Does having sex with a prostitute constitute rape?

Btw I don't have any negative opinions of prostitutes just those who pay for them.

maggie to me the distinction is this.

She is being made to have sex. It's being done to her. Where's shoplifting she is doing it to an organisation or burglary to a person. She's doing something, not being done to - does that make sense?

We already treat consent to sex and criminal responsibility differently in law. Criminal responsibility at what, 10? And no sexual consent until later.

I think there must be a hideous downward spiral that leads a woman into prostitution. I.e. How did they end up getting hooked on drugs in the first place? Did we fail these women when they were children? Certainly Local authority care children got a very bad deal educationally in the past. Outcomes for lac children still aren't good.

I doubt that any one wakes up and decides she is going to get addicted to drugs or sell her body. I wonder if there is any way we can stop the spiral of self destruction.

The Invisible Men Project is a harrowing read, but it shows you men who use prostitutes in their own words.

Would I be happy be have any one of these men around me or my children? Never.

The review from the scumbag who paid £70 especially sickened me. What the fuck has happened?

Sorry klassy, I wasn't meaning you.

I think when it comes to drugs, if someone has gotten themselves addicted, they have to accept responsibility for the fact that they started taking the drug in the first place. That was a choice.

So they need to take responsibility for that original choice, it's not a 'get out of jail free card'.(certainly when crime is involved)

And there are many many addicts who do break free so to say it is not a choice (to do whatever you have to do to get a fix) is wrong because there is always the choice to go clean. No one is saying it's easy. But I think you do a disservice to the many women who do break free to say they have 'no choice' .

It IS illegal to assault someone for money, even if they ask you to do it. See the cannibalism case in Germany.

However, if the person assaulted does not make a complaint and is not badly hurt, it is unlikely that the police would deem it in the public interest to prosecute (if, eg, a third party reported the issue).

But I said it wasn't a free choice either way, it's just punished differently. You've ignored me!

(Not sure, but are dominatrixes counted as prostitutes if they don't have sex?)

Doinit they said that it meant the woman didn't consent because she didn't have a choice (and therefore the punter is a rapist)

Same thing as saying she doesn't have free will (due to the addiction)

I'm just interested in how the choice to be a prostitute is not a free one, if drugs are involved, but according to those who've responded the choice to commit crime to fund an addiction is a free choice.

I'm not comparing prostitution to committing a crime, I think I've made that clear

I'm comparing the choice to do one to the choice to do another.

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.

Either the drug has robbed her of the freedom to have a choice or it hasn't.

Personally I would view it as a 'constrained choice' ie it is very difficult for someone in that position to not do whatever it takes to get money for a fix.

But still essentially a choice as many drug addicted prostitutes do stop -both the addiction and the prostitution.

Although sadly many do not.

Aren't they some men who pay dominatrix(es) to kick them in the bollocks and such like?

They can buy the right to be hurt.

Should that be illegal? (I'm talking about dominatrix type stuff here, so no actual sex)

Is it illegal? What if the man decided the dom had kicked him too hard, caused injury for example (above what was expected) and then reported an assault?

What if I, person C in dowager's example, want to pay person A for some other thing that harms them?

Should I be able to buy the right to hit them? Pour boiling coffee on them?

There are other bodily matters person C is not allowed to pay for, including blood, marrow, kidney transplants. Because of the risk of exploiting person A's poverty or other circumstance against their body's best interests. Society considers those should be donations not commodities. Person A will be supported by the medical profession also to ensure that risk is limited even though the decision is altruistic.

I am also heavily regulated in how much I can pay person A in reasonable expenses to be my surrogate, and I am obliged to first build a relationship of trust with person A and to work with medical professionals along the way.

These are much closer parallels than crime; the harm assessment must be in the right place.

"Ideally they wouldn't be criminalised, they'd be rehabilitated properly. But we can't afford that I guess."

Agree, but the costs are short term high long term low.

