You're right, I thought the second man produced the gun but upon re-reading, I got that incorrect. I do understand Entspeak's point, I just disagree with it. The fact that she agreed to sex for money with one person does not imply consent to sex with other men (sorry if that wasn't clear in my post).

An agreement doesn't imply consent to sex with Gindraw after he pulled a gun, either. The fact that she agreed to sex for money with Gindraw doesn't mean it wouldn't have been rape if she changed her mind and tried to leave and he forced her before the other three arrived. If an agreement to sex for money spares Gindraw rape charges, then #2 can also skip rape charges since she had agreed to sex with #2 before #2, #3 and #4 arrived, and before Gindraw drew the gun.

There’s a deep issue in this thread that’s being overlooked. Until prostitutes are seen as humans rather than pariahs this type argument will continue.

I mentioned Kenneth Allen McDuff, as an example, in an earlier post. I did so because on 1966 killed three kids in Everman, which is just outside Fort Worth’s city limits. He was sentenced to the electric chair, but escaped that fate with Furman v. Georgia. His sentence was commuted to life, but after three years, he was paroled. He ended up in the Waco/Austin area. His killing spree resumed with three prostitutes , who operated in what was called “The Cut” in Waco.

McDuff ran a police barricade with a bound prostitute kicking the windshield out of his window. After the prostitute murders, McDuff kidnapped, raped and murdered a female accountant in Austin and a convenience store clerk in Waco.

Had the police seen the prostitutes as people and pursued leads to McDuff in those cases, perhaps the accountant and convenience store clerk would still be alive. But police didn’t think crimes against prostitutes were worth pursuing, even when family members of those prostitutes were urging them to take action.


Moore and Thompson were prostitutes. McDuff was never prosecuted for the murder of these “throwaway women.”

http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/17/texas.execution/

McDuff is just the tip of the iceberg. Prostitutes are routinely brutalized and murdered and “required” to provide services beyond what they agreed to.

Police and the public need to take crimes against prostitutes more seriously.

I'm not tending to do anything of the sort. Her implication is that it is "simply buyer's remorse and false advertisement." Which it is not. She is implying that her response to a reversed situation is the same as my response to the actual situation. I responded telling her that this was not the case. So, what's telling about that. Don't twist my responses into something they are not.



Never said anything of the sort. I am simply saying that a different law applies than rape. I find it telling that you - and everyone else - seems to be ignoring that I never said "no crime was committed". Nor did I say she was "excused from the protection of the law" because she was engaged in risky behavior. I will say it again, these men committed assault with a deadly weapon. That is not, however, what they were charged with.

I know I'm a bit thick, but I am having trouble following your logic. It seems to me - though perhaps you can clarify for me - that an analogous situation might be:

a man comes into my store to buy some liquor. I sell him a bottle of rum. He says, "hey, here comes my friend, he wants one too," so I sell his friend a bottle. Then two more guys come in. The first guy, who bought the first bottle, pulls out a gun, and they all take more liquor from me at gunpoint.

Now, in this case, would you say that these men could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, but not with armed robbery? Since my 'service' was selling liquor in the first place, this was a 'transaction gone wrong?' I'm just trying to figure this out. Normally I admire your strong logical arguments on these boards, even when I may disagree. But I'm having trouble figuring this out. If you're saying that sex is this woman's service, and therefor the most they can be charged with is armed robbery, then how does MrsPigpen's boxer analogy not work? Couldn't we say that, when my service of selling liquor is abused, it is robbery, and when my service of sex is abused, it is rape?

As I understand it, rape is a crime of violence and power, more than it has anything to do with sex. A 'john' stiffing the prostitute (that's what she said! ) would be robbery. Forced intercourse would be rape, no matter what other circumstances there are.

You're splitting pubic hairs, entspeak. "Assault with a deadly weapon," but NOT "rape." How do you make that distinction? I don't think I'm ignoring that you never said, "no crime was committed." What I have discerned from your posts is that since the victim was a prostitute who engages in sex for money, rape is an "occupational hazard" of her profession.

To be succinct, it appears you are saying a prostitute can not be raped.

Now if I have misrepresented your position, please feel free to correct me.

When sex is your job, and you agree on a transaction, is it rape when the transaction goes wrong?

Yes, it can be, and it was in this case. The judge was wrong. Forcing anyone to have sex at gunpoint is rape. The Nevada case that entspeak brought up is different because there, the sex was consensual.

I think I can explain entspeak's position, though I don't agree with it. In other threads, I've talked about why I think humans have an innate moral sense, but I've mostly talked about the reciprocity component (do unto others, etc.). There are other aspects to the moral sense, and the part that constructs sexual taboos seems to have to do with purity and contamination. It produces disgust at the thought of some sexual acts, and is almost certainly using some of the same brain circuits that produce disgust at the thought of contaminated food.

In this framework, rape isn't just a crime against a woman, it's a crime against a woman's purity. If she was already "contaminated" to begin with, the crime doesn't satisfy the criteria of contamination, so it must be something less than rape.

