Page 4 | Does having sex with a prostitute constitute rape?

quencher · 2016-11-28T17:59:46+00:00

A thread triggered this for me so I have decided to ask the question. If you consent to be paid for sex but don't feel like sleeping with the customer, are you being raped?

CocoaX · 02/12/2016 22:38

Consent should be freely given. If money changes hands, consent is not freely given. It is that simple.

Original poster

quencher · 02/12/2016 22:35

*Pretty much every form of sex apart from enjoyable sex done for the pleasure of it is rape according to the mumsnet jury

This is baffling to me, if you're not enjoying it and doing it for the pleasure of it, why would anyone do it voluntarily?* Exactly this. I would go as far as to say it's self-harm.

Maggie the belief that we have free will and complete autonomy at all given times is a fallacy. Look around you and tell me you do. A human being is the product of their environment and everything we do is a result of that.

But, if the prostitutes don't have free will maybe the men who use them don't. Sex addicts, for example. What if THEY had a difficult/invalidating upbringing? There is a difference. If an alcoholic got behind the wheel, they will still get prosecuted for drink driving regardless for their circumstance.
The law in general is for the greatest number of people rather than the individual. If you inflict pain onto your self, the law will offer protection but if you inflict this pain onto someone else, then more than likely you are breaking the law. This is how our society works.

OP posts:

WomanWithAltitude · 02/12/2016 22:30

The thread has moved on a bit, but idea that the law has the last word on what constitutes rape is ridiculous. The concept of rape existed before systems of law and order.

At one time, the law would only say something was rape if the act involved serious violence (it had to be forcible) - does that mean women who were raped in different circumstances weren't actually raped? If a woman told you she was raped by her husband in the 80s, would you tell her not to be silly as it wasn't possible back then?

The concept of rape is totally independent of the law. The law simply sets out the circumstances in which our current justice system is prepared to say that someone has definitely committed a crime. It has changed before and it will change again in future, it's not a constant or something to base your morals on.

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 22:29

I don't agree Tarla. Even on the street if a client is known to be 'dodgy' the women can refuse to go with him (can, not will - some will prioritise the need for money /drugs over their own safety)

But my point is, women can choose to leave prostitution altogether, and many do. So that's the free choice. Not saying it's an easy choice, but it is a possible choice.

Tarla · 02/12/2016 22:12

What is your understanding of it? For many prostitutes women it would be incredibly difficult to simply walk away or to refuse a client, this has been explained several times on the thread. Also not every prostitute is of the call girl variety. Women being picked up by curb crawlers certainly aren't vetting anyone.

Original poster

quencher · 02/12/2016 22:12

Yes, but asking if it's rape when you're redefining the concept of rape is a bit circular.
So according to the legal, accepted definition I'd say it's not rape
But according to the mumsnet definition it isn't.
We are not re-defining rape. We are discussing the concept of rape, how it would apply when looking at prostitution. Rape itself is open for debate on what can be included and as mentioned above.

Adala
Meanwhile society is fine with a 30 year old making that choice - even if she's had a shitty family, little or no education, no wealth, perhaps significant health problems or lower mental health and "maturity" due to an abusive and deprived life. She actually may have even less "choice" than that 12 year old (who could perhaps reach out to their parents or teachers for support, as I did). An adult not being able to manage their life is different to children in general who need help and protection from adults. Society dictates and expect that by the age 30, we as people know where we are in life, capable to make decisions about buying houses, getting jobs, looking after ourselves and other little humans in our care.
If a person gets to the age of 30 and cant manage mentally, they are the anomaly ( not meant in mean way). They are outside of our societies expectation of what an adult should be. Those who have mental disability that need constantly looking after, do get that care and have the law to look after them. There are those that sleep through the net because their mental disability do not fall into the category where they can get help throughout their lives. They are on the periphery, not easy to diagnose and not ill enough to get. Constant care for the rest of their lives or they were never really diagnosed.
Most mental health problems are not as severe. You can get counselling or medication to keep you going.
Some jobs you are not allowed to perform under theses circumstances but there are some when you declare you have been medicated for depression or similar, you are not given the job or dismissed or monitored constantly. (Your free will as a person is denied because they think you will be incapable of making important decisions expected of you).
If the cut of point included those on the milder-end and no one passed through without being missed as needing help, they might all actually get help. The state is financially incapable of doing this. We as society make mistakes too when making judgment on who needs help. There is a cut off point for both financial reason and ambiguity for the the cut of point for who really needs help and who doesn't. This is not very different if you compare it to rape. What the law finds understandable to prosecute and what is ambiguous grounds of rape due to luck of understanding.