I think most governments (not just in uk) don't address drug addiction as an illness rather than a crime because

It would lose them votes
Costs more in short term
Is seen as 'mollycoddling' sufferers

Yet good quality cold turkey rehab has been proven to be more likely to lead to long term if not permanent recovery which long term saves money in terms of treatment and infrastructure costs.

And I say that as someone who HATES drugs and all the associated effects on society.

Oh, Dowager's answer is much better.

I kind of get what you're trying to say maggie, but I just don't think you can compare the two like that - there's no equivalent to selling your own body.

I guess you could say that those other women/men don't really "have a choice" either really, but the harm they're doing is to others, not themselves, so society takes notice. We live in a very property-driven world.

Ideally they wouldn't be criminalised, they'd be rehabilitated properly. But we can't afford that I guess.

Person A stealing to fund drugs is making an active choice to do This choice impacts negatively on Person B.

Person A selling their body to fund drugs is also making an active choice. This choice impacts on them self - it enables Person C to take advantage of a situation that Person A wouldn't otherwise agree (consent) to.

Person C has to not care about that, in order to go ahead with the transaction.

Nobody said it robbed you of free will.

They said it robbed the person paying to fuck you of the right to claim they are not a rapist.

You've missed my point Doinit

I'm not saying prostitution is a crime

I'm saying why is it a choice to do one thing to get drugs, but not a choice to do another.

Saying someone who prostitutes to get drugs has no choice because they need the drugs but saying someone who steal to get drugs does have a choice is a contradiction IMHO.

Either being addicted to drugs robs you of free will, or it doesn't.

Was my point.

Sorry if I didn't explain that in my earlier post

I don't think selling your body is (or should be) a crime.

So choosing to do it is not comparable to choosing to do something criminal.

The woman is blameless in the prostitution scenario.

She would not be in the stealing scenario.

Saying that you shouldn't take advantage of an addict is a completely different argument from saying addicts are not responsible for crimes they commit.

Can someone answer the question

If women who prostitute to get drugs have no choice and are therefore being raped

Does that also mean that women who do other things to get drugs have no choice? such as shoplifting/fraud/robbery and if so are they therefore not culpable for any crimes committed?

And if it's not the same, why not?

And no comments saying 'you can't compare a vagina to a ....' which is a way to get out of answering the actual question IMHO.

I'm not for one minute saying prostitution is ok. I don't think it is. But i'm interested in why doing one thing for drugs = no choice whereas other things there is the perception of a choice.

bertrand is it ever possible to have a true informed consent, esp when it is medically related?

I don't think that I have ever given true ingurmed consent fur any medical procedure because no o e has ever taken the time to explain all the ins and outs to me. I'm thinking laparoscopy, immunisations, ABs etc etc.
At best, we know about the big things that can happen. And we usually know about the good ones, the intent of the treatment.

Same I think goes with PIV and sex/pregnancy. We know roughly about the good sides and done if bad sides (pg and STD).

It isceasybyo saybyhat we have as much awareness than with a medical procedure and as such, we are indeed giving informed consent.
Or we never do but I doubt the medics will be happy to accept that idea ....

I'm bemused (being charitable) that there are women coming on to this thread to defend the small percentage of prostitute-using men who - arguably - may not be rapists.

What would those men do without you?

Really good of you to stick up for the fact that they may not be rapists.

I can imagine you'd be well chuffed if you had one as a husband. Or son-in-law.

Most feminists believe that men are far more decent than that, and have men in our lives that hold themselves to far higher standards.

And yet we're the 'man-haters'...

Agree that the punting forum is an awful read, so depressing.
Bertrand Sure if you can, maybe I misunderstood it.. Just a gut reaction to hearing loving, wanted, hot sex with a partner could ever be called rape but maybe not as simple as that like you say!
Ophelia I'm looking on google but the latest it says is the zone was approved indefinitely a few months ago as it's been a success, though not sure why this is the case when an escort got murdered.

Charlearose the MNer was supposed to read. Auto correct strikes again.

Those threads are vile, vile, vile

MN had opened my eyes to radical feminism. It's been brilliant.

Leeds have since abandoned their legal prostitution zone because it was (obviously) a bad idea..