What?



It could last fifteen minutes - or three... or however long the "date" goes... of course, this particular woman charges by the hour. People change their views on things all the time or they might have one view in one situation and another view in a different situation. That is common and a person doesn't have to have a multiple personality disorder to do it.

I hate mayonnaise... unless it's on a BLT. Because I have a different mindset about mayo when I eat a BLT from the rest of the times I eat food, I'm somehow insane?

I am an actor. I manipulate my mindset on a daily basis in order to give a performance. I once went from eating a sandwich to grabbing a guy and bawling after surviving a walk through a fake minefield, because I believed there was a minefield. Exercise over, minefield gone, life goes on... job done. I don't have a multiple personality disorder... I have a job.



Some people can do it, some can't. But the general idea is that one has a professional life and a private life - regardless of your profession. If you can't separate them, that's a problem, but it is the responsibility of the person engaging in that profession to make that decision and deal with the consequences. Why should the law assume that someone is incapable of separating their professional from their personal lives.



The fact is... and it is a fact, droop... sane people are capable of separating the professional from the personal.



I didn't redefine intimate... how did I redefine intimate? One can share something very personal and private with more than one person.

Oh, and a correction for everyone, including myself... prostitution is not necessarily illegal in Rhode Island - street prostitution is illegal (as it is in Nevada) and operating a brothel is illegal... but you can still engage in prostitution in Rhode Island.

There are also differences in sevices, prostitution as I have already pointed out and you have casually ignored is an on demand service, meaning it happens in the moment and because of the nature of such a service it can not occur without consent. You have continued to speak of this “service' as if it were something done prior to the initiation of force and the lack of consent, much like if she had baked a cake and brought it to their meeting location. But it doesn't work that way and you are not considering all of the nuanced definitions and possibilties of economic services.

I would also like to point at that I have read this man's charges and he is not being charged with theft of sevices. I would imagine because he didn't steal a service.




Oh I know I find it really silly too to have to keep qualifying sex as consensual, but apparently some of you do not understand that legally we do not recognize sex as a lawful act unless it is consensual. Yeah I grasp the concept of theft, but what you neglect to reccount above is that theft itself occurs in varied stages or conditions (just like sex) and the law recognizes each differently, classifies each differently and even punishes each act differently. And I can give consent for a service and still be stolen from, I had a gentleman in fact who I willingly and with consent gave him and his wife dinner and wine freely with the condition that when he returned that weekend he would pay for it. He never returned and he never paid , but my service was consensual.



Oh perfect this affords me yet another opportunity to point out the fact that you have yet to address the question I have asked and brought to your attention (many times) how under threat, assault, coercion, all with a deadly weapon do you sustain the economic exchange..the state of a transaction ?



Uh perhaps for something minor like cable theft, or an unpaid gas bill? Come on use your imagination. If you really believe that having nonconsensual sex with a woman by force is equivelent to and requires as much consideration under the laws as someone not paying their electric bill and that these crimes share the same needed degree of punishment in order to equally discourage them socially then I really have no desire to further discuss this wit you.

Well, that's not exactly a fair quote, bucket. If you look closely, you'll realize that he's not being charged of rape either.

If this judge is wrong on one count, as everyone seems to think, then she might as well be wrong on several more.

akalae

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying I have read this man's court docket and "theft of services" was never a charge brought against him, so it was never upheld for trial and his crime was never classified or interpretated or even considered in the legal courts as being "theft of services".

Rape was, along with Sexual Assault, Aggravated Indecent Assault, Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse, Indecent Exposure..all of which are listed separately in the PA statues as..."crimes involving danger to the person" and then further classified as being "sexual crimes." "theft of services" is a property crime, is this woman's body now property again?

My argument here is that I believe it was a sexual crime and the judge did us all socially a great disservice. Regardless of your own opinion in the context of this case the idea that instead it was a crime of "theft of services" is invalidated based simply on the fact that the State of Pennsylvania never even charged this man with "theft of services" but they did charge him with all the above sexual crimes I listed, the judge just dismissed them.

I think now that I have reiterated this point more clearly I am not even going to accept the idea it was a "theft of services" as even a possible argument, it is just fantasy, don't you agree?

I find it to be a fascinating quality of the american justice system that even fantasy, when presented in a realistic enough manner by the defense, can result in all-too-real results.

Entspeak is playing the devil's advocate. It is a common enough tactic for those who wish to engage in spirited debate. However, this does not mean that his points are any less relevant.

The judge, as flawed as she might have been, acted as a legal representative of the United States justice system to one of its citizens. Therefor, her judgement, by extension, is also the judgement of our government.

Theft-of-Services was not brought up by the prosecution, because they, in all probability did not expect anything less than a charge of outright rape. If this is so, then they are also partly to blame--In the courtroom, particularly in an American courtroom, anything can happen. For god's sake, we let a man behead his own wife and walk-off scott free! (Though his comeuppance, long in the making, has finally come to fruition. Where is Cochrane now, Mr. Simpson!?)

