Does having sex with a prostitute constitute rape?

dizzy the whole point of the discussion is whether a woman who is a prostitute is EVER in a situation where she is consenting.
So the issue isn't whether she is withdrawing consent but the fact she has never given consent (or not depending on what you believe).
That and the issue of whether consent can be bought.

Personally, I would add another side to it too.
We know rape is never about sex, its about control.
If a man has a sexual encounter with a woman with the prostitution framework, want is it that he is looking for? Sex (that he could probably have got very easily going into a nightclub) or power over the woman/control.

One of the sites linked previously showed what these men are thinking and how the see prostitutes.
At best, ot shows they have a very poor image of women, seeing them as a tool for their own pleasure. At worst, they are clearly wanting full control of the woman's body, which could be related to rape.

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

Haven't read this whole thread, but although it's an interesting moral discussion, many posters seem to lack knowledge of what the law says.

The assertion that all men who use protitutes are rapists is just wrong.

The law says that: person A penetrates person B with his penis and he does not reasonably believe that person B is consenting.

Of course a prostitute can be raped, consent can be removed at any point. The point about whether or not she is giving true consent given her individual circumstances is valid. But- if sex is on offer as a service and the female does not withdraw her implied consent, then how exactly does the punter 'reasonably believe she is not consenting'?

In this scenario it is not rape, the male does not have the required mens rea, it cannot be rape. Therefore all punters are not rapists.

Whether the prostitute is in a coercive situation I.e under the control of a pimp is irrelevant as far as punter is concerned. Pimp is committing the offence here under S4 sexual offences act- causing another to engage in sexual activity without consent.

Obviously this is what the law states, morally yes it may be considered rape, but as the law stands currently it is not.

Obviously the gender pay gap is a factor

YY about assumptions.
And actually it does feed into the 'choice' thing.

Even though these men have been abused as children have some MH issues, use drugs (and thee are plenty of them) they aren't choosing to go into prostitution. They can find other ways to deal with the lack of money and poverty.

Imo the reason for that is that men will always feel that more choice are open to them (due to their privilege) whereas women will always assume that few options are available, that it will be hard, that it will not work so resort for the thing that they know will 'work' (or that they are worthy of?).
You see that a lot when marriage brake down. Few men worry about what they will do when they will be on their own. Women worry a lot assuming they wont be able to cope with it.

Prostitution isn't something men typically resort to, to pay for drugs, put a roof over their heads, put food on the table for their kids. There must be a reason why. The homeless beggar on the street could be in a nice warm hostel, if he just...

Some do, but the punters, again, are almost always male.

We can rigorously defend the choice of women to sell their bodies if they so wish, but we should also question why men don't. Men are generally physically stronger then women, so the risk is minimized somewhat for them. And there's no chance of them getting pregnant. So the risks are materially less for men, yet they still don't choose it for the money, in anything like the numbers women do.

Is it because women don't need sex in the same way men seem to need it? Does anyone actually need sex, then? Is it because women don't feel entitled to buy sex from someone who wouldn't otherwise have it with them? Is it because men need to be aroused to have (PIV) sex, whereas women do not have to aroused at all for men to have sex with them?

I don't know the answers, but when you turn it around, you see some of the implicit assumptions society has around the way sex is quite different for men and women.

Selling sex doesn't have to be criminalised, but buying sex should definitely be illegal imo.
Yes another issue re sahms. Childcare in general (for your own children or other people's) is undervalued in our society, like so many jobs that are mainly done by women.

I work in a healthcare organisation, and for many patients, they lack 'capacity'

This is the ability to make a choice, and can be impaired by mental illness and dementia.

They are legally recognised as being unable to make a free choice.

Women on the game are not. (or women tempted to go on the game, but don't. )

Ever seen a homeless female beggar on the street? Why is she sitting there in the cold, paper cup at her feet when she could be nice and warm in a hostel if she just shagged a few punters?

Because she made the decision not to do that, that's why.

Go and tell her that she has no free choice.

