Do you think this constitutes rape?

[Dana1981]

from:
spooky.ms11.net/pages/p2.html

quote:
"Rape does in fact does take place, or is made possible, by the game makers in GTA. If one has sex with a prostitute in the game, one can then beat the prostitute up (some reports say that one can murder the prostitute) and take one's money back, and this, my friends, constitutes rape."

So is it rape for a man to have (consenting) sex with a prostitute, then after the act is finished kill her and take his money back? I would say no- the crimes are murder and theft but not rape.

What do you think?

I would agree. But I envisage a long thread about the nature of consent in the context of prostitution, particularly streetwalking, so I shall retire and watch from the side.

I agree. Not rape, but murder and theft.

Agree with OP - a subsequent murder/robbery doesn't retroactively turn consensual sex into rape.

Although perhaps if the client knows that the prostitute is only consenting for the money, but is already decided that he will not pay/immediately rob it back, does that change the consent status? I'm not up on the latest changes to the law.

There is the perspective that prostitution is rape, the money doesn't change that. I can see that.

If I have consented to sex with a condom and my partner secretly removes the condom then that sex is rape IMO. Same logic goes for this scenario.

Before we all get side-tracked into a barrack-room lawyer discussion of the imaginary situation in the OP, it's perhaps just worth reflecting that surely the main point from a feminist point of view is that such a hideously misogynistic world view is being pushed as mainstream entertainment: "hey guys, you may be losers in real life, but here's a game where you can have sex with a prostituted woman then beat her up, and you get to keep teh money- awesome". I mean, what sort of shit-for-brains fucked up moron thinks that's a fun way to spend their spare time?

put the misogynistic game console down

< applauds Lurcio >

This "game" sounds horrific and I REFUSE to believe that playing it does not indicate a hideously warped mind.

This "game" sounds horrific and I REFUSE to believe that playing it does not indicate a hideously warped mind.

Why put game in quotes? It is a game whether you like it or not. If I was talking about a movie I hated I wouldn't put quote marks around the word movie.

If I have consented to sex with a condom and my partner secretly removes the condom then that sex is rape IMO. Same logic goes for this scenario.

I disagree. That situation is different because you didn't consent to sex without a condom. But the situation in the OP the sex was consensual.

oh and these games (Grand Theft Auto series) are massively popular, and there is a new one coming out soon (the newest is Grand Theft Auto 5). Guess there are a lot of people with hideously warped minds out there.

You can't have consensual (within the context of prostitution at least) sex, refuse consent retrospectively based on their subsequent behaviour, and call it rape. No matter how foul the other party's behaviour afterwards. You charge them for the crimes they do commit - in this case assault, theft and potentially murder.

What a profoundly horrible game.

But the sex was consensual in that you had a contract. sex in exchange for money. I can see the logic that she would not have had sex without the exchange therefore she didn't consent to money-free sex.

I think.

But as above it really doesn't matter. It's filthy misogynistic bullshit at it's worst where killing a prostitute is seen as a funny thing to do.

And I would say "game" too, as game has a certain connotation and I don't think abuse and cruelty and laughing about murder are how most people understand the word

There are lots of people with hideously warped minds out there, yes. Is this actually news to you?

yes Dana there are masses of people with hideously warped minds out there.

That's why 25% of women get raped or sexually assaulted and 25% of women live with chronic domestic violence.

It's hardly news that there are loads of people who are profoundly warped.

Hey hey hey now, just because you find violence against women and murder funny and entertaining doesn't mean you are warped

I think there are compelling philosophical arguments to call this scenario rape, but I don't think it would qualify as rape in the jurisdiction I am familiar with.

Using fraud to induce someone to engage in sex doesn't make it rape. What if the man promised to marry her, or told her he earned more money than he actually did? These would be reprehensible behavior but wouldn't be rape when the woman discovered the truth.

It's easy to say that the scenario in the game should be rape because it's so horrible, but generally I think it's right that using fraud to induce someone to have sex does not nullify consent.

What Lurcio said.

Well you can have fraud which vitiates consent, there's lots of case law on the matter.
This has ranged from pretending to be someones partner/husband to representing the act as being of medical benefit or even as a means of improving a students singing.

The problem with the scenario of a prostitute (and this is taken from the view of sex with a prostitute being consensual for the purpose of this argument, although I know many on ehre disagree with that idea entirely) is that the non-payment will almost always come after the act.
Whereas in the other cases it has been a representation as to facts which are present before or during the act of sex which means consent was not present as it had been given based on a fraud prior to the act, if you are saying that an act after the event can retrospectively nullify consent then you are placing the sexual intercourse in an odd logical limbo whereby when it was taking place it was somehow both consensual and non-consensual at the same time but which can not be verified until some time after when the mans subsequent actions and decisions take place.

This game is disgusting. But there is so much real world rape going on, that I think we should concentrate on that. I'm part of the generation that grew up with these games, and I don't think young men are learning what is and isn't rape from a computer game. They think in terms of missions. Grab $100 bucks? It's an easy way to do it.
The stereotype of gamers shut in their parents basements is long dead. They interact with women daily and they know what is acceptable and what isn't.
A growing majority of gamers are women and EA and the rest will learn to adapt.

That's interesting, mayorquimby, because in the US (and I'm talking about general legal theories here, not the statutes/caselaw of any specific state) "fraud in the inducement" doesn't nullify consent -- certainly not pretending that the sex will have a health benefit or improve singing. I could imagine there being an old rule that impersonating a husband nullifies consent, but I don't know.

"Fraud in fact" definitely does nullify consent. This is when the victim is made to believe that the scenario is not actually intercourse -- for example, the doctor tells her to lie on her stomach for the exam and the instrument might feel different than the one he used the last time. Doctor rapes the woman but she thinks she's just had a medical exam.

There are some strange outcomes (and implausible hypotheticals!) to these old rules, and many scenarios seem really unfair, but I don't really know how I would change the rules.

This is horrible.

I really don't have the words for how disgusting it is that there's a situation in which people do this stuff and discuss it like this.

I'm sorry, I can see reasons why this debate is important if young men are really playing this game and speculating about rape in this context, but I'm not sure I can get past my basic reaction, which is why in god's name are we talking about this? It's vile.

I really dislike the smuggery of that chain of logic - like 'ha, ha, I found this amazing way to worm my way out of a rape charge, see but still be disgustingly violent towards women, win!' That is what it sounds like, when it's presented as this kind of thought-experiment based on a game.

I'm really realy sickened by this. I know we discussed trigger warnings but honestly, please can you report and get one put on this thread as I clicked assuming the OP was someone needing a bit of support, not this.

Actually you're not placing sexual intercourse in an odd logical place. When you agree to buy a sofa and it's green and made of leather (let's suspend aesthetics for a moment) and then the store delivers you a yellow fabric one, it isn't entitled to say: "you wanted a sofa, we've given you a sofa. Yes we know you wanted a green one, but you consented to let us access your bank account to pay for a sofa and that's what we've done, what on earth are you complaining about?"

It's only with sex, that so many people seem to think that once a woman has said yes, she's said yes to it on any terms, in any way and she has no right to impose any conditions. So for example, George Galloway believes that once you've consented to penetrative sex at 10PM with a condom, that means you've consented to it at 5AM without a condom. But he wouldn't think it was reasonable for the store to deliver you the green leather sofa and add 2 matching armchairs on the basis that you'd like that because you liked the sofa and use your credit card for payment, even though you can't afford the armchairs and don't want them. It's only women's bodies, that are such a bloody free-for-all.

Fastidia you are ace.

Thanks Chub

there ARE a lot of people out there with hideously warped minds