Does having sex with a prostitute constitute rape?

even of course they haven't.
But as I said above, there are plenty of situations where there is some serious bodily harm happening and no prosecution (such as prostitution or cigarettes).

BDSM can be very harsh and leaving scars. It's still BDSM.

Which is why I suspect thei ssue has more to do with the fact that the judge saw that sort of activity as 'unacceptable' because it was BDSM rather than because it caused some harm.

Why is it that underage people don't have any power of consent, while overage ones do Marie? Do we become magically invested with the power of choice aged 16?

Sorry - but why is OK for anyone to be able to be put into the position of having to do this for cash?

I think very few people defending the "right" of a woman to be a prostitute would choose to be one themselves. Otherwise we'd all be making a bit of cash on the side.

(Of course, they're different - they just don't care, or they love sex, somehow it doesn't do them harm even though it's not something we'd do, or they're already damaged anyway, why not? Let's not treat them as children.)

Meanwhile we know that people's "choices" are actually the result of their situation from birth to adulthood and beyond - there are a million factors which shape us and the way we "choose" things. Personally I don't believe we have that much free will at all, a lot is determined or caused by our circumstances. Person A raised in an abusive household will have less "choice" than Person B in a loving one because their entire mindset and life are skewed from day one.

I also agree that if there are no checks on behalf of the punters, they can they never be sure the woman has consented in any way, which makes them implicit in the whole culture.

Doinit don't be ridiculous.
I'm not talking about literally saying no and the man ignoring you. What a ridiculous interpretation!

I'm talking about having the choice to say you don't want to do something - and then consequentially not doing it

Just like the coke addict in the book I referred to.

Therefore drug addict does not necessarily = forced into selling your body.

But twist away if it makes you feel better

They were prosecuted for ABH not BDSM. It wasn't a light spanking, all better the next day.

littleprincesssara

fwiw I think underage prostitution is a different matter altogether. No way that in that case, consent can be given and yes t is ALWAYS rape.
And yes these are women/ men (children!!) who should be protected. The discussion on choice doesn't apply there.

Even that's an interesting case.

So what the judge has been saying is that you cant let someone hurt you even if you agree to it?
So that would mean that prostitution should be illegal on the same grounds, or porn.
What about people selling cigarettes or alcohol? Should they be charged too?
Tbh, I suspect not. Because what the judge is in effect saying is that society condemns BDSM as being an 'abnormal' act (and that's what the people have been condemned for, even though they all being both victims and perpetrators) whereas prostitution is seen as OK (and alcohol etc...)

I think Maggie is making a good point re choice.
I would hate to take free will and choice from prostitutes. Or to treat them as children by saying they cant help doing xx because they have no choice and therefore they need to be protected.

I personally have much much more issue abut the way the punters look at women (some links before tell you A LOT about that) and about the fact they all KNOW that the women aren't keen or that the fact they KNOW they can force a woman to do xx when she doesn't want to (Have you ever heard of a case of the rape of a prostitute whilst she was working??).
In which case, the answer is to work on the men, the way they look at women etc (ie education, changing the culture that sees prostitution as OK and having sex as a need or even a human right rather than a want. And ne that sees women as objects of convenience rather than as human beings).
And offer whatever support is needed to women, ie access to support for childhood abuse, MH in teenagers, support for drug users etc etc.

None of which any government will be happy to do unfortunately.

Yy DoinItFine

littleprincesssara

I just don't understand why you thought it might be what all radical feminists thought-that's all!

Yes betrand a pp linked to it at the top of the thread. I hadn't read it before but guess it's kind of pertinent to the thread, though saying that no-one seems to be arguing that there's a blanket definition on consent.

"but is the radical feminist perspective really that ALL PIV is rape, without exception?"

No. Can I ask what makes you think it might be? Apart from (I don't know what link you are referring to, but I assume it's a blog post written by witchwind-apologies if it's to something else, but it always has been before) one woman's "think piece" article from 2012ish?

I am anti prostitution because I escaped from underage prostitution.

I still believe there is a lot of damaging and misognyistic rhetoric coming from a minority of people in the anti prostitution movement.

I read the link about all PIV intercourse being rape.