A British person, on British street who is a homeless person more than likely has a mental disability of some form. Am not saying all but most.

But some people have sympathy for the former but not for the latter who is a grown-up and able to "make their own choices". Because she passed the age of 16 or whatever. There is an expectation for adults to be able to look after themselves, while you can't say the same for children. Teenagers have hormones to deal with too. An adult is there for guidance and offer protection.

OP posts:

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 22:09

Of course Tarla, she can decide to stop being a prostitute and not have any (paying) sexual partners. Or decide not to work with a particular punter, many prostitutes of the call girl variety vet clients I belive

What's your understanding of how it works?

Tarla · 02/12/2016 22:03

But once a woman becomes a prostitute does her right to choose her own partners still exist?

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 22:01

Bertrand Russell - are you saying because people choose to become prostitutes it is because they can't not choose to, despite the fact that others in similar situations (yes, homeless beggar and coke girl again) decided not to?

If so, you're really questioning free will - like your philosophical namesake. (Which is kind of ironic)

This is turning into quite an interesting free will v determinism thread

But, if the prostitutes don't have free will maybe the men who use them don't. Sex addicts, for example. What if THEY had a difficult/invalidating upbringing?

But of course you won't apply the same logic to them, THEY are responsible for their choices.

Personally, I don't think much of men who use prostitutes and I'm certainly not making excuses for them as I'm sure some posters will be quick to point out. I think they can CHOOSE not to use prostitutes and exercise their freedom of choice just as I believe a woman can CHOOSE not to become a prostitute and exercise their freedom of choice (trafficked women excepted)

But it's interesting that you believe in free will for one group of humans and not another.

I do wonder if you can see how inconsistent you are being.

TheDowagerCuntess · 02/12/2016 21:44

Dizzy, there's no need to retreat.

But we can quite easily wait while you RTFT. Your post is no more or less important than anyone else's on this thread - if you can't be bothered to read everyone else's, you can't expect us to take much heed of yours.

The discussion is around whether the current law is accurate and/or adequate, and whether men who don't really care that they have to buy 'consent' could be considered to be rapists.

Someone like you would have come blithely onto a thread back in 1990 to say that it's not possible for a man to rape his wife. The law might have been on your side, but you'd have been wrong nonetheless.

EvenTheWind · 02/12/2016 21:13

"I do believe that having unwanted sex that wouldn't be taking place of there wasn't an imbalance in economic need between the participants is damaging for the person who is being paid in lieu of consent. "

Exactly.

Dizzy, I for one stated clearly that I didn't think they law as it stood would make a man using a prostitute a rapist, though it might if he proceeded immediately after hearing her pimp threaten her, say.

To come on to a 17 page thread and assert "many posters seem to lack knowledge" and then a few posts later say, "oh, I haven't read the whole thing, the discussion has evolved, I was just responding to the OP" is kinda impolite to those you said lacked knowledge, isn't it?

TeaPleaseLouise · 02/12/2016 20:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DizzyNorthernBird · 02/12/2016 19:20

dowager as previously stated I haven't had the opportunity to read the whole thread yet. And whilst I'm sure it has evolved into a philosophical discussion I was merely responding to the OPs original post - is it rape?

Most of the posts I had the chance to read were jumping to the conclusion that yes, it is rape, however all I wanted to point out was that most are missing an element of what constitutes rape. There are two parties involved and of equal importance to consent is what is going on in the mans head. To say that all men who have sex with a prostitute are rapists is completely wrong.

However I see that this discussion has evolved beyond the simple point I wanted to make so I shall retreat.....

