We'll suppose for the purpose of this argument that she doesn't. She being the hypothetical person I'm describing.


In the case here? No. I'm asking you a direct question to try to understand your reasoning here, based on what you have stated. Not this particular case, a hypothetical. A fellatio-only prostitute is forced to engage in sexual intercourse under threat of death. Would that be considered rape to you?

Good point. To carry it a step further, in Texas, prostitution is touching the breast, buttocks or genitals for money. Under law, a person who does massages, combined with manual ejaculation services – known as a "happy ending" –would be guilty of prostitution. Would it be rape if she were forced to do anything requiring penetration of any opening?

Er...pardon me if i'm intruding, but isn't it a bit of a fallacy to try and make minute, letter-by-letter definitions of protituion and rape? As Victoria Silverwolf stated in a previous post, rape has a very significant mental aspect, as well as a physical one. THe same, goes for prostitution. In certain conservative countries, I believe, prostitution can be simply showing a nude body part. Phone sex as well, despite a complete lack of tactile contact, is considered a form of prostitution.

Otherwise, we'll end up with something totally accurate, but totally ridiulous.

Rape, in the case of prostitutes, is defined when subject A) the aggressor, initiates a sexually charged conversation, or enters the personal space of B ), the victim. In order to quantify as sexual assault, A)'s hand must be within a five inch radius of B )'s sensitive, or erogenous areas, and B ) must be experiencing, and exhibiting signs that he/she feels violated. Failure to express discomfort with A)'s actions can and will be taken for consent. etc.etc.etc.

yeesh.

Well, if it was made clear to the perpetrator that these were the only services performed by this hypothetical person (meaning she informed the perpetrator before the agreement that she didn't do vaginal intercourse or anal intercourse), then I'd say yes, if she is required to perform sexual intercourse, I'd say that was rape.



If this person only offered the erotic massage with the happy ending (meaning that this was the only service she had to offer - the "basket of services", as it were) and was forced to engage in sexual intercourse, I'd say that was rape.



Yes, you did... you are so fired!

I think if you just edit the extra one to say, "deleted" a moderator will remove it. They may remove it anyway.

Why would this idiot comment? The judge gave him a Xmas gift. I notice you have ignored the fact that the DA said Grindaw was involved in a second sexual assault after the prostitute was raped. Guess she had it coming to, huh?

taken from a rape crisis center:

Myth: A prostitute will not be traumatized by a rape. After all, having sex is her job.

Fact: A sexual assault can be just as traumatic to an experienced prostitute as to anyone else, and she has as much right to treatment, protection, and justice. Remember, rape is a crime of violence, not simply a sexual act.


Myth: Sexual assault is impossible without some cooperation from the victim (also known as the "it's hard to thread a moving needle" theory).


Fact: Offenders are willing to use all the force necessary to accomplish penetration, even when it is physically injurious to the victim. Even a struggling victim can be penetrated if she is pinned under the assailant. In cases where the victim does not resist because she fears for her life, her submission is not the same as cooperation. If she chooses to cooperate because of the perpetrator's threats against her or others, her cooperation is not the same as consent.

Myth: Women often do not report rape because they know they provoked it.

Fact: Rape can happen to women of all ages, races, or socioeconomic groups. Being raped has nothing to do with a woman's past sexual experiences or lack of them.

Myth: Women often lie about being raped.

Fact: Police statistics show that the number of falsely reported rapes is no greater than that of other crimes - about two percent.

Myth: Sexual assault happens to careless people who are "asking for it" by the way they dress or where they are.


Fact: No one asks to be assaulted. All kinds of people, young and old, are sexually assaulted in all kinds of places and at all times. The idea that victims provoke assault by "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" assumes that they have no right to be as free as you. This myth shifts the blame from the perpetrator to the victim of this crime. No one "deserves" to be sexually assaulted.

No woman is safe when prostitute women aren't safe. Serial rapists and murderers often target prostitute women knowing that they are more likely to get away with it. Labeled criminals by the prostitution laws, women are less likely to report violence for fear of arrest themselves. When sex workers do report, the violence is often dismissed.

Such as it has been by the judge and those in this thread advancing the absurd "theft of services" bull.

So being held against your will, forced to perform an act without your consent and all with the threat of a weapon you somehow still believe that the person being subjagated to this abuse might just have ill placed feelings about the event? And that forcing someone to touch an anus under these conditions is not assaultive and sexually inappropriate but still could be considered a warranted medical service? Again, as you seem to do in the case offered for this debate, you give far more concern and credence to the perpetrator's feelings and viewings of the event then that of the victims. I don't think a doctor forced to perform a rectal exam views or feels like he is performing a medical service under his own professional opinion.
You just skirt around the most obvious. I have asked this numerous times and you have not addressed it.
How do your retain the patient doctor relationship, the buyer and the seller, the exconomic exchange when the situation becomes one of force, coercion and physical abuse? How is a service being provided when both parties are not participants of the transaction? I took on the premise that sex is a commdity (something I personally reject) from the start of my debate solely to ask this question, how is the service provided and retained under these conditions of force?