I think this might be why Mrs. Pigpen and Lesly couldn't get a straight answer about the hypothetical where the john gets jumped and sodomized. The john wasn't going there to get sodomized (read "contaminated"); he was expecting to be the one dumping his genetic garbage, not receiving somebody else's. (Sorry to be so crude, but I think it's a reasonable sketch of how this purity-based system of the brain would view the act.)

Again, I'm not trying to argue that no rape occurred. I'm just trying to explain the puzzle of why anyone would think it didn't.

Im not entspeak, but he has stated several times that he believes a prostitute can be raped. Just not while she's "on the job." If a prostitute was coming home from the movies, and was raped in a parking lot, according to entspeak that is rape. However, in this particular instance, because she already agreed to have sex with one of the guys, when he brings a gun and four other friends and forces her to have sex, that doesnt count as rape.

That's merely "theft of services."

Apparently rape and theft can't happen at the same time.

No, let me rephrase.

If the woman already agreed to the extra man at an increased rate. Is it likely that she would have agreed to more men? Or, if after agreeing to the extra man is it unreasonable for the initiator to have assumed that giving the woman more money would have allowed for extra services?

Something along those lines. I've already been pretty clear I think this is a rape case. She wasn't just in the wrong place at the wrong time - she willing went to a DIFFERENT place and agreed to EXTRA time (so to speak). She was in a bad situation from the outset, never mind the fact that she was breaking the law.

That doesn't wash either. What if a prostitute agrees to vaginal sex and the john forces her to do anal sex. Would that not have the element of force needed for rape.

I don't know about this whole occupational argument. Police officers have risky jobs. Would we say that a person could not murder a police officer because the cop was engaging in a risky occupation?

I find the logic faulty also. I was simply restating entspeak's argument, as I understood it. He has said he thinks prostitutes can be raped, but he has stated that in this case, there were "occupational" hazards, and she needs to face responsibility for her choices.

I have read of a case where a prostitute was forced to have anal sex, even though she had refused. I consider that a form of rape. I essentially think that anyone forcing to do any sex act against their will is rape, regardless of their previous consent, their job, their lifestyle choices and their intelligence.

While I accept your definition, Jobius, you'll have to excuse me if I engage in some incredulous eye-rolling.

I'm sorry, but CONTAMINATED???? Holy Mother of God, are we living in Saudia Arabia or what? How in the hell is any woman who is sexually active (or even promiscuous) "contaminated." By this criteria only violated virgins would be able to file charges of rape. What exactly is "contaminated" in a prostitute? Her vagina? Her mouth? Her eternal soul?

No, it's because she exchanges sex for money. If she gave her sexual favors away for free, there would be no problem. But since she plays a price upon her services, that devalues her in the eyes of the law? I'm afraid to think of what that means.

Funny how it works that a man can use a woman as a sperm dumpster but he's not the one "contaminated," she is. James Brown was right about this being a man's world.



So if a prostitute is coming home from the movies and gets raped in the parking lot and the rapist doesn't know she's a prostitute, that IS rape. But if she is "on the job" and the john finishes his business, puts on his clothes and gets ready to walk out the door (without paying) and she protests, "Hey, where's my money?" and he short-changes her, doesn't pay her at all or turns around and repeatedly punches her in the jaw with his fist then flips her over and anally violates her, that's just an "occupational hazard." She should learn how to type and avoid all this drama.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up...

Can't argue with you, really. I consider this notion of purity and contamination to be part of the moral sense because it stirs up emotions of moral opprobrium. That doesn't mean I like it. It's certainly been a factor in the oppression of women, and especially of their sexuality. In many ways it's a backward, reactionary force.

I enjoy mocking the Saudis and other puritans as much as anyone, but I think this flavor of morality is a more or less permanent part of human nature that should be recognized, if not accepted. (The "Holy Mother of God" you reference has long been venerated for her immaculate conception and virginity, after all.)

In western culture, we've (for the most part) come to accept women's control of their own sexuality, and broken down many other taboos as well -- probably on the basis of arguments from a competing moral system concerned with empathy and reciprocity. Selling sex is one of the last taboos. I even think I detect a bit of moral disapproval from you, though you're fair enough to extend it to the consumers of prostitution and pornography, as well as the providers.

Well, being that you are operating a legal business, it would be armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. If this woman was operating a legal business, it would be theft of service or defrauding a business and assault with a deadly weapon. If you are working in a liquor store; a man comes in; you sell him a bottle of rum; he says, "hey, here comes my friend, he wants one too"; you sell his friend a bottle; two more guys come in; the first guy pulls a gun; they proceed to force you to have sex with them and take all the liquor... it's armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon... and rape.



kimpossible seemed to say that consent is null when payment isn't made and, therefore, it's rape. Much of what I've stated is in response to that claim.



Okay, let's take another analogy.

You have a war. Two parties fighting one another.

A soldier goes out with his platoon... during a firefight, he gets separated from his team... he gets ambushed by five men and killed. Was the soldier murdered? Or was he simply killed doing his job?

Does this mean that a soldier can never be murdered? No. Does it mean that the people who killed this particular soldier could be charged with murder? No.

