So, here's the story:
Hooker raped and robbed - by justice system?



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

This is an odd story. Ultimately 5 men show up. One, seeing she is crying scatters the others and cleans her up and dresses her. She agreed to sex with at least 2 men according to the story. The judge, a woman, drops the rape charges and suggests "theft of services"...

OK... so on with entspeak's question.

Christ I have no freaking idea. I mean, look:

Prostitution is illegal in Philadelphia, so there was no legal contract made.
If sex is her trade and sex is what she sells... if she were a plumber and they didn't pay for a fixed leak... I have no idea.
OK, OK... so all 4 of these people (the guy who helped her excluded) should be sterilized because they all bring humanity down.
However, not too long ago the concept of raping your wife was foreign...
OK, OK... so take away the prostitute part... and the money. She agrees to have sex with two but then 2 more show up and force her to do them? Rape.

She was raped.

BUT

If you're a prostitute and you agree to sex and don't get paid that is NOT rape. That is "theft of services".

Hmmm... I think theft of services is probably an accurate decision. Consider that the article says:


Seriously. I would never advocate raping prostitutes, but this one isn't cut and dry.

In my opinion, rape is a word that automatically presents a victim. Unfortunately, in this case it appears that the crime commited was heinous and deplorable. The issue I have is that she didn't immediately dial 911 from the car... that there wasn't a sense of urgency about it.

Furthermore, she took another "appt" right afterwards.

This judge probably made the right call, but still should throw the book at the guys. Their faces should be plastered all over network news, and their names released for all to see. I'm not sure how long "theft" can get you, but hopefully some time behind bars all things considered.

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

As far as I am concerned, the key word here is consent. This woman consented to have sex with one, then two guys in return for money. Whether or not prostitution is legal, at that point, no rape has been committed.

The moment consent is withdrawn, no matter how frustrating it might be for the other party, to continue to sexually force oneself onto another person, is rape. There after ne can debate the legality of paying for sex or whether or not a contract was broken, but regardless of any other considerations, when a woman says no, it means to ignore her is to rape her.

This woman was raped.

The problem with being a man.

My first question is this. Has anyone corroborrated the story that she was forced at gunpoint to perform this??

Second question. And I have to say I see the Judges point on this: What make rape such a horrible crime? And does this apply to someone who sales her body like a commodity, and i'm not talking about at anytime?? I'm talking about at that time!!

I'm not saying.. she's a ho so anytime she refuses she deserves it. I'm saying... when you turn sex into a business deal... how off is a judge to say.. handle it in civil court??

Is she crying because she got raped, or is she crying because she got cheated. I mean she went out to her next clent that same night... that same night "she got raped!!!"

I can't say the Judge made a good decision or bad... but it was certainly controversial.

I've always believed the law is too biased in protecting women, I mean come on.. they have "victim's rights" before it is even proven they are. They are presumed victims, thereby making the accussed rapist presumed guilty, which is a direct contradiction to the law.

From a legal standpoint...

We know she sells her body
We know she made a business transaction with some of the men she claimed raped her.
We know she claims to have not getting paid the money she requested.
We know she continued having sex that night with another client. (at least that is what the judge eluded to)

How is any reasonable jury to determine there was rape beyond a reasonable doubt??

While I feel it is possible to rape a prostitute, I am not inclined to believe this legally constitutes rape. This woman was engaging in an illegal endeavor that specifically involved payment for performance of a sexual act. Engaging in illegal activity has inherent hazards. In my opinion, there is a big difference between raping a woman who happens to be a prostitute and raping a woman during the act of prostitution. The latter changes sex into a business transaction - legal or otherwise - as such, I don't think the laws regarding rape apply. Had this woman not been engaging in an illegal business transaction, she wouldn't have been in the situation. She might have a case for assault, however. She definitely wouldn't have a case for robbery or theft of services.

In a place where prostitution is legal, this situation would be a case for armed robbery and theft of services.

I honestly can't believe most of the answers here. If this happened to a woman you knew, would you feel the same way? Let's say, hypothetically, a girl had a boyfriend who suggested they have threesome. She agrees, but instead of a threesome, the third party shows up with a gun, and a few more people. I guess that doesn't count as rape either, because she consented?...

I suppose its somewhat telling that all the replies thus far are from men.

Simply because a victim is a prostitute does not mean that they are incapable of being raped.

A telling point in the article:



There's a clear difference between consenting to have sex with two people, and then having sex with a gun involved. In fact, I would say that pretty much proves the sex was coerced, instead of voluntary.

Also, the idea that the woman should have immediately called 911 after the incident...Yes, it would be nice if everything fit into your fantasy of how "real" victims behave; but the fact of the matter is that not everyone reacts the same way to the same situation. Someone in the prostitution business has more reason to be suspicious of the law (and rightfully so, if this case is standard procedure on how to deal with raped prostitutes...a lot of help the law has been); and because they lower the barriers around their bodies, they are less likely to react to rape in the same way.

While I have no direct experiences with prostitutes, I have read several accounts by prostitutes: the industry makes you care less about your body. Many of the women who have been forced to perform sex acts they never agreed to generally do not call the police, because they fear exactly what happened in this story: everyone assumes because they work as a prostitute, they somehow "deserved it."

Rape is rape is rape. It doesn't matter what job you do, it doesn't matter if you agreed then decided against it, it doesnt matter if you were drunk at the time. When you are forced to perform a sex act that you are unwilling to do, then it is rape.

Actually that's where i think we go wrong. There are degrees and there are circumstances. I don't think of rape when someone agrees to have sex and then stays stop, is the same rape as when a man forces you down rips off the clothes. I don't see a woman who gets drunks and gets tooken advantage of as rape like I would some one who slipped you a drug so that you were incapacitated in the same regards.