A service like prostitution is produced on demand, so consent and willingness to provide the service must always be present during the transaction or else it ceases to be a service and instead becomes a forced, nonconsensual act. You claim to understand the differences between consensual and nonconsensual sex and yet you don't seem to when you refuse to recognize that one would qualify under the definition of what services a prostitute sells and one would qualify as rape. Simply put as I stated from the start prostitutes sell consensual sex.



Again you show your inability to parse the concept of consent. She declined services, so sex was no longer being offered. So no service was taken as none was given and so instead her own physical control and self determination, her own freewill was. If it was property taken it would be theft, if it was non-sexual servives it would be assault and if it was sex it is sexual assault/rape.



I meant redeem as in allow for purchase, legally. Prostitution is not legal in Pennsylvania and there is a reason for this, a believed benefit for society. Same reason why you can physically sell a child or a kidney but legally we don't recognize these things as wanted economic goods and services.

I have to admit I was laughing out loud at this list! Is this from the 30s or something? My God who buys into this idiocy? Threading a moving needle? Dear Lord we are all in trouble.

This is why laws such as assault with a deadly weapon and false imprisonment exist. And who said a service was being provided... a service is being stolen, there's a difference.



No, a prostitute sells sex. Just as one consents to give a commodity in exchange for payment. If someone takes that commodity without payment, they obviously took that commodity without consent. The lack of consent is implied in the crime of stealing. Obviously a person isn't given consent to steal.



No service was taken because none was given? This makes no sense. Obviously, if one steals a service, the service was not given... it was stolen.



If it was non-sexual services it would be assault? So why have theft of service charges at all? If you install software for someone and they don't pay for it, it's assault? If they make you install software at gunpoint it's just assault? There is no theft of service there?

Wow...taking on an entire chatroom full of posters at once. Entspeak, I can't tell if you're some sort of rhetorical sadomasochist, or just crazy good at debating.



But I do take issue with this.

If these men had offered to pay her, had sex with her, then...stiffed...her. (Uhm...no pun intended, absolutely none at all). I would label that theft of services. But they did not. Two men came, then two more. THe moment she withdrew her consent, and they reneged on the contract that they had set with her, she ceased to be a prostitute but a citizen of the good old state of philly, the state of brotherhood, (but obviously not sisterhood).

You claim that she created a "contract" (my own word, for convenience) in which she marketed her sex as a commodity, and then, hypocritically, shifted that definition to suit her purposes. This is not so. The ones who initially reneged on this hypothetical contract were the men, who came, did not pay her, threatened her with a gun, and then had sex with her, without her consent.

This woman did her...prostitudinal duty. Prostiterial. Prostitunitious. Yes. She did her duty. She followed the contract to the letter. These men, by disregarding it, voided any legal protection it might have offered them, the moment that they raised that gun.

I would respectfully point out if you find rape to be something that makes you "laugh out loud" then it's you who is in trouble, BA. Most of us are not so easily amused.

The only "idiocy" is in your patronizing mockery of the rape crisis center's attempt to inform and enlighten individuals whom are often made to feel it's their own fault if they become victims of a sexual assault.

Hopefully, no one you care about will ever be put in a position to need the services of a rape counselor.

Sometimes I wonder myself if it isn't more of the former.



So, say a psychologist has an appointment with a client. The client shows up. Before they start their session, the client says, "I'm not paying for this session." The psychologist says, "then I'm not going to do the session." The client locks the door and prevents (without physical violence or threat of a weapon) the psychologist from leaving. He then proceeds to talk to the psychologist about his problems, feels better and leaves without paying. Is he just guilty of false imprisonment? Is he guilty of assault? Or is he guilty of theft of services? I'd say yes to the first and the last, but not the second.



Yes, they reneged on the contract, yes, they had sex with her without her consent (which is how they reneged on the contract), yes they used a gun to threaten her. But she went to that place to engage in a business transaction... to sell a commodity - a service... they forced her to perform that service for free at gunpoint... that is assault with a deadly weapon, robbery and false imprisonment. I'm saying that she can't go someplace to sell a service... she can't claim that in that instance sex is nothing more than a commodity and then, when the men renege on the contract, claim that sex was something more than a commodity in that moment. If you are going to market sex as a commodity, you are responsible for that decision, right? Again, this doesn't mean that a prostitute can be forced to have sex at anytime just because she's a prostitute. It means that if you are engaging in prostitution in that moment, you can't claim that (good or bad) the incident was anything more than a transaction. You believed it was a transaction going into it, you can't change that if something goes wrong with that transaction.