Remember Eleanor Roosevelt's "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent"? I believe it is not a prostitute who objectifies sex. It's people who think that prostitutes objectify sex that really do so. Whereas many prostitutes or their clients do not see their actions in that light at all.

Receiving compensation for something does not objectify it - unless you personally believe that it does. Do counsellors objectify friendship? After all, they listen to you and support you, like friends in many ways, except they are paid for it. When you apply for life insurance, you place a value on how much it is worth to you and your loved ones by how much you are willing to pay on a monthly basis. Does it make it anything different than a human life with all its complexities? The fact that sex is paid for an hourly basis and the fact that the prostitute has an emotional strategy for coping with it, do not make it any less personal and intimate.

Sex is not the service per se. Willing and consensual sex is the service. Otherwise you are opening up the argument that a raping a prostitute outside of "business hours" also may not be considered rape.

As many others said, sex against clearly expressed refusal of consent in absolutely any circumstances is rape.
In this case, it may have been theft of services, armed robbery or assault IN ADDITION to rape. But not instead of one.

Oh, please... it's not the people who think that prostitutes objectify sex that really do so... it's the people who think that the people who think that prostitutes objectify sex really do so that really do so.



This is my point. A counselor objectifies that particular friendship, don't they? It is a business transaction for them. You pay them, they listen and support you. If you fire your counselor, I doubt they will come back with the response, "But we've got a friendship." This doesn't mean that counselors reduce all of their relationships to business transactions, just as prostitutes don't reduce all of their sexual relationships to business transactions.



Nope I am not opening up that argument. I deny that argument.

Entspeak, I believe prostitutes do not objectify sex. You believe they do.
Are there objective criteria for this that make one of us right and another wrong, or is it a matter of interpretation? If latter, I do not think it belongs in a discussion that strives to be objective.



I see your point. You are not talking about abstract generalities, you discuss a situation in its specific context. So yes, you agree that prostitutes can be raped in general. But you don't believe a prostitute can be raped during a business transaction she originally consented to, is that correct?

Does it mean that a woman who entered a business transaction for sex has no right to alter it due to (i) a change of external circumstances, (ii) change in how her client behaves or (iii) simply because she no longer feels like doing it? Because this appears to be the fundamental distinction between you and your opponents in this discussion.

Well, one can have an objective interpretation, so I don't understand how something that is a matter of interpretation does not belong in a discussion that strives to be objective. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, right? That's a matter of interpretation. I believe that they aim to be objective (or should). So, with respect, I disagree on that point.

A cost structure is not objective criteria that shows that a prostitute during a session views sex as a business transaction - just as a counselor views his relationship with his client as a "service" and not a real relationship?



Thank you for informing me that I agree. I was wondering if I did... I wasn't sure that I agreed. I'm so glad that I actually did agree... because I really thought I did, but as I said, wasn't sure of my own agreement. Thanks for clearing that up.



Where did I ever state that she has no right to alter the business transaction? I never did. So, this doesn't appear to be the fundamental distinction between me and my "opponents" in this discussion.

War laws are not comparable. The laws of society do not change when a prostitute conducts business as they do when a society is at war. If killing is legal (as it is in certain cases of war and/or self-defense) it isn't murder. Murder is defined as illegal killing. Rape however, no matter the situation, is never legal. You're really, really reaching here.

Okay. Bad analogy.

But I think that Keepup's counselor analogy is a good one in terms of illustrating what I mean by the objectification of sex and the reduction of it to a business transaction.

A counselor provides a service - they listen, support, help with personal problems; things that one might do with a friend, a parent, a sibling or a spouse.
A prostitute provides a service - they spend time with a person and have sex with them; things that one might do with a friend, a spouse, a lover.

Counselors go home and have their own relationships that, while mirroring some aspects of their profession, are not viewed the same because while at work, it is a business transaction. There is a difference between the professional and the personal. And it is actually unethical to blur the line.

From what I understand, prostitutes work the same way. What they do at work is business, what they do outside of work is personal and it is considered unethical to blur the line. If, when the transaction is done, the john asks the prostitute if he can take her to breakfast... maybe a walk in the park, does she view the relationship as anything other than a business transaction? If she asks for more money and the client is confused because he thinks that there's something there because they just had great sex, does she acknowledge that the sexual relationship was anything other than a business transaction?

This is much like a counselor's experience when confronted with a client who wants to hang out with them. They explain that they do not have a friendship, they do not have anything other than a business relationship.

Now, if an established client comes to his counselor at the appointed, agreed upon time, pulls a gun and says, "You will listen to me, you will support me" basically forcing the counselor to do his job against his will and without payment, is this a business transaction gone wrong? Or is there more to it? Does the relationship between the client and the counselor suddenly become a personal relationship and not a business one? Yes, the counselor is assaulted. Can the counselor claim that the client abused their friendship?

I understand that there are no laws regarding abuse of friendship, I am trying to illustrate the nature of professional sex as opposed to personal sex. It is different, it is viewed differently by the individual selling - and most of the time by the individual buying.

Rape laws don't specify this difference, more than likely because prostitution is illegal in 49 states. They also don't specify things like, say, the time you have to realize mid coitus that your partner is withdrawing consent before what you are doing is rape. Courts interpret rape laws with respect to the circumstances of the particular incident before them.