Well isn't that the problem with finding objectiveness to the situation. "Instead of thinking objectively, let's pretend it is your mama, daughter, sister, or wife who is screaming rape" Yeah that the way to have a fair trial!!

Look, Kim, are the accussed admitting that "yeah, we held her at gunpoint" or is the victim??

And another thing... no one deserves to be raped. But no one needs to feel super bad when you but yourself in situations that inevitably lead to "pseudo rape". When she went in o that building her intentions were to have sex. She stuck around because she still intended to have sex with the next guy.

The problem did not arise due to sex it rose due to lack of dividends. She was acting in the role of a "service provider". She was providing a service. She claims some one took her services with out paying.

The two situations aren't the same. I do agree, and have stated as much, that just because a woman is a prostitute does not mean they are incapable of being raped.



Ignores the business nature of the sex involved in this particular situation.



Also ignores the business nature of the sex involved in this particular situation.

This is a dangerous way of seeing rape that serves to justify not punishing the crime. It ultimately leads to "Well, some people deserve to be raped." Sure, you may not say it like that, but essentially, it's the same thing. Women don't deserve to be seen as victims, simply because they might get drunk. Or work as prostitutes.
A few years back, Quarkhead stated something along the lines of "I don't care if a woman is walking around naked with a sign that says 'DO ME', if she says no, then it's rape." People can be put themselves in stupid situations, but that doesnt make a crime against them any less serious. Just because you leave your door unlocked, does that mean it's OK for people to rob you? No. And any thief who was caught robbing someone would still be deemed a criminal.



That was not the purpose of my comment. I was not trying to say we should imagine a friend in the same situation, in order to make an emotional appeal. Rather, I was trying to say that when rape happens to stranger, it's easy to say "Oh, well, they were stupid." But if it happened to someone you knew, while acknowledging it was a stupid situation, people are quicker to see the wrongness of the rape.



This is typical. There's nothing else to argue, if you feel this way. Apparently, its OK for some women to be raped, while its not OK for others.



Wrong. The exact same crime happened a few days later, with a woman, by the same perpetrator. Although this does not constitute a crime spree, it does indicate that this isn't something people do simply because they do not have money. It also indicates that this guy is choosing his victims precisely because they will not be believed.






This is crap. So what? Rape is being forced to perform sex acts. There is nothing in the definition of rape that says otherwise. In fact, two crimes can be committed at the same time (you know, there can be a robbery AND a murder, or a rape AND a murder), and if you want to include the "business" nature of the situation, then you could say it included theft AND rape. But to deny that any rape occurred is ludicrous.

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

I Googled "Definition: Rape" and got several pages. The first one that was for a legal definition (as opposed to debate threads or articles discussion what rape should or should not be) was from the Washington State penal code:



Edited to add:

I also found the Pennsylvania penal code definition of rape, which is the one that would apply in this case:


(As far as I am aware, legal codes are not copyrighted material so I'm okay to post this definition in full within the rules of , but I'm open to correction.)

Nowhere in this definition do "prostitution" or "provision of a service" get mentioned. So those aspects of the case you outline are completely irrelevant.

I don't doubt that different states and countries define rape differently, but it seems to me that this defintion is good enough to be going on with.

The important idea is that, even where force or weapons or abuse of power are not used, it's still rape (albeit, in WA, 3rd degree rape and presumably less serious an offence) as long as consent is withheld or withdrawn. And, to my mind, the only circumstance in which such non-violent and unforced sexual intercourse where consent was withdrawn after commencement would be if that withdrawal of consent took place after cessation. i.e. a person might regrat having had sex with someone, and may wish that they hadn't but if they don't express in words or conduct their lack of consent while intercourse is still taking place, they just have to put it down to experience. (That's assuming they are conscious and/or in a fit state to give consent; if they aren't, were back to rape again - in this WA to 2nd degree rape._

Since a gun was used, and consent was withdrawn, this was rape. Pure and simple.

Mitigating circumstances - "she was a hooker and went off with her next 'client' straight away", "she changed her mind halfway through", "she was asking for it", "it went off in my hand", "I didn't know it was illegal" - are to be taken into account in the passing of the sentence. They make no difference at all to the offence charged or to the verdict passed, because those things should be based on - and only on - the available evidence. Call me an idealist if you like, but the justice system is supposed to be about the ideal of justice. (We all no that there isn't really any reliable natural justice - which is why we have to have a justice system at all.)

Of course, the trouble with rape - especially the type of rape that would be 3rd degree rape in WA (and that didn't take place in this case) - is that there are no marks and no evidence and, almost certainly, no witnesses.

And I still believe it's more important that innocent people don't get convicted incorrectly than guilty people go free, so I don't want to see any legal exceptionalism in rape cases like some people argue for (e.g. that the burden of proof should be reversed, that the standard for conviction should change from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on balance of probablities" etc.)

In such situations, it becomes one person's word against anothers. While I doubt it is very common (at the moment), there have been enough documented cases where a "victim" has - maliciously or otherwise - cried wolf when it comes to rape that we can never allow the uncorroborted word of a self-proclaimed victim to be enough to convict anybody (of anything, not just rape).

If I go into a store and take something without paying for it, I am guilty of theft. If I take something from a person that isn't for sale, I am guilty of theft. The action of taking something doesn't become less-than-theft because it was stolen from the store and might have been bought.

Nonconsentual sex is rape.

Then you are arguing that they stole her services... that is theft of service - which was sex. If she was not engaging in prostitution - the sale of sex - at the time, I would definitely say that she was raped. It would be difficult to charge the defendant with a theft of an illegal service.