Sure, and that's why the assault with a deadly weapon charge is on the list.

I was never overly keen on business law...nonetheless, I was under the impression that once the contract is voided, whatever follows ceases to be a transaction.

I want to add a hypothetical anecdote, I really do---but I'm confused enough by all the hypothetical situations that have been thrown about. Doctors and rectal exams, my god.

Anytime there is a contract is breached or violated, there ceases to be a transaction. A transaction is an exchange, whenever there is a theft, there is no transaction. That doesn't change the fact that she went there believing there would be a transaction, that the transaction involved a commodity - in that case, sex - and what I'm saying is that when the transaction goes wrong... the contract is void, the service is stolen... she can't claim that it was more than a commodity that was stolen. You can't go about to sell televisions and then claim, when the buyer pulls a gun and runs off with some TV's, that they were family heirlooms that you wanted to keep.

Semantics, eh? Very well. If a contract was shaped in such a way that an act normally classified as rape was simply a business transaction,( let us say, hypothetically, that of prostitution) and said contract was terminated, forcibly, with the threat of violence, does this not imply that what was formerly a transaction has reverted back to being assault, or even rape?

So in other words a womans sexual character is akin to a family heirloom and a prostitutes is akin to a sliver platte?

It all sounds to me like you've reduced a prostitute to having no mor eimportance than an electrical wall socket...

I repeat... assault with a deadly weapon.



No. In other words a prostitute views the sex that she sells as a commodity. Are you telling me that's not true?



Why? Because I am saying that the commodity a prostitute sells should be treated like the commodity he or she wishes it to be?

Okay, so if I were to go into an Italian restaurant, point a gun at the face of the cook and demand he cook me a lasagna, that would be theft of services, armed robbed, perhaps assault with a deadly weapon if I used physical violence, ect. Are we in agreement? I'll assume we are.

However, if I were to go into that Italian restaurant, point my gun at the cook and demand he make a challah for my neighbor's kid's bris, that would be armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, all of the things above except no theft of services. Correct? You'll notice that regardless of what the cook/psychologist/teacher/plumber, WHOMEVER you wish to place in the hypothetical markets or qualifies for, theft of services is an additional criminal charge, not an extenuating one. If a person is guilty of assault and forcing a plumber to do plumbing he is guilty of assault AND theft of services. It doesn't cease to be assault because of the man's job description. So, I'd agree that a person who rapes a prostitute on the job might be charged with 'theft of services' in addition to rape, not instead of rape.

The commodity is sex, not consent. The state can't commodify consent. What makes you think businesses can?

That is precisely why I tried to argue with you about objectification.
She doesn't claim " sex is nothing more than a commodity" even when she markets it. You do.
You have said that selling sex is objectified and becomes just a commodity. You will not find many sex workers agreeing with that.

You will find some saying that they enjoy it, enjoy the fun and healing aspects of it and give their all. You will find some saying they feel degraded but it's good money or that they feel forced to do it. You will find some women treating it just like casual sex, only paid.

But whatever a woman's attitude to sex is in her personal life, that attitude gets fully transferred to her professional life. And that is a job that tends to affect a woman internally on many levels, which may be positive or negative. That is why you rarely find middle ground when it comes to sex workers: most of them either love what they do or have to develop mechanisms for coping. Precisely because providing that service feels so radically different from most conventional jobs.

And that is why a prostitute raped on the job would be as violated and traumatized by the experience as a civilian. Which is something that "stealing of services" doesn't account for.

So now you keep debating over a conclusion based upon a starting premise that your "opponents" don't believe in.
It is pretty obvious to me that people who come from such absolutely different original assumptions cannot agree on the implications of those assumptions.

And I suspect that as somebody who worked in a massage parlor throughout University, has been an independent escort for over a year and involved with advocacy groups, my observations on sex worker mentality may have some substance to them.

Most certainly yes. I have yet to meet or hear of any woman who would term her sexual favours as a 'commodity'. I'm sure the argument could be made that prostituts sell a service, but I reject the notion that this concept takes precedence over the concept of our basic humanity. First and foremost prostitutes are human beings. 'Theft of sex' is just a pointless way of saying 'rape'.


Yes. Since when did a commodity take precedence over some ones basic human rights?

First of all, you don't need to use physical violence for an assault with a deadly weapon charge. You simply have to threaten someone with a deadly weapon.



Let me ask you this: Why is there a rape law as opposed to a general physical assault law? What makes rape different from other physical assaults?



Never said it did, moif.