There is no such thing as "fantasy" in the courts. Or, perhaps, the courts are only fantasy, and nothing more. Your interpretation of the law differs from the judges, but she is the one who made the decision.

Does the word "fantasy" still apply after a "fantasy" charge is pressed with real results?

No I have never spoken of this as though the service occurred beforehand. Stolen services can happen in the moment... particularly when someone forces you to perform the service you advertise.



I would imagine it's because the prosecutor didn't bring forth that charge... I would imagine because he wanted to go to trial with a rape charge.



Okay, and if he held a gun to your head and forced you to make him dinner and give him wine... he would take your service without your consent.



I would call that a transaction gone wrong. Did she go to perform a service? Yes. Did they threaten her, assault her and coerce her, all with a deadly weapon into performing that service for free? Yes, they did. The transaction went wrong. Like a "drug deal gone bad." I don't know why you are accusing me of not having addressed this... I have.



Ah, the equivalency accusation rears its ugly head. Cable service is a service... utilities are services. These are commodities. Did she go to this place to perform a service? Yes.



Where did you get this information? I couldn't find it.

My point (and I do have one), droop224, is the "myths" of rape were not dreamed out of thin air. They are based upon the bitter experience women have had when they try to find understanding, sympathy, compassion and justice from a paternalistic, puritanical and sexist male-dominated legal system.

My point was that I knew someone in this thread would be possibly skeptical and probably outright contemptuous of the rape myths/facts paradigm. Just as they have been skeptical and contemptuous of the prostitute's claim she was raped (or that it's even possible to rape a prostitute).

have zero interest in trying to "rectify" your preconceived notions, droop224 or those of anybody else. You're right that rape isn't a funny subject. Apparently it is subject to ridicule. And in this thread, exclusively by men.

Wonder why that is?



Let me give you a quick lesson in journalism, droop224. One thing you learn very early is while everybody's got a story, not everybody's story deserves equal consideration. Victims are likely to garner more sympathy than perpetrators.
White victims of crime garner bigger headlines than Black victims of the same crime and in this case both the victim and suspect are Black. The only thing that made this story newsworthy outside of the Philadelphia area was the miscarriage of justice when the judge sneeringly dismissed the possibility that a prostitute could be a victim of rape.

Dominique Grindaw would be a freakin' idiot to try and wage a battle for sympathy with the prostitute in the press. Not knowing anything about him, I have no idea how articulate he is or how well he expresses himself. But if there IS a question of doubt about Grindaw's guilt or innocence, seeing him on TV or hearing him on the radio or reading about him in the paper, might remove ALL doubt. Not even a court-appointed attorney fresh out of law school would want to put an unsympathetic client in front of a skeptical media ready to barbecue his butt.

Prosecutors lie? No argument there. Does that mean attorneys always tell the truth? Hell to the no! They aren't interested in the truth as much as they are trying to get the best deal they can for some of the worst scum of the earth. If Grindaw were to call up a reporter at the Philadelphia Daily News or the Tribune and say, "Hey, I want to tell my side of the story," I have no doubt he'd get a response. But if you think he's going to get much sympathy beyond his immediate family and friends, you are kidding yourself.

The best thing Grindaw can do for himself is stay far, far away from cameras and reporters and get back under his rock along with the other worms, maggots and slimy, squirmy things.

Oh, and about objectivity? THAT is a myth. Everybody's got their prejudices and if you want objectivity the LAST place you're going to find it is on a debate board.





What an interesting definition of intimacy, droop224. The problem is you are making an assumption that prostitutes ARE intimate with their johns. They aren't. They are selling the illusion of intimacy.

When a prostitute acts as if some pot-bellied, smelly, hairy wildebeest of a guy who's hung like a hummingbird is getting her off like a Russian rocket, she's performing a part, not living it. She doesn't love it. She doesn't want to be his girlfriend. She isn't having multiple orgasms. It's a job and she's punching a clock until she can go home, sit in the bath, and help her kids with their math history.

It's all pretend. It's a fake. It's the exact opposite of intimacy. Both the man and the woman are engaged in a business exchange. He wants sex. She wants money. It doesn't get any more complex than that.

For those guys who desire more than "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" there are sexworkers who specialize in the illusion of intimacy. It's called "the girlfriend experience"

The "girlfriend experience" (commonly known as GFE) is a type of service a prostitute offers which includes acting like a girlfriend to the client.

This generally involves more intimate sex than a traditional call girl offers, and may include kissing and/or french kissing, cuddling, and foreplay. By contrast, many prostitutes refrain from kissing for fear of contracting herpes or because they see it as a more emotionally intimate activity than sexual intercourse without kissing. A call girl advertising provision of a "girlfriend experience" is implying that she kisses, provides a more enjoyable "full service" (intercourse) experience, and does not necessarily as strictly limit her service by time and/or ejaculation as many prostitutes do.

Men have always reserved "intimacy" for females they plan to allow to hang around longer than a one-night stand hit-it-and-quit-it. Prostitutes do the same thing. They just happen to hang a price tag on it.