I believe that to claim that a professional transaction gone very, very wrong is the same type of crime as pulling a woman walking down the street and forcing them to have sex diminishes the trauma of the latter. In my opinion, the prostitute in this case was assaulted, but not raped. You can't have sex be an impartial business transaction except when the transaction goes wrong.

Here's an angle I haven't seen here yet, might have missed it. But anyway, there's this thing about prostitution being illegal that balls up the whole works. However, if the prostitute is engaging in an illegal activity, so is the john, the customer.

Ergo, the illegality of prostitution cancels out by the illegality of soliciting prostitution. Now we're down to humans interacting like any other humans.

Forced sex is rape, and this sex was forced. Therefore the perps should be punished accordingly. Forget about the business transaction, both sides were in the wrong. One side, the customers, went over the edge into a felony, a sex crime, and should spend slammer time. Then they get to go on the sex crime list and be pariahs themselves for the rest of their lives. While in the slammer they might get to feel what rape is like.

Sounds like justice to me.

I can see entspeak's point - and everybody else's point, but I do agree that the prostitute has accepted some risks.

First, our precious little snowflake is a whore. She allows men she doesn't know to penetrate her regularly while all are committing crimes. Personally, I don't believe this should be illegal, but would this not be a factor in terms of credibility?

Clearly, she doesn't deserve to have a gun pointed at her head no matter what the circumstances - someone should go to prison for that. But doesn't the fact that people are engaged in illegal activity - including the prostitute - make the prostitute's claims suspect? I mean, how can someone who regularly violates the law and doesn't seem to mind her hoo-ha being violated by strangers on a daily basis suddenly become the poor victim?

If someone pulled a gun on her and forced himself on her, that is clearly rape. But how can anybody have a defense to her charges? If she decides after the fact she shouldn't have done that, is it rape? If the guy came up $5 short, is it rape? If the guy's check bounced, is it rape? How can a guy prepare a defense against serious charges if the only proof of that crime begin committed is another criminal's word?

I believe the disconnect between differing opinions is trying to make it into a black and white issue when it is not. The woman was complicit in committing a crime. Rape would not be an issue if the fundamental act of sex did not exist.

So, before everybody starts attacking me, I believe that if someone forces themselves on another, it's rape and they should go to prison. However, I'm not sure the prostitute should be allowed to claim rape unless there is clear convincing physical evidence it occurred. She should not be allowed to claim rape based on her word only. She is equally responsible in my opinion and there's a certain amount of risks she should be forced to accept. If she can claim rape on any level and without any proof, how can a man defend that? How is that equal protection under the law?

The easy is answer is to say, "well, that's the risks the man accepts when entering into this agreement", but I think that is a clear double standard. NONE of them should be in the situation and if the prostitute not been a prostitute, the likelihood of this happening would have not existed. I believe the burden of proof - not just words - is on her to prove rape existed. The proof of sex is not enough becuase that evidence would exist in either case.

Wow, wow, wow.


Why are you obsessed with sin? What's wrong with BoF's analogy? The cop understands he can be killed on the job. He takes a risk, regardless of his morality and worth as a human being, the criminal that shoots and kills a cop shouldn't be charged with murder.


If her credibility is shot to hell because you object to her morality (or lack thereof), she should never be able to file rape charges under any circumstance. Her credibility doesn't improve off the job. She is still a prostitute when she's not on her knees.

Do you extend guilt-by-profession to other criminals? Should we keep drug dealers, mobsters, white collar criminals, etc. off the stand when they're victims of crime just because? Or is it the dirty snatch factor what makes you feel ignoring victimizing prostitutes is justified?


Duh, DR. If the burden wasn't on women and prosecutors to prove rape there'd be more wrongly accused men in jail than any other criminal class, which no doubt is exactly what some of you believe.

I disagree with Jobius, somewhat. It's not just contamination. In the U.S. we're used to devaluing the criminal class across the board, some more than others. So when someone we really object to is murdered behind bars, all is well. It doesn't surprise me that this indifference would extend to criminals outside the justice system. Tacit approval of vigilantism just evolved, or regressed, depending how you look at it.

Well, in this particular case, the same guy was charged again with the same crime by a completely different woman.

And how are you supposed to come up with convincing evidence? One of the many problems with rape cases, in general, is that the evidence is almost always circumstancial. Rape victims often dont follow the "proper" procedures, because those procedures are incredibly impersonal and intrusive. Additionally, many rape victims during the trial are treated as if they are whores, having to answer personal details about their sex life, as if that had any bearing on the current claim of rape.

Rape is generally based on the perceptions of one person, often there is only two people to actually witness the act: the victim and the perpetrator. What would you rather have? A bunch of video cameras all over, just in case, to help prove rape cases?

Furthermore, prostitution is a different kind of crime than rape. I think that prostitution is a misdemeanor offense, while rape is a felony. This makes one more serious.

Catherine MacKinnon makes an important point about prostitutes and civil rights:



And seriously, a criminal still has the same rights that the rest of us do. Simply because she's a prostitute, youre saying the standards in her trial need to be more stringent than that of a regular citizen. This idea clearly violates several different laws, most obviously the 14th and 5th Amendment.