Your absolutely right, nobody deserves to have a gun pointed at their head and their commodity stolen from them. They have the right to be safe from that.



Nobody said you couldn't enjoy selling a commodity. Nobody said you couldn't love your job. That doesn't change the nature of the sale.

I'll quote Victoria, who summed it up very well: "Because of the profoundly intimate nature of human sexuality, unwanted sexual activity is inherently an act of violence. It violates us in a unique way, even if there is no other obvious sign of overt physical or psychological violence. The human being who is, in any way, forced into unwanted sexual activity, no matter what form the force may take, is therefore a victim of sexual violence".

Not every prostitute offers every type of sexual service. Prostitutes reserve the right to decide, ultimately, whom they will allow to touch them and how. They don't necessarily accept everyone, and they don't necessarily do everything. Nor do they have to. Forcing a prostitute to have sex is no different than forcing any other woman to have sex. That they might consent to perform that service for money is irrelevant. Consent is consent. Non-consent is non-consent. Period.

Exactly. But where sex is sold - and prostitution is illegal in 49 states and even in Nevada it is only legal in licensed brothels (where the possibility of abuse by a client is greatly reduced) - the profoundly intimate nature of human sexuality is diminished. Isn't that one of the arguments against the legalization of prostitution? That prostitution reduces sex to a commodity or economic activity?

Well, that's your own moral judgment, but it actually has no bearing on the situation at hand. Who are you to say when the profoundly intimate nature of human sexuality is diminished? Your belief that the intimacy of sex is diminished has no place in a court of law.

I will come at this from another direction.

Lets take another contractual situation that involves sex or implied consent to sex - marriage.
Can a husband rape his wife? This has proven in the affirmative (at least to my knowledge in the UK)

I think everyone undestands (in the UK) that once a wife expresses a withdrawal of consent then forced sex by the husband is rape. The marriage contract is not an "entire agreement" to consent to sex. It is ammended by subsequent negotiation and consent.

So I would contend that any prexisting contract for sex is voided by the withdrawal of consent and thus when forced becomes rape. Even the marriage contract is not considered to be the "entire agreement" and thus unless the defendents had an verifiable "entire agreement" with the plaintiff to give unconditional, irrevocable consent under all circumstances, then a withdrawal of consent followed by forced sex is rape.

It is not a reasonable argument to contend that since the woman was prostitute, it can be assumed she provides by custom, unrevocable, unconditional consent. The very nature of the profession on the contrary implies consent as being conditional.

I would therefore contend that the occupation of the plaintiff is irrelavent, wife, prostitute whatever...

Entspeak

I guess it is time for us to part ways... a little. Philosophically, I understand your reasoning. Legally and philosophically( in a legal sense), and rape is a legal term, Mrs P is right in my opinion.

If laws state that Rape is "masturbating while in an airport looking at women pass you by" then legally the charge should be rape if you did this.

If rape is "sex without consent" then you have two charges when raping a prostitute..(if legal) rape and theft of services. Unless there is a clause in the law that makes an exception for people who provide sex as a service. And that clause will never exist.

Nighttimer




NT... do you have a point?? Who created these myths?? You know why BA was laughing at you... not because rape is a funny subject, but this list of the most ridiculous "myths"... And the fact that you would post it to rectify our preconceived notions... lol!!

As to why I would read a story about Dominique Grindaw... because GOOD journalism tries to get a FULL scope of the story. The most tiring part of this debate for me has been the assumption this girl was raped. The assumption that her side is the truth... maybe/maybe not. But when I hear people call allegation, facts. And their reasoning is... "well that all we have to work with." That's a problem. When I see inconsistencies in between stories.... that's a problem. When you bring up that there was a woman with similar circumstances, but no more info than that... that's a problem. Here's news for you Prosecutors lie... they exxagerrate, they use the media to try people in the court of public opion... letting snippets out.

Give me a damn transcript at the very least of these preliminary hearings... WE have nothing but a journalist, chancellor, trying to news and a name for themselves. NO FACTS!!!! And here I am with a bunch of intelligent, supposedly objective, debaters with their torches and pitch forks calling some girl a rape victim, the judge an idiot, and anyone that doesn't fall in line is just a "rape apologist". That's a problem!!!

The problem Derek is that consent revolves primarily around the money. We must pay attention to the sequence of events to see why the consent was withdrawn.

I'm sure someone knows what prompted the gun to be pulled in the first place. I was hoping to not sift through 8 pages of history to answer that question..

The consent arguement only holds water if at least one party has accurately articulated the events in a credible manner where we can clearly see cause and effect. We need to clearly establish when the gun was used. Was it a refusal, or a lack of funds, or an after the finale greedy attempt to extort? All we are doing is letting the evidence point us in a direction where we don't have to rely on client testimony.