Most prostitutes don't kiss their clients. Kissing is intimate and personal. That's a little part of themselves prostitutes won't put up for sale no matter how much money is offered.





Ever stop to think that some women decide to cater to the desires of men because you can make a lot of money if you go into it with your eyes wide open, AZWW?

One woman explained why she was in "the life" this way:

In fifteen years I've met Presidents (both U.S. and otherwise), Senators, Congressmen, Jurists of the highest courts in the land, Fortune 500 CEOs, religious leaders, and members of just about every level of law enforcement. I've had Playmates, Penthouse Pets, actresses, models, lawyers, accountants, and housewives work for me on the circuit. The common thread is that each and every one of them, to a person, will publicly condemn the business. It's human nature.

There are very few prostitutes who have control of their lives. Almost none from the Internet generation. Drugs, pimps, boyfriends, and fast lives take all the money they make. One day, they wake up and they're dead broke and too strung out to work anymore. if that's control, my Webster's New Collegiate needs an update. I'm from another generation, with a different set of values. My net worth today is in the low- to-mid seven figures, according to my financial statement. I own property in three states and one foreign country. My taxes are now, and always have been, paid in full. I buy a new Lexus every two years, without encumbrance of any kind. My home is free and clear. I have no debt whatsoever, and my profession was the means to this end.

Sadly, such will not be the case with the majority of the women in the profession today. Hand-to-mouth does not lead to financial security, and one day, the clock stops. Then what?

I can't vouch for the truth of this woman's claims. She could be lying her butt off. She could be broke, strung out on drugs, living in the back seat of her car and about as sexy as a fat man in a Speedo.

But if true, living a life on her knees might be preferable to one on her feet wearing a blue smock at Wal-Mart It damn sure is more profitable.




What makes you think that a woman who voluntarily CHOOSES to be a prostitute can't control her body? If she has no pimp, charges what she thinks the market will bear, and works only when she wants with those she selects as clients, being "laid for cash" makes a lot of sense.

Street-level prostitutes are to sexwork what a strip-mall chiropractor is to medicine. They're on the bottom of the food chain and they are at high risk for violence, disease, exploitation, arrest, rape and murder. Pimps beat them up. Johns rip them off. Cops don't care if they live or die.

But on the other end of the "curb-crawlers" are the high dollar hotties. They are as far removed from street prostitutes as a NFL team is from a pick-up football game.

Recently, I had the experience of escorting "Veronica" through the main dining room of Spago. She is a dark-haired, dark-eyed beauty, and heads turned as she poured across the room, her dress speaking to every man there in the international language of bugle beads. Veronica is apparently no stranger to Spago. She and the maîtresse d'hôtel exchanged knowing smiles as we were seated. And when she's not there, she says, she's often at the Peninsula, the Regent Beverly Wilshire (the Pretty Woman hotel), the Four Seasons, and so on. She lives at the beach. She drives a Mercedes S420. She doesn't ask what you're having before she orders foie gras.

Anne Marie (not her real name either), a late-20s 5'9" blonde with cover-girl cheekbones, had never worked as a hooker pre-Internet. She has only recently taken up the escort game, as a way of supporting her graduate studies at a top Los Angeles university. Anne Marie pays $100 a month to list with another large Los Angeles-based site called Cityvibe. And she pays a Webmaster about $1,000 a year to maintain a Web page of her own. She also has the San Francisco market on an Australian-based Web site called Worldwide-Escort.com, which gets almost all its traffic from Yahoo's "Adult Services" listing. From all this, she figures she gets about 700 cybervisitors a day. She started out charging $4,500 a day, with a two-day minimum, but the response was so good that she has since given herself a raise to $5,800 a day, still with a two-day minimum. When I met her, she was wearing an expensive-looking man-tailored gray suit and occasionally consulted her brand new Sony Vaio.

Like Veronica, Anne Marie markets herself as providing a complete high-end experience. She's like Woody Allen's "Whore of Mensa"—except that she also puts out. She calls her Web site "educatedescort.com." The pictures of her there are pretty but fully clothed. Her text is well-written and laced with humor. Her FAQ ("Frequently Asked Questions") page includes: "What are your services for the $5,800 per day? I sit and read Thoreau and eat plums and fresh cherries in the hotel." link 2

Your confusion as to why women choose to become prostitutes is perfectly understandable, AZWW. The thing is that it's the amateurs such as the Philly prostitute who are the most visible and the subject to the worst treatment. But they hardly represent the whole story.

Awww....the poor girl. Instead of doing what most women do in her position - like getting a fricken job - she takes the easy way out that is full of risks and calls foul when the seedy people she chooses to deal with end up being the losers everyone would expect.

This entire view of a poor "sex worker" is an affront to all the women that choose to do the right thing by a) marrying the father of their child and getting a legitimate job. By defending this prostitute, you are enabling the behavior of people like her and making the problem worse. I have no respect for a prostitute just like the prostitute has no respect of herself. Maybe if she didn't get the sympathy of people she relies on to have it, she would quit whoring and get a real job just like any other single mom in America.

