEPTED the services...and that he obviously agreed to pay for those services.
The Hooker wins in contract law. ( if prostitution was a legal business enterprise )

But the fault in your logic is that, only because it involved sex, that his not paying caused the agreement to evaporate because consent was contingent upon payment. However... that is a time traveling patricide paradox. There would have been no sex without agreement. There was sex BECAUSE of an agreement. And you are saying the agreement never occurred.

But he did not force her to have sex, and he must have paid the initial charge up front.... so the payment contingency was met. And there must have been agreement. She simply wanted MORE for his going overtime.


Sorry- rape is not breach of contract. Its an assault upon a person. Its prosecuted as assault. and it carries criminal penalties reserved for assaults.

You are only excepting this particular contract scenario as rape BECAUSE its the bartering of sex. Because of a current vogue regrind attitudes toward sex. Because a dick went in her.
That is not reasonable, nor rational.
Can can offer NO analogies to any other similar scenario that supports your 'reasoning'

I did offer analogies, you choose to ignore them. To be fair, however, perhaps we are addressing different legal questions. The OP asked whether it was "possible" for a prostitute to be raped. It is. Is it an easy case to make? No. The exchange of money implies consent to something. The question is consent to what? Massage? Happy Ending? Vaginal sex? Anal? Rough sex including beating and choking? Unprotected sex? The absence of clear lines of agreement could well lend themselves to a charge of battery or rape, although I acknowledge that a seasoned prostitute is not the poster child for the claim. From a legal standpoint, however, the elements of a battery or rape may be present and the purported consent may be lacking.

 

[701757]

Presumption that law enforcement or justice departments have reason to accuse is specifically why innocent people DO get convicted of crimes.

The OP is not clear that She accused him of rape. So that's a good question, because if she accused him of rape, then SHE is guilty of a false allegation. He did not assault her against her will and so he can not have raped her. But if she cried rape- then the only evidence they need is a swab of his semen, or his stipulation to having had sex with her.
Again- if accused of assault... you CAN NOT argue contract law in your defense. Its just not allowed.

In areas where prostitution is illegal- the police CAN NOT treat it as contract law. If she told them the truth of it being a matter of not being paid, and they sympathize with the prostitute's complaint, they may have no other recourse but to charge him with rape.

Or- its possible that their Law makes the same argument that YOU do- that, in the special case of sexual barter, breach of contract retroactively revokes consent and coverts the sex into some kind of assault. However, just because that May be the law in Spain does not mean that such law is cogent, nor reasonable.
Laws get rewritten or rescinded all the time for being incoherent, or in violation of actual constitutional intent.

For example- it was, for a long time, legal in the US to deny gay people marriage. This was in direct opposition to the constitutional amendment demanding equal treatment under the law.
The fact the the supreme court did not overturn such laws earlier is NOT an artifact of solid legal argument, but evidence of cultural religious bias in their judgements.

The fact of its being incoherent is demonstrable thru argument in analogy.

If he had paid- she would not have turned him in, ergo SHE only felt mistreated in the aspect of payment. This proves there WAS an agreement in place when she had sex with him.
In EVERY other instance you can cite of a monetary/service transaction in which payment was not made... non-payment is NOT treated as a conversion to armed robbery.

Ergo- the only thing that makes THIS scenario "different" is the COMMODITY being traded for.
That is unequal treatment under the law. You are singling out sex for money and ONLY sex for money for this 'special' time traveling conversion of Agreement into Assault. Would you agree to this notion if the 'special' commodity was Pizza? That refusing to pay for a delivery pizza got you arrested for Assault but everything else was just an issue of non-paying a bill?

It does not matter if the local laws Say this is okay- its BAD Law predicated upon current vogue over sexual contact, and not in any argument at law.

You have NO precedent for this treatment of any trade agreement.

You either have to convert ALL post facto non-payment under contract as retroactive assault. Or you can treat it ALL as tort dispute... But you do not get a pass for capriciously deciding that a woman can sell physical contact as Massage- and it falls under tort law, but that if she touches his dick it gets treated under retroactive assault law.

That is not reasonable. Its an emotional reaction to the dick and that's all it is.



Here's another way to look at it.
It USED to be considered a valid argument, in court, to suggest that a woman who HAD been raped, was dressed in a manner that was 'ASKING FOR IT".
Many a Genuine rapist got off light or scott-free because of that argument.
Just because the law- or a Judge- allowed that argument, does that make it a good argument?

Today- in fighting that very tradition, we make the focus of such accusations the concept of consent. And in our zeal to expose and prosecute REAL 'date rape'... in which we can establish that consent was not given or was revoked, we are conflating simple transactional Agreements into convoluted retroactive renegations of consent to try and appear consistent about the concept of consent.


But I argue that MONEY does make the difference. The Moment the initiating wrong is about PAYMENT- it can not be about rape.
Her consent was NOT to engage in lovemaking. It was to TRADE one thing for another.

One more analogy.

If you sign an agreement to rent a motor scooter, and the handlebars come off and you break your arm in the crash. The fact that you suffered damages does NOT mean you did not agree to rent the motor scooter.
You may be entitled to damages... but you can not argue that you were FORCED to ride the unsafe scooter.

From the opposite side.... if in renting a safe scooter you agree to pay for mileage when you return the scooter and then you refuse to pay for that milage... that does not mean you and the scooter rental store did not enter into an agreement. In fact- it is the agreement itself that entitles the Scooter rental store to claim injury in the form of nonpayment. They still have the scooter ( just as the Hooker still HAS her body ) so you can not have stolen it. You stole the USE of it, which you both agreed to being worth a specific sum.