I'm not denying pulling a gun on a person is wrong, but this debate has not pinpointed exactly when consent was withdrawn and why. Should there be any omission or doubt we return to DR's arguement for burden of proof.

Well, droop, should courts adhere strictly to the letter of the law or should they interpret laws based on the spirit of the law?

Is it unreasonable for a judge to look at a case and say, "Rape laws are intended to protect people from sexual violence because of the profoundly intimate nature of human sexuality. One of the arguments against the legality of prostitution is the reduction of human sexuality from something profoundly intimate in nature to something professional, into an economic activity... a commodity. In this case, it appears, based on what I've seen and heard, that this prostitute went to this place specifically to engage in sexual activity, but did not go to this place with an intent to experience the profoundly intimate nature of human sexuality, but, rather to sell a service for profit. When a gun was pulled, the defendant forced this prostitute to perform that service against her will and without payment. After this incident, she subsequently went and sold her service to another client. Based on the spirit of the rape law... the intent of the law - to protect against the violation of something profoundly intimate in nature, I do not believe such a law applies in this case."

That is a theoretical moral argument. Some people believe in it, some don't, like a matter of faith.
It is, however, most often made by people most of whom have never even exchanged a word with a sex worker.
Personally, I prefer to trust arguments made by people who have a certain expertise or knowledge of the matter at hand.



I hear what you are saying and agree with it. But I think this debate was originally about a different issue and it was not following the correct terms that created a confusion. Many people have switched to the use of term "alleged" following your comments.
As far as I understand, we were not originally discussing what is true and what happened as we don't have the information. The beef of the matter was that even if the trial were to determine that the alleged victim's testimony was true word for word, in the eyes of some people the perpetrator still should not be charged with rape. And that is why it became somewhat emotional.

Well, you might want to tell that to the Bunny Ranch in Nevada that DOES call sex a commodity:

The Bunny Ranch - along with the other 30 brothels in Nevada - are definitely selling a commodity and claim themselves to do so. Or do we have a double standard between the prostitutes at these brothels and our precious little snowflake this topic is about?

The reason for the illegality of prostitution is a matter of faith? That's very interesting. I don't quite follow that. Could you explain that further?

The time and reason of consent withdrawal are irrelavent, The presence of a gun is irrelavent . The only relavent fact is "was consent withdrawn". Did the plaintiff declare to the defendants that previous agreement to engage in sex was void? if so then if forced sex then rape occurred. Unless you can establish that the previous agreement to have sex is unconditionally and irrevocably binding, then the plaintiff could have decided even half way through sex that consent was withdrawn and I contend that any forcing after that point would be rape. The Defendents could then sue for the return of any monies paid pro-rata .

Unless you wish to concede that husbands cannot be guilty of raping their wives?

Dennis Hof is a woman?

Okay so according to some guy called Dennis, in Nevada apparently due to 'a strong commitment to the rights of cattle', a womans sexual favours are considered to be a commodity... by the guy who owns the ranch...

Thats an intersting article you linked to DR. It says that Hof's biggest earner is 'Airforce Amy' who relates, "My brother sold me for a half a pack of cigarettes when I was only ten, and it was on from there." Wow.

Alas, I can't accept your example I'm afraid, as interesting as the read was, I only came across the word commodity once (I even did a word search) and that as I noted was ascribed to Dennis Hof, who I have to say sounds like an utter first class wanker.

I did not attempt to give reasons as to why prostitution may be illegal in the US. My comment was addressing a specific point of yours as quoted above.



In addition to all that Moif was saying, that article finally allowed me to formulate something relevant to the whole debate:

Dennis Hof is really commodifying a sexual fantasy. And the article puts a lot of emphasis on how this is about fantasy rather than "just sex". And that I would actually agree with. The sexual fantasy sold is a commodity. But sexual fantasy is a client's experience. It is what client perceives and gets.

That same sexual fantasy from the woman's side may feel entirely different. Her personal experience of that same sexual activity is not a commodity. Yet that is what comes into play when we are discussing the issue of rape.

Well, my point was regarding the reasons for the continued illegality of prostitution - which you said was like a matter of faith. Please, explain.



So, sex in a "sexual fantasy" can be a commodity... the whole fantasy and not "just sex." So, if the woman in this case had shown up in a bunny outfit because that was the sexual fantasy these guys wanted, they'd pulled a gun and had sex with this "bunny" lady against her will and without paying her... then we're dealing with the issue of a stolen commodity?

Well I think a judge needs to find a balance. Your suggestion is not balanced, or at least it's not accurate depiction of what rape laws. in my opinion for this important reason.