Again, this doesn't mean anyone deserves rape. But when she's selling her vagina as a commodity, don't be surprised when people treat it as such.

Damn strange how it is someone can say they have no respect for a prostitute and a prostitute has no respect for herself and that she's taking "the easy way out" and her life is a "affront" to all women who "do the right thing," but though DaytonRocker tip-toes right up to the edge of saying she deserves whatever sorry fate befalls her, he quickly backs up with the qualifier, "this doesn't mean anyone deserves rape."

Sure thing, DR. Just don't waste time coming to you looking for sympathy because you're not going to "enable" her by extending her any, right?

I suppose it's easier to deal with women whom are prostitutes as exaggerated caricatures and broad stereotypes. It spares one the difficulty and inconvenience of seeing them as real human beings with the same vices/virtues as anyone else.

Know what's missing from your analysis, DR? You serve up a lot of scorn for the woman that sells, but where's any of your righteous indignation for the man that's buys? It takes two to tango and prostitutes can't supply if there's no demand. How is it all those horny boyfriends and cheating husbands get a pass from your pious preaching?

How fortunate for your blatantly sexist sermonizing that these filthy whores must be jumping out of the bushes and forcing these poor, morally upright men to submit to their lewd and wanton entrapment. Oh, the sinful shame of these lustful ladies of the evening inveigling innocents with their tawdry temptations!

The hysterical hyperbole as evidenced in DaytonRocker's know-nothing hell-and-damnation sermon-on-the-mount reflects a mind that has never met or spoken with a sexworker. All DR knows is she's a smudged "snowflake" (as he earlier described with derision the Philadelphia prostitute) and if she didn't exactly have it coming, it's not all bad that it happened because at least she learned if you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas (or some other equally banal and played-out cliché).

In a 2004 thread about legalizing prostitution, a poster by the handle of Elmoe made a suggestion far more deserving of serious contemplation than DaytonRocker's agitprop:

When politicians and police talk about cracking down on prostitution, they are not referring to the type where adults engage in private, consensual prostitution. Women in this end of the business place their ads in the phone book and on the internet and are soliciting upper middle class men who desire discriminating encounters. These women are in prostitution to pay for college, buy a house or maintain a more affluent lifestyle. This is prostitution by choice. They can turn down a date. Decriminalize it. These women are professionals who should get a business license and pay taxes like any other sole proprietor would.

However...desperate poverty, drug addictions and threats of violence leave other women no choice other than prostitution. Sex becomes a means of survival. This sort of prostitution gets the most public attention and is at the center of high profile crackdowns. "Clean up the streets!"� is the rallying cry just before elections.

Women engaged in this sort of prostitution are taking extreme measures to survive and are the ones most often exploited. They are more likely not to practice safe sex, have the highest rates of STD's & AIDS and often victims of violence. They will do it in a car, a back alley or in a flea bag hotel room. They will do it for whatever amount of money they can get. They cannot turn down dates. It is a matter of survival.

Decriminalize it. Threat of law as a deterrence does not work when it is a matter of survival. Programs dealing with women's health, protective and support services must be completely funded and directed towards women who find themselves in circumstances that might otherwise lead to prostitution. As a society we need to take better care of our women, not throw them in jail. (Elmoe/7-10-04)

Ahh, I see. So if, say, you are selling goods in an impoverished area, anyone with a gun has the right to come in and take them? Theft and rape are OK as long as they are occurring to the right group of people? After all, that storeowner chose to set up shop in that area, therefore it's no one's fault but his, right?



It's not a matter of defending the prostitute at all...it is a matter of condemning the act that was perpetrated upon her. An act which you clearly seem to not only have no problem with, but one you seem to actually justify. By failing to condemn such acts YOU are enabling the behaviour of those who commit such acts, and making the problem worse, much worse. Preferential justice is no justice at all, and justice should never be reserved solely for those who some feel deserve it. Who's to say when we might all fall into the camp of those who someone else feels 'had it coming'? Where would we then turn if such views prevailed? No where. Anarchy would rule, and how do we all benefit from that?

Yes and the prosecutor is also an extension of "our government", these charges are brought to the judge by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. No one here has the added authority of representing the people of our government more on either side of this debate, at least until he is found guilty. He does have other charges brought against him and upheld for trial other than robbery. Yet the point I was making was that a charge of "theft of services" was never charged and so to claim that this was the legitimate and state recognized classification of this case is just fantasy.





That is not true either the prosecution brought a total of 21 charges against the defendant x 2 because he is accused of committing this crime against two separate women on two separate dates.


I would also like to point out that as the article originally claimed that the prosecutor was going to refile, well he did and as of December 6 2007 the court decided this time to hold all rape and sexual assault charges for trial. So I hope that this man will be found guilty for raping at least one woman, pretty pathetic we have to leave our sense of justice and legal protection to hope.