As I stated previously, she has may have a case for assault, but not for rape.

It's another American-women-don't-get-raped-any-more thread, or another she-asked-for-it thread, or maybe another it's-her-turn-to-suck-it-up-for-falsely-accused-men thread. Debate? The usual suspects will be debating the ghosts in their heads first and foremost.

Judge Teresa C. Deni should be disbarred. She superceded the law with her morality.

"Did she tell you she had another client before she went to report it?" Deni asked me yesterday when we met at a coffee shop.
"I thought rape was a terrible trauma."
A case like this, she said - to my astonishment - "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped."

So Judge Deni also thinks prostitutes don't need to see a trial because prostitutes more interested in taking care of thier children can't get raped. Yet, that is essentially the danger illegal prostitutes face, and even legal prostitutes.

A Nevada rape crisis counselor explained, "Men think they can get away with rape here."

They sure can in Phily.

Question- If someone steals crack or some other illegal drug from another, can they still sue? That seems to be an issue here.

Another thing- She agreed to sex with two of the men, so I don't think those two should be charged with rape, but the others should, if the rape charge can even stand.

The "stealing servi

I think you missed the point of Mrs. P's post. I think that she was making an analogy between rape and theft; not equating the two. Hence her final sentence (which you conveniently ignore) states: Nonconsensual sex is rape.

Additionally, thanks to Julian to providing legal definitions of rape, which clearly state that rape is forced sex, regardless of the situation.

You know, I really hate that phrase. Always, in one deabte or another, it'll come up, almost as surely as a reference to hitler and and his dancing singing cohort of merry aryan men.

Pure and simple? It never is.

Prostitution constitutes a "service." Alright, up till there, I can agree. What a grown woman wants to do with her own body is not the business of any other individual, man or woman alike. Still, when you allow this definition, does armed rape undergo a shift as well? Perhaps, into armed robbery?

A case has really gotten out of hand, when a woman, who has been subjected to (alleged) non-consensual sex under a gun-barrel, can only sue, at best, for "theft of services".

How does the court even word that? "The accused has been found guilty of taking valuable services from the prosecution without pay?" Yeesh.

Entspeak is right; when a woman decides to sell her body on the streets, she is partially responsible for any calumnies or ungodly horrors that befall her whilst she is...working. But to take that judgement to the point of ignoring a charge of armed rape....that goes too far.

Perhaps it is time to rethink several of our non-consent laws, in regards to prostitution.

I see. Well, her analogy is a bit misstated then. If you go into a store and take something without paying for it, you are guilty of shoplifting... which, while a form of theft, is not the same type of theft that occurs when you steal an item from someone that isn't for sale. You can't shoplift from someone who isn't selling something.

Now, these men did steal something. They stole the services of a woman who was in the act of selling sex. This is markedly different from raping a woman who is not engaged in that specific business activity.

You can't have sex be a business transaction for the effect of payment, but not a business transaction if something goes wrong with the service, the client or the payment.

If you are selling animals in a store and someone steals it and kills it, it is robbery and they can be charged with theft and destruction of property - you can't sue for emotional distress. If someone steals your pet and kills it, however, you can.

Its not only that the two men did not pay. It's that they held her at gunpoint and gangbanged her with three other men (or two). Im sorry, I am not sure how that's merely "theft of services." She did not consent to being gangbanged, or even to have sex, or held at gunpoint. She withdrew her consent. Once she withdraws consent (and there's no evidence she had engaged in sex, in the middle of the transaction, decided against it) the "business" part of the transaction is over; furthermore, her consent is null if there is no money involved, since that is the premise under which she consented. And instead of leaving once the business deal was denied, they held her at gunpoint and raped her.

This is more than just a sex transaction gone wrong; it is rape.

Not if you look at it from the perspective that johns, not the prostitute, determine when shop is closed. Rapists should be given the beneift of the doubt, right? I mean they see a vagina and their brains short circuit.

Well, the service was sex... she was selling that service... they took that service.

So, if I want to buy something from a store, the store owner refuses to sell it to me, the business transaction is over and if I take it from them, it's something more than shoplifting?



So, if a John stiffs a prostitute her consent is null and it's rape? If you're in a brothel in Nevada, you stiff the prostitute you can be charged with rape?

This is the problem I have with this. This is so very different from instances where sex is not a business transaction.

If they used a weapon, as was the case here, that would be armed robbery, and it's a felony.



I expect that the johns pay first. If they don't pay (or their credit cards bounce), they don't use the service.



It's only different because it is harder to prove. Otherwise, it's pretty simple. If you are a boxer, you are paid to fight for a living. If someone pays you enough money you will get into a ring and box with them for that price. This would not be assault. But if you agree to box with someone and then four other people jump in and pound you into the ground by surprise, they are as guilty of assault as they would be if you didn't box for a living. Furthermore, even though you box for a living this doesn't mean that anyone can hit you at any time because there are times in which you receive payment for this service. If they were to do so, they would suffer the same consequences as any other person for the crime of assault...they wouldn't be charged simply with 'non-payment for boxing services rendered'. Can someone on the street pull off a rugby players ears because the sport rips them to shreds anyway? "It's okay, folks! He's a rugby player, he's used to this sort of thing..."

Hmmm...I'm not sure where the "theft of services" argument is coming from in this case given the facts presented at the beginning of the thread (keep in mind, what follows is predicated on the facts presented being accurate. I think everyone agrees that if consent was offered, if the woman is lying, etc than things change).