How am I obsessed with sin?

Gee - that didn't take long. Want me to stand by and wait for a little more self-righteousness so I can answer all at once? I never questioned the morality. I think that if consenting adults want to have sex for fun or profit, they should be allowed to.

But the bottom line is, she's a whore. Regardless of why she's having sex for profit, that is what she does. Did I miss a definition somewhere or because I should be more sensitive to someone's crappy decisions in life, I should use something more politically correct?

Anybody that is not a prostitute who claims rape with evidence of penetration has a case. There is physical evidence of penetration (in most cases) and there is no evidence the woman regularly consents to sex with people she doesn't know. Conversely, the prostitute willingly puts herself in a position that makes it impossible to gather facts. Evidence of penetration cannot be used because that evidence would exist either way - with or without consent. The reason the group of people are together in the first place is because of sex. I don't believe it's fair to lower the bar because the woman sucks at life. Nobody is forcing her to whore her vagina out to strangers and 99% of the women in the world have more sense.

Obviously, I'm going to be on the wrong side of this argument in AD terms, but I don't feel sorry for someone who makes awful decisions. When I make bad decisions, I'm fully accountable. And I would expect the same of anybody else. Every justification for her "sexworker" behavior can be used for every bad decision that person makes whether it's sexual or not. The consequences of her behavior is that she needs to share the equal burden of proof in making criminal accusations. Saying she was raped is not enough because the sole purpose of meeting was sex.

I make no apologies for demanding equality between men and women. I am not going to allow her greater latitude in terms of legal constraints because she's a woman. She is clearly complicit in this situation because her offer for sex brought all parties together. Had she not done this the situation would have never existed. In my opinion, the fact that these people were brought together in the first place implies consent at some point int time.

That's right, you didn't question her morality. You're just passing judgment on it. I mean that's why you're talking about hoo haas and whores, right? That's why women who don't prostitute themselves can have evidence of penetration. All that penetration stretches the hoo haa to an unrecognizable blob a rape kit has no hope of sorting out. Yes, DR, prostitutes probably use their vaginas more frequently than other women. Penetrated vagina.


How do you make a distinction for a wife who claims rape, or a young woman who "objectifies sex" enjoying one night stands without charging for it?


The only people lowering the bar are those who think "theft of services" excludes rape when the job is prostitution. I mean what the hell is that, lowering the bar? Do you think the medical assistant is going to pluck 12 pubic hairs from a prostitute instead of 6 to make double sure or something?


Why can't you also be victimized for your wrong decisions? Why can't the Enron white collar criminal have his skull bashed for depleting the life savings of some poor sap who made the wrong investment decision?


And once again, who the hell is saying it's enough for her to say she was raped? The only thing I've said about the judge is she accepted charges against the prostitute based on her own moral judgment, not the law.


You mean because she's a prostitute. That's the only statement that makes sense. Nobody's asking for special justice because she's a woman, but others are certainly asking for less because she's a prostitute. You included. She had it coming, after all.

PREMISES:
(1) the defendant does not contest the details of the original and modified verbal contract.
(2) the plaintiff duly informed the defendent of his violation of their contract through objection of some sort.
(3) the monetary aspect of the contract is itself illegal, but consensual sex is not illegal, therefore the non-financial terms of the contract can be considered separately from the legality of the financial transaction.

I think the basic issue here is: can consensual sex become nonconsensual during the course of it? Of course. It is well acknowledged that people can change their minds as events change. It is for that reason even husbands can be charged with raping wives despite the tacit sexual contract bestowed by matrimony.

I would think because prostitution involves a much more immediate and well-determined verbal contract than would exist in other cases of casual consensual sex, the curbs of consent would be more obvious.

The types of sex were negotiated as the terms of a verbal contract between buyer and seller. To fulfill the contract both parties must abide by the terms of that contract. Since the contract was in breach the moment the buyer added a weapon and other men, I think all subsequent actions should be judged as they appear, namely, as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sexual assault (rape). One can not argue in this case the contract was both being fulfilled and broken at the same time. The contract is consent. Once broken, it no longer is in effect.

Look, I can't totally keep saying it wasn't rape. Because I agree with what another writer wrote. A prostitute has willing sex with another person for money. Depending on the law I would say that rape begins whenever that law dictates. If she screaming saying "no" and they force themselves on her... that is rape.

Here is the problem... everyone, or at least many of you, are getting on this Judge. The judge did the right thing. No reasonable Jury can find these men guilty of rape, and if you think they can, you exemplify the exact reason why the Judge did the right thing.




It's impossible to prove. Lets use your analogy, but use an illegitimate event like say... an illegal fight club. So the fighter goes on to fight one guy and you get paid 100 dollars. The promoter says... what do you think on taking on a second guy at once. Thje fighter is like "as long as you pay me" Now you are fighting a second... then all of a sudden here come a third, then a fourth, then a fifth, but on the fifth guy the fighter just sits down. beat and battered so the fifth guy doesn't fight the fighter. The guy doesn't get paid the 400 dollars he is owed.