This is a discussion of law and punishment, so the equivalence does matter You can't ignore this and the law most certainly does not. I already stated if you refused to acknowledge the differences of sexual crimes and property crimes that I had no more desire to debate with you.

Let me put this a different way. What the most likely outcomes of being a street level drug dealer in America? When I was younger we were taught a simple lesson. Sell drugs and you are going one of two places, prison or the grave.

Now understanding these are the likelihoods of selling drugs, does not make me think people deserve to get murdered. But it does make me less sympathetic to murdered drug dealers. No one deserves to get murdered, but it is an inevitable outcome.

Now this isn't perfectly analagous to rape, but it explains remarks by others. You want to prostitute your self on a street corner, craiglist or whatever, understand that rape is knocking at your door. So while the rapist still should be prosecuted, not sure how you prove it, but if it can be proven rape is wrong. But someone who walks a line and knows.. and accepts the consequence that rape can happen, need not have much sympathy when it happens.


NT



You posted myths just because someone would be skeptical about them?? I'm not suggesting you are trying to rectify my preconceived notions, I'm suggest your myths aren't common myths. I don't think we need the "facts" that prove "myths" that most people don't have wrong.

For instance if I were to to tell you

Myth
Blacks are darker because they absorb the night.

Fact:
Blacks actually have a darker complexion due to the fact they have more melanin in their skin.

First, you would question how many people believe this for me to call it a myth. Second you would wonder, why post it, do I look like someone who would cater to these myths.




Even before we know the person is actually a victim??

. For the most part I agree.



uhhh.... NT... did you notice the sub debate me and entspeak are having on this debate... I am kind of saying the same thing here. kinda...

Entspeak



Well Entspeak your view on mayonnaise is static. You hate mayonnaise except on BLT's

Now lets say tomorrow I see you at Subway getting mayonnaise on a ham sandwich. Well it's o.k. to change your mind. But the next day I offer you a ham sandwich with mayo and you chew me out talking about You hate mayo on everthing but BLT, then the next day yu got another ham sandwich with mayo... back and forth, back and forth, you would be truly insane.

As to your second point. An actor is acting a.k.a pretending... pretending to change is not changing, it's the illusion of change.



Of course we can separate professional from private life. However, we don't change our morality, or views on subjects when we go to work, then change our views again when we come home, then change them again we we go to work, then change them again whe we come home, so on and so on...



From my understanding of what you are saying a prostitute does not find sex profoundly intimate with her clients. For this to be true she must not find sex in and of itself to be profoundly intimate.

I am not saying she can never have profoundly intimate sex with a person, only that sex by itself is not held a profoundly intimate act. It would be the person that makes sex profoundly intimate. Because if sex is profoundly intimate, in and of itself, engagement to a person, then that "view" of sex would remain even when sold. Which is likely why they would feel shame for having sex for money.



It's possible Entspeak, but it's just as possible that one can find the same intimacy with their clients selling their sex.

My question here would be, is stealing drugs from a dealer still theft? Can someone be prosecuted for that?

What if someone goes into a house where a Meth lab is, and steals the supplies? Is that theft?

I find it deplorable what someone did, but she wasn't randomly at a Christmas party to hang out and happened to be raped. She was there to perform a very specific service. The gun and the gang-rape are probably more why we feel sympathy, but frankly I believe that this is a hazard of the job.

I knew a dude in college that sold Pot. Come to think of it... I haven't seen him in 4 or 5 years but he might still sell pot. He got robbed once, and they took his wallet, credit cards, and of course all of the weed he had (and this guy sold it by the ounce). He was ironically an active duty warrant officer in the reserves (before I enlisted), and had a decent salary and a VERY easy job... but selling pot afforded him ski boats and motorcycles. We'll call him Kevin (because that's his name!).

Anyway, when Kevin got robbed, he was appalled at the violent nature, and what a pain in the rear it was to get his credit cards cancelled, etc. The funny part of the story is that he had to file a police report to not have to pay the cc charges that were racked up (credit card company policy I guess back then). He had to tell the cops that he got robbed and that he was filing a report days later. They were like "where were you, what were you doing there, and why is this happening 3 days later?? , etc".

The irony was that he felt violated and was livid about the event. Why did he get robbed? He was selling pot to a person in a bad neighborhood, all alone at midnight. Seriously. That's what happened. Had he not been there, it would've never happened.

I find it difficult to even consider prosecuting a person who raped a prostitute who had travelled to a place in order to perform illegal acts. Frankly, if prostitution were legal, and she was there to actually have sex with them agreeably and they didn't pay... what would we charge them with?

Ok- final statement. If you go into a brothel that is legal outside of Las Vegas, and do the deed... then run out without paying (if that's possible), what would the charge be?

Good question. If a woman agrees to sex for $100 and I pay her with a check, suppose it bounces 3 days later? Is it still rape?

Theft of services.



Nope...bounced check, just like if you had done the same when buying groceries it wouldn't be burglary.

Both of these cases are why I believe they would take cash only, paid up front ).