A woman agreed to have sex for money with two men. Other men arrived and held her at gunpoint and had sex with her without consent. It seems to me that the "other men" committed rape. I'm not sure if/what crime the first two committed (beyond soliciting prostitution) but in the case of the others, there was no consent, hence there was rape.

The store analogy by Mrs P resonates with me. Entspeak, I guess your counter-argument fails for me in that there was no consent unless you claim that a prostitute implies consent by virtue of her profession. To adapt your argument re: Mrs P's analogy, it seems like you would say that if one burgles a shopkeeper's warehouse, it's not theft but shoplifting because since the shopkeeper has decided to sell some things at some times, anything he owns is for sale and any taking of those things is nothing more than shoplifting Likewise, if I go to the jewelery store at night, break in and help myself to the stock, that's not shoplifting but felony theft, the value of what's taken and means used are all more important than the professional choices of the victim.

Again, if the story is true (and I have no idea if it is or not), the woman was raped at gunpoint.

Yes it is. You read the legal definition of rape I posted, right? One of which is the definition that applies in the jurisdiction in which this offence took place. It does not mention sex in exchange for money, provision of services, or prostitution. It just says that ANY sex which takes place under threat of violence, and indeed any sex AT ALL which takes place when one of the parties (not necessarily the woman) does not give, is incapable of giving - or withdraws - consent, then it's rape.

There's no wiggle room here.

The facts of the case are not in dispute - nobody (including, as far as I can tell, the accused men) is denying that they did whatever they did (call it "smurgledowning" if you like, it doesn't change the legal definition of it as rape) at gunpoint and that the woman involved withdrew consent. Maybe she is a poor victim. Maybe she's a hard-faced cow who wouldn't cut her customers any slack. She was still raped by them.

Whether you like it or not, it really is simple - in law, she was raped



Not in Pennsylvania state law it doesn't. It's just rape.

In Washington it's first degree rape. In other jurisdictions it might be aggravated rape. In all circumstances - even in your fantasyland where prostitutes cannot be raped by their clients, or their clients' friends, while they are working, and "rape" is not "rape" but theft or robbery when it's a prostitute on the receiving end - one would expect the penalties involved for committing a crime when aremd would be more sever than those involved when committing the same crime without any weapons.



Er, yes. Isn't that what I've been saying? Clearly the system is in a bad way if such an alleged crime isn't prosecuted as what it is - an (alleged) rape.



Even if that is true (and I don't think it is), it should be taken into account in the sentencing of the guilty, and not in the definition of the crime. If you think so little of prostitutes that you don't think raping them while they're on the job is a big deal, why aren't you arguing that someone who rapes them while they're working should only get a fine or community punishment. Why are you arguing that it isn't rape in the first place when the law unequivocally says that's exactly what it is?



Yup. Legalise it, regulate it and tax it. That's the only way to prevent criminal acts going on within it and against it from being dismissed as an occupational hazard. In Prohibition, if one smuggler cut the head off of another, it was a horrible crime, but hey - they're both criminals anyway and the guy probably had it coming. Legalise alcohol, and while the puritans can be just as anti-alcohol as they were before, nobody can seriously argue that one liquor store owner who cuts the head off of another liquor store owner is anything other than a murderous thug. Because nobody deserves to have their head cut off. (And if they do, they'll be rightly treated as a crackpot.)

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

Definitely. There was one man with money. The place was supposed to be the john's house, but turned out to be an abandoned building. Then there was a second man who didn't have money. Then there were as many as five and a gun. Whatever the initial terms of service, they were null and void per the original agreement. I can see theft of sevices. Although prostitution is generally illegal, IRS regulations state that illegal income is still taxable.

We must remember that, prostitutes are still human. As my mentor, Larry McMurtry, so aptly put it in Lonesome Dove, "whores have hearts, too."

If anyone doubts the brutality prostitutes sometimes suffer at the hands of clients, just consider the saga of executed Texas murderer Kenneth Allen McDuff. Among McDuff's eight known victims were at least three prostitutes from a seedy part of Waco, Texas called "The Cut." Some he did not kill reported having to spend long hours with McDuff, who had rough sex with them in every possible orifice.

http://www.garylavergne.com/badseed.htm

Okay. Armed robbery.


Expectation is not fact; it is expectation.


Nevada Brothels

Note: This man was not charged with rape.





And would you then get up... go box again and then claim that 4 other guys assaulted you? What happens to the evidence of the assault? What does that do to the credibility of the claim.



No, but I've already stated that it is possible to rape a prostitute.



Let's be clear. This wasn't a woman that was raped who happens to be a prostitute. This is a woman who was engaging in the act of prostitution at the time. This is a woman who, after this happened, went and proceeded to sell her sexual services to another person rather than report the event.

What makes rape such a horrible crime?

How about the psychological trauma of being used against your will, by another person for no other reason than their sexual gratification, compounded by the stress and trauma of the physical pain of the experience, not to mention the horror of not knowing to what lengths the ignomious experience will continue, what degrading acts one might be forced to endure, or even participate in and the possible long term effects on your health, added to which include the terror of not knowing what your rapist is going to do to you once the rape is concluded in order to conceal his crime. I say 'his' because in most cases, rape is a crime carried out by men.

Prostitutes already have the stigma and fear of selling their bodies to other people in order to make a living. Individual people end in dire straits by individual circumstances, but its a safe bet to assume that most people will only become prostitutes when all other avenues of income are closed to them. In other words, for most prostitutes, being a prostitute is the end result of poverty and they already constitute a weak section of society that the rest of us should go out of our way to help, not stigmatize.

That a prostitute is raped and is then denied justice, because she is a prostitute is absurd. Nothing justfies or excuses rape.