Is it assault Mrs. P??? Add to that... instead of going to the police... he leaves that fight club and goes to another fight club to make some more money.

QUOTE

Couldn't have said it better myself MOIF Now in court of law how do you show someone who suffered what you wrote when talking about a women who after being raped is going right back out and making more money selling sex.

Lesly and Kimpossible

I understand your sarcasm. But it is this simple...

If she consents but doesn't get paid It is not rape. If she does not consent and does not get paid, it is rape.

So move on to evidence.

Rape Kit?? useless. Trauma... had sex with another client afterwards...

In the end we know she was crying, but how do we know why? Was she crying out of frustration because she felt she scared and felt she was not going to get paid? Having sex with another client that night does seem to make her lose credibility, I would say.

Kind of like the fighter in the fight club, what evidence do we have?? The bruises on his face?? HE IS IN A FIGHT CLUB!!!!

What evidence is the Judge supposed to admit?? Vaginal tears?!?!? Semen residue??

That is the problem with cases such as rape... people forget the concept....

INNOCCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

You want this case to go to trail, with no reliable evidence. The courts are not supposed to roll the dice that there will be a fair jury, when evidence is so lacking.

Wait, how are you asking for equality between men and women? Other rape victims' testimonies are valid, but that of a prostitute is not? Additionally, if a man was raped, those charges rest solely on his testimony, if he was not penetrated anally, then he would have no physical evidence of rape. How exactly do you figure that your way of doing things is "more equal"?

I think there's a lot wrong with the process of proving rape charges; however, in this instance, but men and women are already treated equally, as victims. Their testimonies are heard, and if there's is physical evidence, it's taken into account.

However, there's an imbalance between victim and accused perpetrator: namely, the woman is always treated as a whore, regardless of her profession. Many times, their sexual histories are dragged through the court room, in an attempt to "prove" that because a woman has engaged in several sexual encounters, then she "deserved" the one encounter that she did not consent to. And well, boys will be boys.

And as for being "complicit", yeah, OK. If that cheerleader hadn't gotten drunk at the party, then the basketball team wouldn't have raped her; if that woman hadn't married that man, then he wouldn't have raped her; if that girl wasn't a stripper, the client wouldn't have raped her. Women are never the victims, only the instigators, right?

Making stupid decisions in your life doesnt mean you deserve to be raped. Nor does it mean the law doesn't apply to you.

Sure - I passed judgment on it. I think she's making stupid and dangerous decisions. Unlike everybody else not passing judgment on her poor victim status who is an innocent sexworker not deserving consequences of her actions. I guess you got me there.


That may be true for others, but not for me. I think that if a man or woman does not consent to sex and another forces him/herself on others, that is rape. My problem is, the prostitute is no more believable then the people accused of a crime different then the one they ALL are committing. Most women claiming rape are not in a position where an offer for sex is the basis for the people being together. This is not true of prostitutes.


If I rob a bank because I got laid off, can't find a job, and need to feed my family, I go to prison. Much like a prostitute, there are many different ways to take care of yourself and your family, but some ways are both illegal and dangerous. If I rob a bank to feed my family, I risk a headshot by someone from a SWAT team.

But assuming I go to prison instead of having my brains blown out - possibly a more serious consequence then non-consensual sex - I will be sodomized on a regular basis by gangs of thugs more powerful than me. I won't see anybody feeling sorry for me. Instead, I make decisions that keep me out of prison.


This is why these types of debates are so interesting. People are so self-righteous and pretentious in their opinions, that they have to create opinions for people that don't agree. Nowhere did I say she had it coming. Nowhere did I even infer that. My point is, is that consent was implied the moment a group of people came together for the purpose of sex. These people would not have been assembled if the prostitute were not offering sex. It is possible that she said no and was raped. If so, the accused should got o jail and rot - that's rape. But I say there needs to be incontrovertible proof (video, confession, etc) that does not require the testimony of the prostitute. Because we know nobody - much like Michale Nifong - would ever make false claims against someone for personal gain.

Did you forget that there was a gun involved? The gun makes it rape. Even if she got paid, but they forced her at gunpoint to have sex, it is still rape.

Coerced sex is rape. The presence of the gun makes it rape, because as I've stated several times before, she can no longer safely back out of her agreement. How is this not rape? Her life is in jeopardy; of course she agreed to have sex. I probably would too if someone was pointing a gun at me.

Just because she is a prostitute does not mean the instant she agrees to meeting someone, she cannot change her mind.

Additionally, do you think that a wife can be raped by her husband? Because that's just as difficult to prove, and sex is something that regularly occurs between a couple.



This may surprise you, but not all rape convictions are based on physical evidence. Many people report rape days, weeks, or months after the incident. Many people don't ever report. Physical evidence would be useful, but is not necessary.

OOO, I am soooo happy you used this Analogy BOF, because, yes, many a case of assault against myself, LEOs and correctional officers get thrown out because there is a "reasonable expection of violence being committed against you"- in fact, I have had the AG for all of Alaska tell me this personally on the phone- bouncers also often fall under this, and are not allowed to prosecute violent offenders because of the reasonable expectation that we WILL be assualted at work. I can think of over 100 times that has happened in the last year alone, that I have first hand knowledge of- NOT second hand.