The reasoning of a judge would strech beyond the spirit of the law. Would have to stretch beyond just the prostitutes act of prostitution and carry forward constantly. In fact it goes even further than just prostitutes. Which is in direct contradiction to your beliefs that prostitutes could be raped.

Allow me to explain.

If a judge reasoning is look You don't hold sex as some "profoundly intimate" by selling yourself to men. Than that reasoning would have to transcend just the action of prostitution. It would actually have to be applied to the person as a whole... thus saying they can not be raped.

It's like saying... "you're selling your coochie on the streets, you must not hold sex to be some profoundly intimate engagement, therefore rape laws don't protect you as they are created to protect women who find sex as 'profoundly intimate'"

That would apply to a prostittute 24/7 while she is a prostitute, because for her to be willing to sell sex she must not find it "profoundly intimate".

And why stop there?? I mean it's not like Hookers are the only one throwing their booties around like hot potatoes!! I don't know about you but I've met quite a few women that seemingly don't find sex as some "profoundly intimate" thing... And I'd be a liar if I said I haven't had my fair share of those in my life

So it has to be more than Just "if the person doesn't see sex as profoundly intimate, they can't claim rape."

I think the spirit of rape laws is that consent must be given. In this case, the Judge says..."consent was given" The problem is I don't understand the depth to which she is saying consent was given.

Anybody can be allege anything but only through physical evidence does an investigation merit a conviction. I'll have to disagree with the usage of the gun because it was the tool in the crime scene. The justice system must approach this alleged crime with a methodology that establishes motive, chronology and intent. We owe the victim due process regardless of gender or profession. Clarification is a much better path to justice than the misplaced empathy displayed here.

I've been watching this debate with great interest. You guys really nail both sides of the arguments.

I can't, myself, comment on it because I honestly believe that there is not enough information in the article itself to base a fair opinion on the victim's intentions or the judge's thought process for the consequences. I mean, really, that's what courtrooms are for: to figure out the truth. It's never going to be 100% correct, tho I would hope every judge in the country would set aside their own opinions to deliver justice. I don't think this judge quite hit the mark.

A few comments I'd like to add to the topic... (respectively, I mean... not trying to take sides or fan flames)

Entspeak said:

Ask your HR Coordinator what he or she reads into that. Most U.S. companies are required to take even "simple" (if you can call it that) sexual harassment issues that arise in the workplace very seriously, and what the victim "feels" or "sees" may be cause for disciplinary action. Actions such as staring, way-ward and mis-interpreted, or mistakenly overheard comments are all examples of POTENTIAL sexual harassment. Even if you're talking to a buddy, and roll your eyes and say, "Eeesh. Women!", when you're talking about something goofy your wife did last night, if overheard by a very sensitive co-worker, can be interpreted as a condescending remark that generalizes a "protected group" - specifically, women, and more specifically, gender discrimination.

Employee: "Buuut... b..b..but I was talking about MY wife"
HR: "Yes, we understand that, but someone was uncomfortable with the tone of voice in generalizing women."
Employee: "It's not my fault she was offended"
HR: "Yes, actually, it is. You're on unpaid leave while we investigate. We'll call you".

Imagine how lame your excuse is going to sound to the legal beagles in HR. But that's how it is in a courtroom.

A few various comments on this case:

1. How would these guys have legal protection when they were doing something illegal? I'm trying to figure out this verbal/legal "contract". How do you uphold a contract in a court of law when the content of the contract itself is against the law - and thereby void? I'm not saying she's any less of a victim, because she's not. At the same time, there's no other comparison (like drug dealers, etc) that are irrefutable because drug dealers aren't selling their bodies. This kind of case between "selling your body" vs. "rape" is truly its own monster. I honestly don't see where you can legally define where something turns from prostitution into rape and have ANY kind of consistency in a court of law. How does one set a precedent like that?

In my opinion, this reason alone is good for keeping prostitution illegal. The court isn't designed to figure this kind of stuff out. Are we going to tie up courtrooms to decide if a mean "john" is a rapist? Or if Heather the Hooker really DID get stiffed if he paid with cash? I sure hope not.

2. As a Second Amendment enthusiast, I think any person (besides law enforcement) who raises a gun at an unarmed person - ESPECIALLY a woman(!) is a coward, and should receive jailtime for that crime alone, PLUS whatever damage he does or laws he breaks. A lot of talk about the prostitute's wrongdoing ... But what about the guy who broke the law for pointing a gun at a woman? I'm not sure I'd take HIS word either.

3. Rape is a really disgusting thing to do to a woman. Nobody deserves it, EVER and nobody deserves it to be marginalized when it happens. I hope we never see this as a "hot taboo" lifestyle emerging for our youth who like to push the envelope.