Well, In my opinion, there is no difference between raping a woman who happens to be a prostitute and raping a woman during the act of prostitution. None what so ever and any attempt to make a distinction is appalling, espeially on such a spurious argument that prostitutes sell sex and therefore raping them is no longer rape under certain circumstances.

No. No. And thrice no. Rape is rape, no matter who is raping whom or why.


How does her reaction, post rape, in any way effect the nature of the crime?

You appear to be suggesting first of all that as long as money has been accepted, then rape is not rape, and second that rape victims must conform to some kind of universally accepted reaction to being raped. In either claim, I find your reasoning to be astounding.

The idea that a business transaction some how supercedes a sex crime in importance is simply staggering. I know Americans are big into capitalism, but this is taking things to the extreme. Whats next? Banks allowed to exterminate clients who go beyond their debit rating?




Apparently so.

I suppose the customer is always right...

And entspeak, in regards to the money issue I brought up earlier. I am saying that her consent was contingent on her being paid. That's the nature of prostitution. She wouldn't be having sex with anyone if money was not involved. Had she known that no money would have been involved, her consent is null.

She had already withdrawn consent before she even engaged in any sex acts. As is my understanding.

I would also argue that the presence of a gun renders any of her previous decisions null and void, because she can no longer back out of the agreement safely. She was coerced into having sex. And as Julian rightfully pointed out, being coerced into sex under threat of violence is against the law and RAPE. I find it curious you refuse to even acknowledge the state law, which is pretty explicit in its definition.

So, yes, it means it was rape.

I am seriously shocked that we're even discussing this.

In this case, the prostitute engaged in consensual sex with the expectation of being paid. I imagine that if the "john" were to initiate the "transaction" with a gun, the prostitute would hardly have an expectation of payment. If someone comes up the counter of your store with a gun, and says "I'd like three packs of Marlboros," I would guess that you are not at that moment imagining he is planning to pay for them, else why the gun?

As for the delay in reporting the crime, even a casual study of rape and psychology reveals this is quite common. In the case of the prostitute, her job may indeed make the crime harder to prove, but the crime to be proved ought still be rape, regardless.

In words of one syllable: Hell. Yes!

This isn't about a woman who is a prostitute. We already know prostitutes are looked down upon by most of polite society as dirty, diseased, wretched whores even as its the same sanctimonious hypocrites who can't wait to get away from Wifey long enough to get their swerve on in some back alley with that same dirty, diseased, wretched whore.

This is about a woman who was raped twice. Once by her assailants and a second time by a judge who decided equal protection under the law doesn't applied to sexworkers.

Can you rape a prostitute? Sure you can. You can rape them, beat them, rip them off and kill them and nobody will care because they are "bad girls" who have it coming. If they weren't out there "selling their bodies" they wouldn't be putting themselves in harm's way, right?

NOBODY deserves to be raped. NOBODY, regardless of how they earn their daily bread, has it coming.

The same guys who sneer at sexworkers as cheap sluts whom can be used and discarded like a soiled condom are the same ones spanking it to copious amounts of porn, sticking dead presidents in the g-strings of strip club dancers and enjoying the oral talents of those same "cheap sluts" in the front seat of the family SUV.

The law doesn't apply simply to women engaged in socially acceptable jobs as librarians, teachers and check out clerks at Wal-Mart. The law also applies to women engaged in socially unacceptable gigs like being dancers, phone-sex workers and yes, even prostitutes.

It's not just "nice girls" who get raped and all the misogyny and sexism running rampant in this thread can't change that fact.

Exactly. And when the prostitute in Nevada, did she know that no money was going to be involved? When that guy didn't pay, was it rape? He was charged with defrauding a business.



It certainly means that the incident was more serious a crime than had it occurred without a gun. The presence of a gun does not however make her previous decisions null and void. She is still responsible for her previous decisions. This is still a business transaction gone wrong. An illegal business transaction gone wrong.



I acknowledge the state law. I don't believe it applies in this case.


Well, it's a debate site.

I've stated it previously, and I will state it again. If this were a situation where a prostitute was not engaged in a transaction, I would agree that she was raped. I agree that just because a woman is a prostitute doesn't mean that she is always incapable of being raped. But this particular business has inherent dangers that a woman should be aware of. She ignored that danger and proceeded to sell her services anyway. She even sold her services again, after the incident and before reporting it.

So, there are a lot of people characterizing my statements incorrectly, so let's get the facts straight.

This isn't a prostitute who was walking down the street minding her own business when she was raped. She posted an ad on Craigslist advertising her services - idiotic move number one. Someone responded. The residence turns out to be an abandoned property... she still proceeds - idiotic move number two. He asks her if she will have sex with his friend, she says yes... but for more money - considering the previous idiotic moves, this is idiotic move number three. A gun is pulled and these two men and two others proceed to have sex with her. After the incident is over, she goes and books another client and has sex with them - a client that she more than likely booked from the same Craigslist ad - idiotic move number four.

In this instance, sex was a business transaction. The terms of the agreement were violated. What I'm hearing from people in this thread is an emotional response that fails to recognize this fact. Prostitution involves inherent risks... what happened in this case is one of them. If this hadn't happened during a transaction, I would say she was raped and the fact that she is a prostitute is irrelevant; but that's not what happened here.

But, Entspeak, that means you do consider this to be armed robbery? Therefore, still a felony?

And if it is an armed robbery, what is the proper punishment? Certainly these men cannot return the "goods" that they have stolen. They would obviously have to pay, for "services rendered", but how much? Perhaps the price increases exponentially as the number of men involved rises! Perhaps it decreases; discounts for sex en masse.