The difference between these two analogies and the case in question is the forced act at gunpoint, which is what I thought made the rape case so clear. It's also probably why the gun was necessary...otherwise they would have done something similar to the examples above.

Completely irrelevant question. Now, if a woman agrees to sex for 100, and you then tie her down/hold a gun to her face and force her to have sex with you and five friends, that is rape. Even at the chicken ranch. The minute consent is withdrawn, it is rape.

Or, if you are watching a topless dancer/attending a special swingers party where lots of people are having sex/ ect.....and you somehow manage to force a woman to have sex with you at said event without her consent, that is also rape. In fact, there is no scenario that you can come up with where forcing a woman to have sex against her will would not be rape.

Do you notice that no woman who has participated on this thread of over 15 pages agrees with you? Somehow, we all agree that this scenario is/would be rape. We've crossed political boundaries and all agree (please correct me at this point, female posters, if you believe that this sceneario would not be rape). Lots of 'honest women' who married the fathers of their children and worked/went to college, who should be somehow, according to you 'affronted' by this woman and her claim, yet (strangely) none of us feel affronted and none of us agree with you (and the male posters who do agree with you). What would that indicate?

Well, then the people on the other side of the argument need to be consistent. What is the reason I was given for prostitution being illegal? It was because the act of prostitution reduces sex to a commodity. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If the State is supposed to view prostitution as an act that reduces sex to a commodity, how can it also treat the act of prostitution as something profoundly intimate in nature? Shouldn't it view it as a commodity and treat it as such?



Well, droop, a prostitute can also have a static view on sex. It is profoundly intimate except when she is selling it to a customer.



This completely misunderstands the acting process (particularly the process of most actors in the US) and the "coping" mechanism you mention. It's about perception. It is possible to change your perception to fit a particular situation and not be insane.



Ah, you're hung up on morality... I see. I view sex as profoundly intimate, but morally I have no problem with prostitution. What a woman does with her body (for the most part) is none of my business. As for changing your views on subjects, I don't know what to tell you, droop, it happens every day. I hate salesman, yet I have to be one every day - it is the least favorite thing about being an actor, in my opinion. In order to succeed, at parties and in interviews, I have to adopt a particular mindset in order to succeed. Many people do this... and it has little to do with morality. Now, does this mean that there aren't prostitutes who don't have guilt or shame regarding what they do? Sure. But, I'm willing to bet that those are the ones without a choice in the matter - slaves, as it were. I don't think this particular woman fits into that category.



Now you are projecting your own personal views onto someone else. Did this particular woman express shame for having sex for money? After this abusive and humiliating event, she went out and had more sex for money. I think you will find some, if not many prostitutes who do not feel shame at having sex for money. Why should they?

Your logic regarding the ability of a person to distinguish - and have different values regarding - sex between someone they are being intimate with and someone to whom they are engaging in a sale is flawed - or infected by your personal views. It's like Descartes arriving at his conclusions by deciding to remove his attachments to everything... but he didn't do that... he left his religious views in. Therefore, his objective conclusions were infected by his religious views.

I don't know what else to tell you, droop. It is definitely possible to make that distinction and have different values regarding it. I think your logic is based on the projection of your personal views of prostitution as shameful upon the prostitute his or herself who may not share your personal views on the subject.

Agreed they do. But it's the nature of women in this world. They always want their cake and eat it too. But if men are stupid enough to illegalize prostitution, because it is us that makes the laws... well, whose fault is that??


Again, correct. It is constant change, hourly change back and forth that makes you insane. A prostitute goes sells her body... her views on sex is this. She she leaves the house on here way to the next client her view of sex is that, she enters the house her views on sex is this, again. We don't have constantly shifting views on subjects.

IF some one got on this board said they were against abortion, then an hour later said they were for it... each time they posted they changed their views... you wouldn't think that person crazy??



No you don't, else you would not preface your argument witt "ah, you're hung up on morality". Cause I am so far from caring morally what someone chooses. I think prostitution should be legal and regulated to keep everyone, hookers and johns, safer.



Everyday you change your views of salesmen?? Yes, we all do things we don't like... daily. Sometimes we don't like to do things just cause we HAVE to do them, otherwise we would like it. Neither pertain to what I am saying... which leads me to wonder if you are truly understanding what I am saying.

Either I am saying something complex and you are simplifing it or I am saying something so simple and basic and you are making it complex. Not sure where the disconnect is happening... or maybe you are just unwilling to concede a point .



I think there are many that do not feel shame, as well. See I'm not projecting here, you're just in debate mode and not absorbing all I am saying. When it comes to the case here, I think the judge did the right thing, but the reasons why she did it are important and could change my opinion.

I'm saying they likely, check that word again, likely feel shame if they have the mindset that sex in and of itself, is supposed to be a profoundly intimate engagement. Now I think it highly unlikely that most prostitutes view of sex is "profoundly intimate". Just like I find it highly unlikely that a soldier in the battlefeild finds it profoundly evil to kill a human being. possible, yes, likely, no.