Perhaps my definition of rape is grounded in an archaic criminal definition but is the radical feminist perspective really that ALL PIV is rape, without exception? I'm not trying to be argumentative btw, I'm genuinely interested in how others perceive this standpoint.

I tend to agree with PP who discuss the definition of what consent really means. Circumstances dictating sexual intercourse with a stranger doesn't feel like consent in a way I'd feel comfortable with.

as my definition of rape is that is against someone who has no choice to say no.

So your position is that there is pretty much no such thing as rape.

No choice to say no would not cover the vast majority of even the rapes that get prosecuted in this country.

It's really quite an extreme position.

I think it was pretty standard in the 18th Century.

You had to.prove that you had absolutely no choices other than submit or die.

Although it was widely felt that submitting was the wrong choice for truly virtuous women.

Sorry- it was the I'm anti prostitution but.....that confused me.

I didn't say it did? I said the opposite - that I'm anti prostitution.

"we should work more on embracing female sexuality and female choice"

I agree. Endorsing prostitution does this exactly how?

I paid/hired someone to set themselves on fire two months ago. Perfectly legal and a respected and well-paid career in a respected industry.

People do lots of dangerous things for money that are legal. I am anti prostitution but there is an attitude towards sex being emotionally damaging that is overall not predicted on feminist principles. I have two friends who make feminist porn, obviously this is different from prostitution, but we should work more on embracing female sexuality and female choice - choice means having the freedom from pressure to make harmful choices.

Since when am I defending a punter and his choices?

Of course it is morally reprehensible.

However it is not rape IMHO (and it is just that, my opinion) as my definition of rape is that is against someone who has no choice to say no.

A prostitute desperate for a fix is no doubt vulnerable, and a man taking advantage of that is despicable. But that doesn't make him a rapist IMO.

I read an interesting book called 'Take a girl like me' about a young girl who went to London and got addicted to coke. At the height of her addiction she was offered the opportunity several times to sell her body but always refused. She got into a lot of debt, but didn't choose to do that. So I do believe women in that situation can choose to say no, therefore IMO it is not rape. But you can define rape differently to me if you like!

Even if that's the case I'm thinking of (involving a hammer & nails), it came to my mind as a case of the law determining that crime can be said to have been committed even if the 'victim' has acquiesced to it. Was scared to google it though (still haven't read the link).
Letting someone hurt you for money is surely not something that should be acceptable in our society?

Morally reprehensible describes it perfectly.

'morally reprehensible' sounds sooo pompous, but you know what I mean...

I still don't see how we can say a prositute has no option but to sell sex, but does have an option to rob/steal/commit fraud etc.

I thought I addressed that - she does have a completely free choice to sell her body, just as she has a free choice to steal.

Her choice to sell her body enables the punter to take advantage of a situation that she wouldn't otherwise consent to.

Even if she wasn't selling her body to buy drugs - she is letting him do something that she wouldn't otherwise consent to, without money changing hands. Would you want to have sex with someone who wouldn't otherwise agree to it, with you?

He is not necessarily a rapist, and you (generic) can defend him and his choices to the nth degree.

But he is - at best - a morally reprehensible person that I personally wouldn't want around me or my children.

Yy sarcasm. Just as a person can be too drunk to consent to sexual contact, that same person is still criminally responsible if they get behind a steering wheel.

In the first case, that person is damaged by the sexual contact without consent; in the second, they risk damaging others.

See also this case re it still being illegal to assault with consent in a sexual context

www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/rvbrown1993/

Consensual sado-masochistic homosexual encounters which occasioned actual bodily harm to the victim were assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the 1861 Act, and unlawful wounding, contrary to s 20 of that Act, notwithstanding the victim’s consent to the acts inflicted on him, because public policy required that society be protected by criminal sanctions against a cult of violence which contained the danger of the proselytisation and corruption of young men and the potential for the infliction of serious injury. Accordingly, a person could be convicted of unlawful wounding and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to ss 20 and 47 of the 1861 Act, for committing sado-masochistic acts which inflicted injuries which were neither transient nor trifling, notwithstanding that the acts were committed in private, the person on whom the injuries were inflicted consented to the acts and no permanent injury was sustained by the victim. It followed that the appellants had been properly convicted and that their appeals would be dismissed (