You walk a moral minefield. Quantifying sex as an "object" invites a host of ethical unpleasantries.

Consider this; how much "sex" was the woman robbed of? Two men paid, five men participated. What about those who watched? There might have been observers, voyeur/hobos, perhaps, to intimidated to call the police. Does this count as an added "strip service?"

Prostitute or not, she voiced protest, and was then coerced against her will at gunpoint. If you can find some fail-proof method of measuring how much sex was stolen during this crime, and its requisite worth, then do so. Otherwise, there is no simple way to resolve this, other than to label it as rape.

If this were a legal service, I would say yes. But it wasn't. Prostitution is illegal in that state. I would say she was assaulted during an illegal act.


I don't quantify sex as an "object", a prostitute does when she sells her services. Morally, I see nothing wrong with prostitution.


Sure, label it as assault with a deadly weapon. I'm not saying these guys should get off for what they did... I'm saying it's not rape.

Entspeak, again, she did not have sex with them, and then decide the decision was bad. It was not during the sex act that she decided she had made the wrong choice. She showed up; the men involved had a gun; at this point, she has no choice but to proceed.

Stupid choices don't make it OK to rape someone.

If this happened to someone, with no money involved, it is a clear case of rape. I fail to see how money involved makes it not rape.

The difference between the Nevada incident you continue to harp on is that there was no gun, and no gangbang. Quarkhead points out that the expectation of getting paid changes the nature of the relationship. However, in this particular case, the woman involved knew from the beginning she wasn't getting paid, because the men involved had a gun.

Consenting to sex under the threat of violence is rape. If so many men can split hairs about what rape really is, its no wonder that rape is so common. And that so many men are easy to dismiss it, because rape only happens to good girls, who never make a stupid choice in their life.

And its morally reprehensible that so many people are willing to dismiss rape for other reasons. Just because someone didn't act like you would expect them, that means they could not possibly be upset about it? NEWSFLASH, not all rape victims do not immediately call the police or 911 after being raped, or even call the police at all.



From RAINN

One of the reasons cited for not reporting rape is that they won't be believed. Now, isn't that silly?

And its nice to think that the law is not applicable; even though it clearly defines rape, and interestingly enough, it doesn't mention anything about money making rape OK.

This stopped being a "business transaction" when the gun was produced and the other men forced her into sex against her will. Illegal though the business transaction was, that does not mean she surrendered her rights to be protected by the law. If you go to someone's house to buy a pound of grass and they pull a gun on you and rob you, does that mean they have the right to take your money because you were involved in an illegal activity? I don't believe so.



There are certainly inherent dangers that a prostitute has to face. Will the John pay her for services rendered or beat her up? Will the John be a businessman in town for a brief stay and a little casual sex or will they be a serial killer looking to strangle her? I agree that this particular sexworker may not have made some smart decisions, but being dumb is not a offense that justifies a brutal gang-rape.

There are many inherent dangers to a prostitute. One, is from her clients. The second is from law enforcement officials and
callous judges and prosecutors who don't think these "soiled doves" merit any protection of their rights.



You seem to be giving an "emotional response" of your own, entspeak and as you keep repeating that "prostitution involves inherent risks" you seem to be suggesting in a not-so-subtle way that gang rape is one of those risks. I firmly disagree.

Consider this: If the woman in question happens to meet a guy in bar, they knock back some drinks and they decide to go somewhere and have sex. She goes with him to his car and he's got a buddy in the back seat that wants to get in on the fun too. She's a bit hesitant, but decides the more the merrier. When they get to the first guy's apartment she finds out that instead of a ménage à trois, there are four more dudes waiting and they're planning on a gang bang instead. She protests, but they overwhelm her and take her by force.

No money has changed hands at any point. Is THIS a case of rape?

We seem to be forgetting that prostitution is supply-and-demand business. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. Men want sex and are willing to pay women for it. Women need money and are willing to exchange sex in order to get it. Sexworkers are no different from anyone else who uses their body to make money. Prostitutes don't "sell" their bodies. They "rent" their bodies to men whom are only too happy to exchange tens to thousands of dollars to get their jollies.

If the law means anything it means it must protect not just nice people working at 9-to-5 jobs, but morally dubious people engaged in illicit and illegal activities. This pattern of "blaming the victim" just seems to perpetuate the privilege of men to do whatever they want to a woman's body knowing that she will be judged far more harshly than the man ever will be.

Entspeak, I think the ladies are right on this one. If the client had merely had sex with the prostitute and wrote a bouncing check, that would be theft of services. In reference to your analogy though, what the men in question did was not only the equivalent of stealing and killing one of the animals, but also beating the store owner nearly to death during the robbery. The men who used a gun to "steal services" from this woman should definately do some hard time in jail for "armed robbery." Thus, even if the Police and the Judge are uncomfortable with the idea of having a rape trial involving a prostitute, there is still a strong case for Armed Robbery due to the violent nature of this situation.

According to what I can find online the storyline goes like this:

Woman agrees to sex with one man despite location change
Woman agrees to sex with two men at new location
Sex
More men arrive, gun is produced coercing more sex
Yet another man arrives and "saves the day"
Woman is not paid
Judge makes moral call from bench
News article
Posters on debate

This woman wasn't dragged off the street. She wasn't beaten. She was, as I have stated previously, raped at some point. However, there were many points at which she couls have avoided being raped. There's a big difference between being abducted or drugged and raped and being raped while performing illegal (although I disagree with the law) sexual acts. Had the woman been paid extra would we have a crime?

One problem I see with any discussion of this issue is that we are all tempted to make analogies, as we have seen in the thread. It seems to me that all analogies must fail when we deal with sexual violence; it is a unique evil. (I'm not saying that it is the absolute worse thing that can happen to someone; no doubt extreme torture and murder are worse. It is, however, different from any other evil.)