A police officer can be nearly routinely assaulted without any charge sticking to the assailent- they have to follow a pretty specific criteria in order to move forward- but at least they get to fight back! In my hospital- they will even punish staff for protecting themselves- I have gone to many a disciplinary hearing regarding someone simply protecting themselves fom harm.

Bounty hunters can't sue or press charges for assault done to thier person's either- and there is even a decision coming down soon as to whether a person can even be charged at all in the death of a bounty hunter storming a guys house and getting himself and two of his cohorts killed- by a really bad guy- but part of the decision will be based on the reasonable expectation of this happening by storming the felon's house.

There is nothing in your entire post that is relevant to my argument. The reason she is treated like a whore is because she IS a whore. If you don't want to be treated like one, don't be one.

All these examples of cheerleaders getting drunk, Enron executives, etc are entirely bogus. An offer of sex was not the foundation of any of these examples. The prostitute was offering sex. She wasn't offering to clean their house, rub their back, or go grocery shopping for them. She agreed to have sex with these people under certain conditions. If the conditions didn't exist, she would not consent to sex. But she needs to prove those conditions didn't exist lest we allow prostitutes to extort money from men whenever she feels like it. For example, she says "I'll have sex with your for $100.". So, they have sex. Afterwards, she says "You need to get me $10,000 by tomorrow or I'll go to the police and tell them you raped me". Comments about how the guy should have known better starts in 3...2...1...

Nobody has spoken differently. Why do you bring this up?


Actually, yes Droop. The criminal justice system rolls the dice all the time with an unbiased jury. If you object to that, make an argument for changing the jury selection process, not the criminal justice system in cases of rape. Keeping jurors who have moral objections to prostitution out of the jury box in this case would be fabulous. Not to mention necessary considering responses on this thread.

As for the rape kit, my problem with the judge's decision is this:

"The transcript doesn't necessarily tell the whole story," said [Judge Deni's] lawyer George Bochetto, who said that Deni also considers a witness's tone of voice, demeanor and other factors in her rulings.

[Chancellor] Dalton, in response, said that witness credibility should not be an issue at a preliminary hearing, where a judge decides whether prosecutors have probable cause to charge someone.

Probable cause doesn't appear to have even been a factor in the judge's decision. Or maybe it did, but the judge's morality and her idea of when rape is "real rape" won.


This is precious. You're projecting. I can't break down the prostitute "is clearly complicit in this situation because her offer for sex brought all parties together" than with simply stating, she had it coming. If you're not a bad girl, you're not complicit in the situation.

I hardly think I'm righteous, DR, but, like you admit, you pass judgment. I reserve my judgment for her breaking the law because prostitution is illegal in PA, but her law-breaking doesn't void the illegal activities of others in the commission of a crime.


There is no reason to not make the same demands of every rape case. If you want to be extra sure once, being extra sure every time is more likely to ensure justice.

The gun makes it rape why?? She is in an abandoned building on the north side of Philly. The article state "a gun was pulled out" What does that mean? She was held at gunpoint? Does this guy routinely carry a gun?? Is is a thug?? Was he pulling the gun out so that he could pull down his pants and insert his penis without shooting himself??

If a cop pulls out his gun and puts it on the dresser does he become a rapist to whoever he has sex with?

Maybe it's just me but having sex in an abandoned building clues me in that she was having sex with some seriously nefarous characters... the type that carry pistols.

If she took the money it shows more credence that it was consentual.

QUOTE

She might have been frightened when she had sex in the abandoned building... did that make it rape. If she feels like I'm stuck, which I can believe... by the way she may have felt this was regardless of gun or not.. and I'm sure you'd care less if there was a gun or not, there is no way you have rape from someone consenting to a business deal, even though she is scared.



No it doesn't surprise me, but it is a problem with our legal system. However, even the trauma of rape is impossible to prove when you have a client that goes and has sex again hours later, for money.



Like I told Kimpossible, it does and it shouldn't. Don't get mad at the Judge for doing her job. You aren't showing trauma. You arent showing physical evidence. And your number 1 character witness is acting illicitly and has a grudge to bear, seeing she did not get paid.



Yeah real rape. Meaning someone forced you, not "I'm gonna get you for not paying me!!"

REAL RAPE


That is what this judge is rightly concerned about.

That's because you can't comprehend my point. You've decided what my point is without really trying to understand what it is in reality.

She did not have it coming. Nobody should be raped and anybody that does rape should go to prison for a very, very long time. It doesn't matter if you're a prostitute or nun. My point is, you believe she's been raped and all this crap has been done to her without incontrovertible evidence. Her burden of proof should be higher because she is offering sex. The only reason these people are together is all are consenting adults willing to have sex - including the prostitute. The problem is, when did that offer stop (assuming it did). In my opinion, the prostitute's word is not good enough.