4. All the support for the sex worker from women is really confusing to me. How do you, on one hand, condone a prostitute for her right to make crazy money in a very dangerous lifestyle using "it's her body" arguments, and then expect men to respect women's boundaries when the sludge-at-the-bottom "men" come calling "for her body"? Oh, I'm sure there is an occasional gentleman - but he wouldn't be showing up at an abandoned house! I'd think women who champion women's rights and progress would absolutely recoil at the thought of women doing the most dangerous and degrading job - figuratively and realistically "kneeling down in front of men" for a living....

5. Women have fought hard for their bodies in the world of reproductive rights, and everything else. That's always a fun debate for another time. But with the rights women have secured with their bodies, is this what you want to throw it away to? Smelly men and their loser buddies? "Craigslist" ads? Surely this wasn't for the freedom to get laid for cash. I don't get how somebody can say they care about women's progress when they condone prostitution. You can say women "get to control the transaction" or "their body", but then look at this case. She didn't control anything. She was one of the few to come forward, and she got clowned by a judge. It's got to be the most dangerous, violent, and infectious-prone lifestyle there is. Well, maybe working in the sewer is worse, but that's all I can think of.

So that's my take on it. I look forward to the ensuing discussion.

/ducks behind wall
//cautiously peeks out...
///by the way, you can call me AZWW for short

Edited for posting twice

No. That's not accurate. Rape laws apply to incidents. For a judge to say that this is not an incident of rape because this incident occurred during the sale of sex, can in no way be stretched to apply to incidents that do not involve the sale of sex.



Absolutely not true. Again... laws apply to incidents. That's there can be multiple counts of the same charge - one for each incident.



No. VW and Mrs. P expressed the spirit of the law. That's why it's not just the general physical assault - which also involves consent.

OK the fact that rape laws apply to incidents in no way modifies my point.

Again... what is your reasoning why a Judge can do this again??

My understanding of your argument was

When a woman sells her services in a sexual manner, she no longe can say such services taken are rape. Because she is selling that service as a commidity. Is this accurate??


My response is... There is no clause in the law that says this, so objectively speaking the person would be guilty of rape, plus whatever else.

At which time you point to the spirit of the law.



Ok lets look at that statement and what you said

Victoria quoted by MRS P


Entspeak Response



I don't agree with this, but for now lets debate as if I did. Myself, I'm not sure how you can make this statement.

MY point is... selling sex does not diminish intimacy, or the intimate nature of human sexuality. The incident of exchanging money does not, but the individual or parties to the act may very well diminish their perceception of what sex is to cope. So it is the person, and thus must be applied to the person as a whole.

But lets say you still disagree.

If you believe that the prostitute, by each incident of selling sex, diminishes the act of sex from profoundly intimate nature that rape laws are meant to cover, you still have to concede to the fact that the services... when sold lacks that intimate nature. If it's taken then it's not sold.

So how do you work out of that??

Baphomet was right when he stated that, because prostitution is illegal, there was no contract for sex. That is the first thing that needs to be established. It's not a contract question.

Whether or not this was rape cannot be definitively answered from the few details given. When was the gun pulled? If she had sex willingly, thinking she was going to get paid later, that's not rape. That's just having sex under false pretenses - the way most sex happens. But once she stops having sex willingly, that's rape. If she has sex with #1 and #2 willingly, thinking she will get paid, that's not rape. If they pull the gun on her afterward, that doesn't make it rape. And since the contract for sex was illegal, it's not even proper to call it theft of services. I think it's just assault (legally, a threat of battery). If they pull the gun on her so no. 3, 4 and 5 can have sex with her, that's rape.

And if she was forced to have sex against her will, that was a pretty outrageous statement by the judge. Who the heck is she to say how traumatizing that experience was to that woman? Maybe her kid wouldn't have eaten tomorrow had she not made that next appointment. Not everyone reports rape right after it happens. Some people get raped and seem to brush it off, others get raped and it screws up their whole life. Everyone reacts differently.

Droop,

Didn't I say that the prostitute reduces a particular sex encounter to a commodity? "It's just a job," the prostitute says. To cope? Sure, they may do it to cope. Many people change their perception of a particular encounter in order to cope with perform in their job. This doesn't mean the coping mechanism must be applied to the person as a whole "24/7".

So, if the individual makes the choice to diminish their perception of this particular sexual encounter into something that is a commodity, then they view that particular sexual encounter as a commodity. Some prostitutes are married and have regular relationships with their spouses, I'm sure they view the sex between themselves and their spouse as profoundly intimate in nature.