Why? Because of the profoundly intimate nature of human sexuality, unwanted sexual activity is inherently an act of violence. It violates us in a unique way, even if there is no other obvious sign of overt physical or psychological violence. The human being who is, in any way, forced into unwanted sexual activity, no matter what form the force may take, is therefore a victim of sexual violence.

Therefore I must ask myself whether an act of sexual violence took place in this case. If the facts are what they seem to be, I can only say that it did. The situation which led to the violation is not relevant.

So if the armed robber pulls out a gun on a store owner who agreed to sell him a cuban cigar, that's a business decision gone wrong? Not equivalent to other armed robbery? If I sold a box of cuban cigars on craig's list would the buyers then have the option to rob my home for the illegal sale of those cigars?



Is this a stab at humor? "Could have taken steps to avoid the rape"? That's usually true of ALL rape cases. She shouldn't have been walking there, wearing that, yadda yadda...why, I'll bet just leaving one's home increases the likelihood of being raped 5000 percent. "Wasn't beaten"? Just forcibly raped by five or six men. Of course, had they not placed a gun in her face they might have had to rough her up a bit to shut her up. Thank goodness for that weapon! Makes rape a wee bit, um, nicer.

To answer the question, yes it would still be a crime. That's called paying 'hush money'. "Okay, I hurt you but I'll pay you this amount not to report it to the police." They often resort to this tactic in third world countries. We raped your daughter but we'll give you five camels and my brother will marry her.

perverted logic at its best.

Man asks for sex Woman refuses man forces it anyways. Rape
Man asks to pay for sex and woman accepts. Business.
Man asks to pay for sex and woman accepts. after he is done he refuses to pay. She consented to the act and at no time asked to stop the act. Always get paid first its just good business sense.
Man asks to pay for sex and woman accepts. After this the man's friend forces himself on her. Rape.
Sex without consent regardless if money was ever involved is rape. You can pay and she can then refuse you have no legal right to force yourself on her. You will be a rapist. The fact she is a prostitute has no bearing on that simple reality. You are a rapist.

It does not matter how a woman dresses or if she is a tease or if right at the moment of penetration she changes her mind or even if you are already in the act itself.
She says STOP you stop or it is rape.
Arguments of being caught in the moment or "I was almost there" are weak pathetic arguments used by losers to justify their rape.

I am really appalled by those here who are trying to say this wasn't rape.
This is almost like the "she had it coming because she was wearing slutty clothing" excuse.

I am as passionate about crimes against women(rape/abuse/murder) as I am about crimes against children.

When there is no consent it is rape.

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

If the judge in Pennsylvania had used the same standards Nevada has thrown at O. J. Simpson, there would be multiple charges filed against these guys icluding - rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, and theft of services.

Of course, as in any case, one is innocent until a plea bargain is enered or prosecutors obtain a conviction in a court of law. Due process always rules.

That said, I tend to agree with Sleeper, for a change.

And you think your statements in support of immanent justice (woman takes sexual chances, woman is punished) isn't an emotional response? You think blaming the victim for the choices her attackers made is a legally detached position? God works in conservative ways when it comes to prostitutes. Praise Allah.

Well, not really. My guess is you or some of your friends wouldn't want to be falsely accused of rape by a hooker. Denying prostitutes their rights is a rational choice preempting the possibility of being wrongly accused from where you're standing. Consent be damned. An understandable concern leading to an interpretation of the law that would be rejected as an irrational (unjust) conclusion in a different rape case. One would hope, anyway.

The way I've read the article this isn't a case about a prostitute who consented to have sex for so much money, had sex, and then regretted her choices and cried rape. This is a case about a prostitute who showed up, agreed to sex and had a gun pulled on her before there was any sex. Of course, how it goes down is inconsequential when prostitutes can't consent. They can only agree to business transactions and get jipped.

The judge has only been rebuked and the prosecutor decided not to bring charges against Gindraw in "a second, similar case". You the man, Gindraw. The second prostitute no doubt had it coming, too. Occupational hazard 'n all.

This isn't about a woman taking sexual chances. This is about a woman engaging in a profession with inherent risks and her accepting responsibility for those professional risks. This isn't an emotional response. This is an objective response. And this isn't to say that the men did not commit a crime and that she wasn't a victim... she clearly was.



Sure. But that would require my hiring a prostitute in the first place. Not something I'm likely to do. If I were inclined to do so, I would probably do it where it is legal. It seems to me that if this happened in Nevada, the defendant would've been charged with assault with a deadly weapon and defrauding a business. The Arizona Trucker who didn't pay for the services he received at a brothel was caught and charged with defrauding a business... not rape. I would argue that had he had a weapon and forced himself, assault with a deadly weapon would be added to that charge, perhaps even battery with intent to commit a crime.

Look everyone, I am not lowering the sex here to a business transaction simply because I can. I didn't pull that concept out of the air. I repeat, it is the prostitute who objectifies sex and reduces it to a business transaction. This isn't a moral judgement, it is a fact. It is codified, quantified and dispensed. When something goes wrong with the service, the prostitute can't then make it any more than the object he or she made it.

If she wasn't engaged in a transaction at the time, it would've been different. The transaction does not simply begin when sex occurs.

Okay, so if the john agrees to the price and after taking his money the prostitute then leads him to a hotel room where he is jumped on and violently sodomized by five men who jump out of the closet....that's a case of simple buyer's remorse and false advertisement I suppose? Afterall, he agreed to pay a price for sex and sex he did receive though it wasn't exactly what was agreed upon...