If I'm alone with a woman on a date and I perceive signals she wants to move further forward in a physical sense, I may make some subtle moves to test those waters. If I get rebuffed, I'm done. She did not go on a date with me to have sex. She went on a date with me for a multitude of other reasons having nothing to do with sex. But it could be sex. However, if I decide to have sex with her no matter what she says, she has lots of evidence. Nothing indicates sex was a factor in the date and there is physical evidence.

If I'm alone with a prostitute (again, assuming she is working - not at home baking cookies and working on her garden), no other reason exists to be together. There is nothing stopping her from claiming consent did not exist any point before, during, or after the physical act. Yet, we want to claim she was raped based off whatever she says. Given there is no defense to this type of behavior, how can we charge someone with rape? Why doesn't the man have an equal chance in the legal fight? Why does he get branded as a rapist when nobody but the two could ever know the truth? And when is she working and not working? How can she prove she was or wasn't working?

There are simply too much subjective criteria to charge someone with rape. Without incontrovertible evidence, it's the price of engaging in risky behavior.

Hmm, DR does bring up a good point- who has the higher burden of proof, and is there a lack of reliable evidence as to why this case was thrown out? Is it just a he-said/she-said type of deal- and, if it is, who has the higer burden of proof to prove the charge?

SEx crimes are a wierd thing, because simply being charged with the crime, no matter the guilt or innocence- has an accompanying punishment, wihout even a legal conviction. They are punished in the court of public opinion.

And like with the Duke Lacrosse rape accusations- there needs to be a better burden of proof, and even more importantly- there needs to be a mechanism for throwing false claimants in jail- the Duke case, they should throw that piece of work in jail - not a female only jail- they need to put her in a federal mens prison and get raped for the rest of her miserable existance- but in reality- there is no punishment whatsoever, in any way, for the false claimant.

Now, if the accounts we have heard are to be believed, and everything the prostitute says is ACTUALLY true (which, without corrobarating comments and evidence- I would say her word is completely non-credible, in any way, shape or form. ) - if they are actually true- I think it would be considered rape in my state, because threat of physical violence was the co-ercive entity in the act.

But what I do object to these days is the "guilty until proved innocent" arena we are in now regarding rape and sex crimes- the pendulum has swung too far the other direction, needs to go back the other way a bit.

Apparently the evidence was good enough to convince the judge. She didn't throw out the charges based on the grounds of insufficient evidence. She accepted the evidence as sufficient, and then changed the definition of unconsentual sex at gunpoint from rape to a lesser charge, based on the woman's occupation and her initial reason for coming to the place (to have sex with her client).

Now, from a social perspective do you think that men who brandish a gun and rape a prostitute should be free to run around on the streets? You believe these fellows will never offend again after this? Here's a question for you. How would a woman prove she isn't a prostitute (assuming she's not) if this sets some sort of precedent for the defense of future gang rape? "Hey! We didn't rape her, she asked for money and we didn't pay." Just curious.

Now, I am no legal scholar, and the more I read into this decision, the more confused I actually become- why did the judge come to the decision again? Was it because the sex was consensual, but the money never showed? Did she imply consent for all 5, regardless of the gun, prior to the gang bang? (um, Mrs P, in this area, gang bang means what you think it means- has nothing to do with being in a gang in this case )

So, how did the judge come to this decision? Was it consensual sex, but a gun happened to be part of the role playing fun, and she got seller's remorse- or, did the slimy dudes here (and the EEEEWWW factor is quite high here ) have consensual sex, when it involved two men, but no consent for five men?

You don't make sense. By determining whether a crime didn't take place on the basis that the alleged victim didn't break down and sob you're setting yourself up for being fooled by a false accuser that will.

Actually, the business arguments made in the thread don't make sense either, now that I think about them. If women know their assailants won't be charged with rape when they work in prostuttion, there may be fewer prostitutes overall, whether prostitution is legal or illegal. Maybe that's that point? If DR wants cameras for evidence there sure as hell won't be any johns because extortion may no longer be a possibility. Maybe that's the point too.


How do you know she was getting back at the men for not paying her? Has she been found a liar in the court of Droop and Judge Deni opinion?


The burden of proof is always on the accuser. I don't know why this is even an issue. It never comes up when the accuser is a 12-year-old.


We want to claim the accused should be charged with rape instead of theft of services. It's up to a jury to decide from there.


Why don't you ask for incontrovertible evidence in all rape cases? There are rape cases where it is he-said/she-said. Why not those cases too? What's to stop a pregnant girlfriend from demanding hush money from a cheating husband?

I think you could be a bit more understanding that people don't necessarily become 'whores' because they make crappy decisions. A lot pf people become prostitutes only because they don't have any other choices. There is such a thing as context. Many a person is forced into sexual servitude by debt, lack of job possibilities, the necessity's of children and worst of all other criminals who use the threat of violence to force women to work as prostitutes.

And essentially isn't any one who sells themselves in return for a wage a 'whore' of a sort and the only thing that really seperates prostitutes from all other 'whores' is the sexual nature of their occupation and the moral indignation and delusions of superiority this generates in the general public? You've stated previously that you don't believe prostitution should be illegal, so then why is it a crappy decision to be a whore, unless in doing so women leave themselves open to the abuse and degredation we see in this case here?


I find this hard to reconcile with my observations regarding the nature o