It would be if I could not distinguish. All you have to do Entspeak is listen or read what I am saying without being combatative and you will understand.

We have views on sex, we have views on sex with people they are not the same issue. The first is static, the later may change with different people.

Let's say my view on sex is it just physical. I'm a man I can be this way Now, if my view on sex is it's just physical, then my view of sex can not be "profoundly intimate". Now I also have a wife. Sex with my wife tends to be profoundly intimate.

What changed??

Well I stopped talking about my views on sex and started talking about my views of sex with my wife. Now you can take out the word "wife" and place in any other word and my concept may change. Sex with some girl I met at the club, a hooker, a mistress, a client, my boss, a co-worker, old girlfreind.... on and on. I may have a different view for each one, but my view of what sex means to me didn't change, it was my views of sex with different individuals that changed.

I mean if we took it from the standpoint of looking at sex with individual, rather than a veiws of sex iin and of itself... no one but the sickest freakshow would ever get raped!!!! Do you know why???

Because what person being raped is engaged in "profoundly intimate" sex with their rapist??

I tried to read all the posts on this thread, really I did. In the end, Mrs. Pigpen pretty much summed up my answer to Entspeak's question:


This is a clear example of rape, regardless of the circumstance. John's 1 & 2 did not commit rape (#2 could get the theft of services charge, arguably), but the rest of them did and the previous Johns were accomplices at a minimum. The gun element escalates this to aggravated sexual assault and every person the room assisted, save for maybe the last guy who attempted to end the encounter but likely still has some culpability in what took place.

Well, the guy who was charged was John #1, so, according to your own argument, this isn't a clear example of rape.

Actually, Entspeak, it's only you that is making this claim. No where in this thread has anyone but you (and now droop? I am finding this whole side argument a little confusing) claimed that the reason prostitution is illegal is because it reduces sex to a commodity. Some people in the past have made similar arguments, but no where in this particular thread, and not everyone agrees with that reason. Other people have different reasons for wanting prostitution illegal.

And really, this has nothing to with the issue at hand. So what if a prostitute views sex as "not intimate"? Who are you to judge what is intimate and what is not? And who are you to say that only if one is having "intimate" sex, that they are protected under the law?

Oh, please... are you telling me that it's only women who came up with that view of prostitution?



Okay, I have a BLT for lunch. Later, I see someone eating a ham sandwich slathered in mayo and I shudder in disgust. I go home and eat a BLT. That doesn't make me insane.



But that involves a moral issue. The decision to view sex as profoundly intimate with one person and as a job for another may be a moral view, but it is one moral view and not two. Just as my "moral" take on mayo is static, so is the prostitute's moral take on sex. They distinguish between sex sold for profit and sex not sold for profit. That doesn't make them insane... it makes them professional.



You brought up shame and morality, droop. Your argument appears to be based on morality and shame. I didn't create that, you wrote it.


Yes, droop, I do. Because I have to be one everyday. And, yet, I still get heated when they approach me in a store.



No, you are oversimplifying something complex and then explaining your oversimplification in a complex manner.



Then why even mention shame, droop? It's like you argue a point and then claim that you don't even believe the point you just made.



Hmmm... does a cop feel shame when he kills a criminal because he has the mindset that killing is bad? Possibly. Does he still do his job? Sure. Does that make him insane because he is able to kill someone despite the fact that he believes that killing is bad? No.



I firmly believe that a soldier can find it profoundly evil to kill a human being and still kill a human being.



Now I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



Sure. One can view sex as profoundly intimate. That same person can, because of his or her profession, view sex as a commodity when selling it to john and as profoundly intimate when performed with someone else. They can make that distinction based on who they are having sex with.



Just because one feels sex is just physical doesn't necessarily mean one does not view it as profoundly intimate.

Look, you have oversimplified a human being's ability to make distinctions, claiming that if they make such distinctions they are insane. I don't agree. Nothing you have said makes me feel any different. You believe that a prostitute can't possibly view sex with someone other than the person she is selling it to as profoundly intimate. Or the prostitute does view sex as profoundly intimate and feels some shame for selling sex. This is a very limited view of human psychology and the ability of the mind to make distinctions. Human beings aren't the cookie cutouts you would have them be.

I think prostitution is wrong, but I do not think it necessary to make a moral pronouncement in this case.

A store merchant sells products as a living. To have a customer take those products without paying for them is stealing. That the store merchant is willing to part with his/her goods is dependent upon one thing: that whoever takes those goods pays the price asked for them.

Now there is an added dimension to the service that the prostitute provides. It involves her (or his) body. Not only is it stealing; it becomes assault when the prostitute is forced to perform sexual acts.

The morality of prostitution itself should not even be taken into account. To view it simply, the prostitute was unwilling to have sex to the point that she had to be forced at gunpoint to do it with these several other "johns".

Any time anybody has to be forced at gunpoint to give something away or to do something, it constitutes assault, pure and simple.* And the judge should have ruled that way, regardless of the woman's occupation.

*And assault of a sexual nature is commonly called R-A-P-E.