No. Again, I never said these guys did not commit a crime. I never said they didn't commit a violent crime. I said they didn't commit rape.

What appears to be happening - and it happens a lot on this site - is that people are making this an extreme either/or situation as though I stated that because it's not rape, there has been no crime committed. Not what I said at all.

These men are definitely guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and, if they beat her, possibly other charges as well. But not rape.

Did you even read what Mrs. P wrote?

She wasn't saying anything about you saying no crime has been committed. She asked how you would view a reversed situation. Would this particular situation not count as assault, simply because the john knows the "inherent risks"? I feel it's somewhat telling that you tend to misconstrue Mrs. P's post to fit your own twisted version of logic.

Your explanation flies in the face of logic. Simply because someone is engaged in risky behavior does not excuse them from the protection of law. You've ignored this idea several times. In this particular instance (not Mrs. P's hypothetical, but the one we're debating), the law does not say that sex in exchange for money renders coerced sex null. Additionally, the definition of rape doesn't say "only while not engaging in the act of prostitution." The law ignores anything of the sort, hence, the idea that sex was coerced, regardless of the stupidity of the victim, regardless of inherent dangers, regardless of her profession, regardless if she had sex with someone else afterwards, regardless of whether or not she agreed to have sex and then changed her mind, she still deserves the protection of the law. Again, the presence of the gun renders her consent null, because at that point, she was no longer able to safely withdraw her consent.

As others have pointed out, one can still rob a drug dealer of his possessions, during the act of the drug deal, and it still counts as theft. Much as one can consent to having sex for a line of work, and then decide against her decision to consent, during the act of prostitution.

Thank goodness your not a judge, because then no one would be able to have any protection under law, simply because they should have known better. Drunk at a party, and raped by the football team? Well, there's always inherent risks when you get drunk, time to face responsibility for your actions! On a date, doing some heavy petting and get forced to go farther than you wanted? Oops, well, you know that men can't control themselves. Decided to engage in a threesome, but the other guy brings a gun and three other buddies? Well, you agreed to it, and you can't back down know. Should have thought of that before. Your husband comes home one night, and youre not in the mood, but he beats you up and makes you do it anyway? Well, that's one of the inherent risks of marriage. You consented the day of your wedding.

Yeesh.

Entspeak, while I understand your point, I don't think anyone is taking your position to be one that no one committed a crime. Rather, some of us believe a rape occurred regardless of whether or not other crimes (armed robbery, theft of services) were also committed.

If I understand the scenario presented in the article correctly, there were at least 5 men involved in the incident, 4 of whom had sex with the woman and one who did not.

Now, the woman agreed to sex for money with two of the men. One man came without money and produced a gun. Other men arrived and had sex with the woman without her consent, presumably holding her at gunpoint.

Based on that scenario, at least two of the men raped her. One man paid for sex and received it. One man agreed to pay for sex and then used a gun to gain the service without paying and (at least) two other men had sex with the woman without any agreement what so ever. Therefore, there was never consent for sex with anyone beyond two specific men (unless you decide that the act of agreeing to sex with one person for money implies consent to have sex with anyone).

Now, I personally believe that the second man (he of the gun and the consent) also committed rape, but I can understand your point of view (that what he actually did was commit assault and armed robbery). But even taking that view (which I don't), I'm not sure that it can be argued that the arrival of "other men" as mentioned in the source article and their engaging in sex with the woman is anything other than forced intercourse and therefore rape.

Also, I'm not sure the ideas of professional hazard and "dumb decisions" on the part of the victim are really relevant here. If I run a cash-intensive business in a dangerous neighborhood, you could easily say that robbery is a professional hazard of my chosen profession. Further, if I walk alone to drop of my receipts late at night without adequate protection, you could certainly say I did a very foolish thing HOWEVER, if I were then held up and robbed, no one would suggest that it wasn't robbery because I should have known better.

In the end, at least two men forced this woman at gunpoint to have sex with them. That's rape.

People are aware you think these men should be charged with crimes other than rape and don't quite care because those bread crumbs of justice are eclipsed by your belief that a prostitute can't be raped once an arrangement for services is agreed upon.

You're sidestepping Mrs. P's question. The prostitute and the men who jumped on the john to sodomize the client may be guilty of other crimes, but are the male rapists in her example also guilty of sodomy?

You responded to me: "This is about a woman engaging in a profession with inherent risks and her accepting responsibility for those professional risks." Are risks associated with prostitution gender neutral or gender specific? Can men be raped for engaging in illegal, dangerous activities, or is objectifying sex and its accompanying consequences (immanent justice) specific to women?


There was one man, then three, and finally the last (fifth) arrived. The guy who originally solicited her (Gindraw) produced the gun:

The prostitute admitted going to a home on Sept. 20 to have paid sex with a customer but said she was instead gang-raped by four men, including the customer, while he fixed a gun on her.

She went to a North Philadelphia home to meet the customer, who had agreed to pay her $150 for sex. He then said a friend was coming with the money, and that the friend would pay her another $100 for sex.

Instead, three other men arrived, and Gindraw pulled a gun and ordered the woman to have sex with all of them, she testified.

"He said that I'm going to do this for free and I'm not going nowhere and I better cooperate or he was going to kill me," the woman testified at the preliminary hearing. "I didn't know if I was going (to) make it out of there alive because I seen everyone's face."

I think what Entspeak is saying is that once she agreed to a transaction with the first man she is incapable of being raped even though he coerced the prostitute with force (a gun). All of them, with the exception of the fifth man who saw her crying and dressed her (according to Entpeak's link), allegedly raped her, per media reports.