The hooker was damaged monetarily. NOT assaulted physically because an agreement was in place when contact occurred.
And convicting the John of rape is an unreasonable miscarriage of justice.

Dawg you need to cut down on your word count fucking christ no one's gonna read all this shit.

 

[KennF]

Your examples are clever, but unpersuasive. Consent must be "informed" to be meaningful. Let's say you sign forms allowing for surgery, and are maimed by the procedure. The critical issue in any legal case would be whether the surgeon spelled out the foreseeable risks from the surgery.

There is a huge difference between gulling someone into sex with promises of love/money/security that are not truly intended and making promises that are heartfelt and realistic but are precluded by unforseen subsequent events.

You're mixing a couple of things up in this. There is a difference between committing the fraud, the deception, making false promises... that is part of the enticing someone to, with the consent part.

In our client-prostitute scenario, the client can promise to pay extra if there is extra work/services, in order to entice the prostitute, even if the client had no intention of fulfilling their promise. That makes his acts more of a fraud, or attempt to commit fraud. But that wouldn't change the prostitutes consent.

And, the need for informed consent is a liability issue for civil cases and comparative negligence. It has nothing to do with the criminal aspect of rape's consent.

The reason doctor's and hospital's use "informed" consent, is to limit liability under the premise that the patient was unaware of the risks involved. This limits the hospital to a "reasonable care" standard that is much lower.

 

[KennF]

We have heard opinions on both sided of the OPs statement. I think that those members who think that it is not possible to rape a prostitute, should think about the relationship between a married man and a married woman. Technically the original marriage agreement is a contract between a man and woman. The original vows and many vows today refer to the couple having sex and having trouble.

Some cultures suggest that the woman must be obedient and available to her husband, at least to his sexual needs and desires. I believe that some women have successfully charged their husbands with rape, because she did not give consent. Even though they had a contract blessed in heaven and recognized in the courts

So if it is possible to rape a spouse, it must be permissible and reasonable that a man could rape someone he had paid relationship with

Oh it is possible to rape a prostitute. It's just that the situation that was presented doesn't fit. A prostitute could rescind their consent half-way through the act of sex and then any continuation of the client would be forced and without consent.

And, as an aside, it used to be true that there was no such thing as rape within a marriage. In some cultures it is still consider the law. With Suffrage, the laws shifted to require consent even within a marriage. However, it should be noted that a marriage does shift the legal landscape and it is much more difficult to prove rape without the evidence of force.

 

[KennF]

You are wrong. Consent does not need to be "informed" to be "meaningful." Meaning has nothing to do with it.

There is NO meaning involved OTHER than the meaning inherent in the CONTRACT.
That is, Consent is a form of agreement.

If you are done wrong- you are only done wrong to the extent that the other party did not fulfill, nor disclose to you fully, the TERMS of the agreement.

WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION. That is, your legal redress is predicated upon the fact that you HAVE a contract. You HAVE an agreement. And your complaint is that the other party did not fulfill that agreement.

Now, the other party may argue that they were not fully informed, by you, of the terms of that agreement. That is not rape. That is a dispute over WHO is in breach.

In the case of material goods, a Judge might find that the contract was invalid because one party did not understand what the other party did ( which is why many contracts are written down ) and order the good returned. But in the case of services that can not be repossessed, the judge will order compensation in the form of money.

So- if its an exchange... the moment you willingly enter into that exchange you have formed an agreement. A Contract.
THAT IS CONSENT.
The other party not holding their end up does not mean that a contract was not entered into at all. It means that they are at fault for not honoring that contract.

Assault MUST be against your will in the moment it occurs.

Any violation of an agreement is predicated upon the AGREEING part.

And all of this is civil liability, instead of criminal liability. Rape is criminal, breach of contract is civil.

 

[KennF]

help those of us who view this differently... and are not legally educated
three particulars in the OP statements and question
the prostitute told the police rape... the guy was arrested and the guy went to jail...

i presumed the police found sufficient evidence to support the prostitute's rape allegation because the police arrested him
i also presumed a court of law found him guilty of rape because he went to jail

i guess the police could have determined some contract violation and arrested him... and that's what he was convicted of and why he went to jail

You're focusing in on the very thing that makes the original OP's scenario so difficult.

Let's separate out the two parts here.
Part A - Civil. The contract for sex and for the "extra" is civil. It is an agreement between the parties that the client pays and the worker performs. By agreement, the parties have consented. There may be misunderstanding and deceit. There could be sales puffery (exaggeration). There could be false promises. There could be a breach of the agreement.
None of this would put the client in jail.

Part B - Criminal. The forcible sexual assault on another is rape. If the worker did not consent to the sex act, then their was a crime committed against society. We have laws that say people can't assault each other. That forcing yourself sexually on another person is not acceptable. The worker could say that they never consented, and thus, the sex was forced.
The police would then decide whether or not to investigate. The police would present their findings to a district attorney who would evaluate the evidence and determine if there was sufficient evidence to prosecute (and this is a very grey area). And the district attorney could present the charges, move to a trial or plea deal, and the judge/jury would decide if the law was violated, etc...
This could put the client in jail.

Since the OP said the client was put in jail, then by definition, a rape occurred (or an innocent man was jailed).
The issue of consent was a given fact in the case, based on the result.

But, there is an additional question, can consent be revoked after given. And the answer to that question is "depends on the timing" and "what is meant by revoked".

You can't take back consent to an act already performed. You can rescind your future consent. You can say "Yes I'll do it" and then change your mind and say "I won't do it". But you can't say "Yes I'll do it", do it, and then say "I didn't agree to doing what I already did". Your actions and words said yes. You later words don't change that.