Being forced to give something away or to do something at gunpoint is called assault with a deadly weapon. Gindraw is still being held on that charge, among others.

If you are a thief and someone takes your stolen goods at gunpoint, is it assault with a deadly weapon and theft?

To simply say that assault of a sexual nature is legally rape is to ignore the spirit of the law as described by VW and Mrs. P.

A judge is allowed to make decisions based, not only on the word of law, but it's spirit as well.

Yes, it is assault with a deadly weapon. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to minimize this.

It seems to me that any time a woman--regardless of her occupation--is sexually assaulted, it is rape. I still believe the judge is wrong to call it any less than that, VW and Mrs. Pigpen notwithstanding.

I am glad that Gindraw is still being held on that charge.

To use a gun while holding up a store is considered a more serious crime than just swiping something, even if it isn't called assault with a deadly weapon. If you use a gun while committing a crime, it is considered a felony, is it not?

The prostitute's body, whether she sells it or not, is still her own, and it isn't the right of others to force her to do something she doesn't want to do, even if it is her occupation. Forcing another person to have sex is rape.

To force a bus driver or cabbie to drive you somewhere when he isn't working or doesn't want to do it, is still forcing him, and using a gun to do it makes the situation that much more serious.

Crimes perpetrated on illegal immigrants--whether they are here illegally or not--are still crimes. Someone's "illegality" does not excuse someone else from committing a crime against him/her.

So, it's wrong for a judge to look at a case with regard to the spirit of the law and should only look at the letter of the law - so, technically the law states that sexual assault is rape and doesn't take into consideration the occupation of prostitution therefore, it's rape?

I would disagree with you here; it's not just a matter of following the letter of the law. A judge--particularly a woman--who could ever conceive of being sexually assaulted (by not just one man), could consider it the spirit of the law to call it rape!

It would not be necessary to regard the law only according to the letter to make such a ruling. Indeed, using the circumstance of the woman's livelihood to mitigate the ruling would seem to me to be predicated more on the letter of the law, because it seems to be less concerned with justice and more concerned with legalities.

Then I don't think you understand the concept - though the "particularly a woman" comment is telling. And could is not should. I could run outside and scream in the ear of the first person who walks by... doesn't mean I should.

According to the letter of the law, any sexual assault could be considered rape - which appears to be your position. How does mitigating using a woman's livelihood appear to be predicated more on the letter of the law? Does the law mention a person's livelihood? No. So, I don't think that's true.

Taking the spirit of the law into consideration, I would argue that not every sexual assault could be considered rape... the "profoundly intimate nature" test would be at work.

Perhaps I don't understand the concept. I think that it was the woman who was injured, and while I don't approve of what she does for a living, I think that justice should be served for her sake. She is still a human being.

I don't understand a concept of letting off people lightly because the woman was involved in an illegal occupation. The woman's occupation should not excuse in any way the crime that was committed against her.

The men who did this were not taking responsibility for their actions. They were opportunistic pigs who, incidentally, were breaking the law having sex with a prostitute in the first place. So if the woman is held culpable for an illegal activity, so the men should also be held culpable,* and even more for the circumstance of forcing her to have sex with several of them at gunpoint.

And whether the crime was "profoundly intimate" or not, it was perpetrated on her person. If they broke her arm or leg or knocked out her teeth, it would still be perpetrated on her person, and it would be battery. Why would injury to her vagina be considered less important than injury to an arm or leg?

*If she "stinks" somehow for being a prostitute, then the men "stink" too for seeking her out for her services.

Justice should be served, and decisions should have consequences. Injured? I didn't read anything about injury... perhaps you don't mean physical injury?



Off lightly? Oh, is assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, conspiracy and false imprisonment a walk in the park in terms of charges? You make it sound like he ended up getting a slap on the wrist and then sent home.

Who was in that situation?



I agree.



I don't believe she was charged with prostitution.



And they are. Or, I should say, Gindraw is because he's the only one being charged.



Sure, but the judge doesn't create the charges.



Perhaps I missed something, but I don't get the "stinks" reference.

What do you mean decisions should have consequences? Do consequences include undercharging defendants accused of victimizing drug dealers? Why bother with plea bargaining when consequences are part of the toll evil doers pay.


It can only mean either all of us were (or are) prostitutes or the feminist movement has rearranged nature in our little heads and none of us find sex as profoundly intimate as Entspeak does. Either way we're whores.

Huh?



Double-what? Please point to where I intimated anything of the kind.

A decision can only be rendered on what evidence is presented. If someone gets hit we can identify the bruise and identify assault. I agree with the judge's decision because there was enough evidence to identify assault. We know a gun was drawn. The same cannot be said for sexual assault because the evidence cannot conclusively point that consent was withdrawn before sex occurred. It is precisely this ambiguity that prohibits us from calling this sexual assault.

As a consequence, argueing on the limits of consent strikes me as misplaced because everyone is assuming the events happened in a certain chronological order which is dependant on conflicted testimony.