BertrandRussell · 02/12/2016 19:20

"So, homeless beggar and coke addict girl who was tempted are both examples of women in dire straights who could have become prostitutes but didn't."

There are always exceptions-people who can face incredible challenges and overcome them. But most people can't. Most people aren't the homeless beggar or the coke addict or Alan Sugar.

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 19:06

I've done nothing but discuss it Dowager

I believe

If a woman can refuse to do it, it's not rape

So, homeless beggar and coke addict girl who was tempted are both examples of women in dire straights who could have become prostitutes but didn't.

Therefore other woman who did have made a free choice to do that

So it isn't rape IMHO

But I respect other mumsnetters right to have a different opinion to mine.

TheDowagerCuntess · 02/12/2016 18:59

So, discuss it! Isn't that the entire point of this forum?

Otherwise, the question is asked, someone says no, the legal definition says it's not rape. The thread ends after two posts. That's not how it works on here!

Besides, it's about debating whether the legal definition is correct, or even adequate.

The same way people debated other legalities that are defunct - the right to abortion, rape in marriage, etc.

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 18:56

I meant according to the mumsnet definition it is rape!

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 18:55

Yes, but asking if it's rape when you're redefining the concept of rape is a bit circular.

So according to the legal, accepted definition I'd say it's not rape
But according to the mumsnet definition it isn't.

I can't say whether I agree with the question in the thread title unless I know to whose definition I am referring!

TheDowagerCuntess · 02/12/2016 18:32

Maggie - that's exactly what this thread is about.

Asking whether having sex with a prostitute constitutes rape.

Legally it may not be, but the pages and pages of discussion show exactly how grey it is.

This is a thought exercise, is it not?

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 18:26

But rape is a legal concept, dowager
Of course, if you just want a thread to redefine a word, then go ahead
We may aswell start a thread to say 'the word elephant should include both elephant and hippos' in that case.

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 18:25

Well, if it's done with ulterior motives, and the woman is a drug addict then it is clearly rape according to this thread!

Tarla · 02/12/2016 18:22

Pretty much every form of sex apart from enjoyable sex done for the pleasure of it is rape according to the mumsnet jury

I've been on MN since late 2009 in various guises and have never encountered that view being pushed by the "MN jury". Which parts of the site are you looking at?

TheDowagerCuntess · 02/12/2016 18:22

Gosh, I thought it was obvious that this wasn't a discussion about what the law states.

This is more of a philosophical discussion about what we believe and why.

maggiethemagpie · 02/12/2016 18:22

I agree that 'prostitute murder' is reported differently and it's like there's the assumption of 'oh well she's a prostitute what did she expect', which is totally wrong.

Those poor women, I remember one was doing it in secret and her family had no idea.

Tarla · 02/12/2016 18:20

There's a quote in the last link posted, to taken from a review someone posted about a prostitute he used. I don't want to post too much detail because it could be very triggering to some people but the basic of it is that he starts doing an act and she asks him to stop and do a different act however he doesn't stop because he's enjoying himself and keeps going until he's had his satisfaction.

Who would that prostitute complain to? She's withdrawn her consent, regardless of whether that consent was shoddy or solid to begin with, it was withdrawn and he didn't stop. As far as he is concerned, he was paying and could do what he liked because he'd bought her for the duration of the session. The customer is always right blah blah blah. The police might believe her, I'd hope, but how on earth could they bring about a prosecution? The jury would hear the word 'prostitute' and their minds would be made up. You can't say yes to one customer and no to another, you also can't say yes to a customer one minute and no to him the next, especially once you've taken his money and he's already enjoying himself.

It makes me wonder, if punters are not rapists as the law stands at this time, how many of them are committing rape at the current definition of what constitutes rape? And how many of those rapes go unreported? And how many people don't view them as 'real' rapes because, well, she's a prozzie anyway...?

I remember at the time of the Ipswich murders that the language used was always "the body of a prostitute has been found...." and "police are investigating the murder of a prostitute....". Never "a woman has died" or "a female body has been discovered". It's like they were going out of their way to point out that these were not your every day 'nice girls' or normal women, that they were prostitutes first and foremost and their status was defined by their role as a sex worker.