What is the 'abolitionist position' (abolitionism is for me the libération of blacks...)

ageing if you look upthread, you will that IMO, the answer isn't in 'protecting' women but in tackling men attitude towards women in general.

Yes you can also make prostitution illegal and to punish men who use prostitutes instead.

Re economic imbalances ... actually that's why I don't think men should ever stop to work and become SAHM. They are in a situation of economic imbalance and therefore more vulnerable in their relationship (and as we know some men have no issue with abusing it)
But that's another issue altogether.

"It really pisses me off actually that the abolitionist position is framed as being prudes who don't think women should have sex"

Absolutely.

www.trauma-and-prostitution.eu/en/2016/11/02/the-german-model-is-producing-hell-on-earth/

The above is about legalised brothels in Germany. It's not an easy read but it demonstrates what's actually happening to prostituted women in pursuit of male orgasms.

It really pisses me off actually that the abolitionist position is framed as being prudes who don't think women should have sex. In fact it's the opposite. Pro prostitution people think women should be having sex that they don't want, with men that they wouldn't freely chose to sleep with. Now that is fucked up

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. The difference is that I don't think this constitutes sex, I think it is rape. I don't think sex that is freely and enthusiastically consented to and wanted is damaging to women at all

Maybe we should concentrate on saying to men "no, you may not pay to put your cock into a woman. If you do, you will be locked up. We will crack down HARD on men who think this is ok, and gradually this will lead to men starting to realise that actually their orgasm is not more important than a woman's bodily integrity"

But a lot of the debate is predicated on a belief that sex is fundamentally damaging for woman, and that is problematic, because that same belief has been used for millennia to deny female sexuality and deny them the right to control their own sexuality.

YY to that.
That's another side about wanting to protect women. It's still about telling women what is and isn't good for them.
Is that really the case that women can't actually decide for themselves ever? Or is that a left over from a very patriarch society that tell us that women aren't intelligent/good enough and need to be told instead (aka their freedom taken away for their own good)

Yes you are right adala.
Society expects all 30 yo, regarding of the backgrounds and history, to be able to look after themselves and take decision that will not harm them.

The very big issue with saying that some 30yo might not be able to is that someone will have to take that decision. Who will be these people above most people that will be able to decide whether one can or not look after themselves?
My friend who has severe MH issues, struggles to hold onto a job etc... does she need protection and someone to decide for her that she can't sell her body? Because you see she has MH, suffered from abuse as a child and then rape? Do we need to tell her that she will be stripped from her human right of deciding for herself what to do with her body?
Would that also work for self harming (which she does)?

Deciding for others that they need to be protected, aka treated as children and being stripped from their own freedom (or at least on some level), is a very dangerous slope IMO. Where will you stop to say that one needs to be protected from harm from themselves (because of their past experiences etc..)?

Great post Adala

The thing is, Alan Sugar's life was determined by his parents, family, teachers, friends, innate personality, physical health, and more. No two people are exactly alike, and they'll approach things differently, even from within the same family. I wouldn't just rank someone by their socio-economic position, that would be pointless.

And I think maybe you're missing the point I'm trying to make (or perhaps I'm expressing it particularly poorly) about children.

Twelve year olds can physically have babies. It's not ideal for many physical and emotional reasons, and again this isn't something I'm advocating (my abuse started properly about this age) but they can.

We all socially agree they shouldn't have sex because they could make a choice which hurts them in the long run (whether that's a pregnancy, an STD, or a bad sexual experience, etc). They're too "immature" and perhaps hormonal to make that choice for themselves.

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).

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.

Does any of that make any sense? I might be talking nonsense, but it doesn't feel that way to me.

(I am 100% against child abuse, just in case that's not clear!)

The link is, I presume, to a 2012 blog post that few people agree with and which isn't the topic of the thread.

Interesting that's what you picked up on, though.

Someone said this I think on page 2. Sorry I couldn't go through all the messages to see if someone asked already but there was a link the poster also gave I think arguing that PIV was rape.

"Is PIV sex rape? hmm really?" Why do you ask?

Is PIV sex rape? really?

Nobody is denying women anything.

They are denying men the right to use money to get away with rapes.