A person's job may require them to change their perception of a particular encounter in order to do their job. My point is, that if you have made prostitution your job and have that "coping" mechanism, you are responsible for that decision. Also for some prostitutes, as has been pointed out to me, these people don't need that coping mechanism... they like their job... they still view it as the sale of sex... as a service for profit. If they didn't, they probably wouldn't charge you for it. And, if you chose to make that particular act at that particular moment a service for profit... you can't change your mind and make it something more than that if the transaction goes wrong.

You can't say, "it's just a job," reducing that sexual act to a service for profit, get robbed of that commodity... have people force you to perform that service, then all of a sudden it becomes to something other than a service for profit.

When this woman made the agreement, it was a service. When she stepped into the abandoned property, it was a service... not something profoundly intimate in nature... she didn't view it that way... When Gindraw asked if she would have sex with a friend of his, she viewed it as a service... for an extra $100. When the other men showed up, it was still a service... suddenly, a gun is pulled and they claim they are going to force her to perform this service for free... suddenly, it was never a service? Suddenly, what these men are taking is something that she viewed as profoundly intimate in nature? It's not to say they didn't assault her, they did... but if the spirit of the rape law involves the violation of something profoundly intimate in nature, then that law does not apply in this case.

If the spirit of a law against rape is not about something profoundly intimate in nature but, rather, consent or the lack thereof... then there is no need to have it... that is all covered in a general assault charge; we could just get rid of rape laws altogether.

Or...

We can use rape laws as they are intended... against those who violate men, women and children in this "unique way", those who violate and abuse something that is profoundly intimate in nature. Because it is only then that the rape laws actually mean something.



I've already addressed that. A service taken is still a service. Her intent was to sell the service... they stole the service.

Can we agree that reducing sex to a commodity is not the only way to diminish a sexual encounter outside the scope of "something profoundly intimate??"

Droop,

First, are you conceding that a judge can't look at a prostitute and say, "Because you view the sex you perform on the job as nothing more than a commodity... a service performed for profit, all the sex you engage in - even in your private life - must be treated as a commodity." Right? A prostitute can separate her sex for work from her private sex life, right?



Second, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Explain.

As much as I would like to bathe this topic thread in my raging spittle, something holds me back. (Because fear of Entspeak doesn't count. )

Has the ruling been overturned? The judge, though reprimanded by the bar, has not yet been disbarred, am I right? This means, that the american justice system, carefully constructed to be just and fair, or at least, to seem just and fair, has come to a decision, and now abides by it. Legally, Entspeak is right. The law has decided. Ethics, legal technicalities and empathy fall to the wayside. A judge, using her understanding of the law, read a situation, established the circumstances, and made her judgement.

The law is always right. But this time, is it wrong? Rightwrong, perhaps?

There's a doublethink moment for you .

I concede that all the sex in her life does not need be veiwed as a commodity. But there is no exception in the law "for when sex is sold as a commodity", thus you point to your perception of the "spirit of the law" Which I can agree that judge should make rulings through a balance of letter of the law and spirit.

So arguing from your stance on what the "spirit of the law" towards rape is, if one is to assume she has a "mindset" that sex is not profoundly intimate at times of these incidents, how does one then say she doesn't have the mindset a few hours later. This mindset would be a part of her being, her conciousness. In the morning when she wakes she would continue think, "sex in and of itself is not profoundly intimate."

But let's argue from the stand point, well when she has sex with her husband it is profoundly intimate. Let us agree to this scenario. The sex is profoundly intimate because of the status and ature of her relationship towards her husband, it obviously isn't because of sex in and of itself, because she has plans to sell it later that night.

So the best you can reason with logic... is only her husband can rape her because she finds sex "profoundly intimate" with only him.

Which leads me to my question you didn't quite understand.



IS selling sex the only way we can show that a woman does not find sex as "profoundly intimate"

Scenario

Me and my boys invite a known "freak" out to our place. We play cards and get liquored up. She is a willing participant in a train. One guy has sex, then another, then another, but she doesn't want to "for whatever reason" sleep with the fourth guy."

Obviously, she doesn't find sex profoundly intimate, as evidenced that she willingly slept with me and a couple of my other freinds, just as selling sex supposedly shows this, now if the fourth person takes it against her wishes... is it rape.

So my point is, it is not just hookers or the act of prostitution, reducing sex to a commidity, which shows a lack "profound intimacy" in a sexual engagement. In fact there are a host of scenarios where this is the case. Mainly because, face it, there are somewoman that just don't think of sex in and of itself as profoundly intimate.

So if we are to go with the "spirit of the law" you suggest, we should apply it to all cases where a woman has this mindset.

I don't really believe that the law is always right. I believe that choices have consequences. I believe that this decision - the decision to dismiss the rape charge but hold the defendant on the other charges: assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment and robbery - is the right one, considering the spirit of the law. I believe the judge was well within the bounds of her job to make that decision.

I hope Gindraw