Does having sex with a prostitute constitute rape?

[quencher]

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?

I agree that,under the current legal definition of rape, unless a punter saw a pimp threatening a prostitute just before he bought consent, he would probably be deemed to have reasonable belief in her consent.

That doesn't mean we can't discuss if consent should be q commodity, just as there are laws against paying for kidneys, say.

FFS don't know what's wrong with people on here accusing men of rape if it's not that there abusive or have some sort of personality disorder just because they've had a argument with there partner absolute madness

Bloody hell gotten

Thi

This is nothing to do with accusing anyone. This is a discussion about whether bought consent is really consent.

Your post is a lie.

If we're going by legal definitions does that mean that before the law on marital rape was changed a husband could never be said to have raped his wife since the law said it wasn't rape?
I'm sure people were scoffed at for having the temerity to define it as rape, and talk about it - but the law would never have been changed had the discussions not taken place.
Can't see why questioning society's view on this is seen as problematic.

Cotton, why does it bother you so much that people discuss these things?

Argument with their partner? Huh? Have I swapped threads?!

Rape is pretty much legal.

It's so easy to get away with it that there is very little risk attached to being a rapist.

That doesn't mean there are no rapists.

It means there are many rapists enjoying their rapes with impunity.

Anyone having sex with a prostitute is, at best, negligent towards the matter of consent.

It is so very unlikely that consent exists, and so likely that they are doing a rape, that the idea of "reasonable belief" in consent is laid bare for what it is - the loophole that makes all non-stranger violent rape legal.

I feel bad for burglars that they can't enter a similar defence of "reasonable belief" that their victims consented to being robbed.

They need to pick a more socially acceptable crime.

Property is worth legal sanction. Women are not.

Laws aren't always right and they're changed due to discussion and public pressure - in terms of this discussion as a pp said the obvious one is rape in marriage but also the criminalisation of homosexuality (which is one of the only examples of a law sexist against men I can think of), and the demonisation of unmarried mothers (even if they were underage girls pregnant by rape).

As for the posters saying it's not rape unless it's violent/a stranger etc you're missing the point which is its rape if it's not truly freely given consent.

Many women in abusive situations submit to sex as a form of self defence. That's not true consent if you're submitting for fear of repercussions.

It is not rape... the men are not forcing the women they are paying for a service the women are offering...

Saying men only go to prostitutes for power is showing complete ignorance ... men use prostitutes for many reasons including men who are socially awkward, lonely or unable to gain meaningful relationships elsewhere and so seek release...

Spotty have you read the whole thread? Looked at the 'reviews' given by punters? Looked at any research/info/evidence from ex prostitutes?

I haven't read the whole thread but I do know personally several women have been prostitutes....

You might find it helpful to read the thread to get where everyone is coming from.

Also it rather depends how and how well you know those women.

Not everyone would disagree with you but it is something of a minority view on this thread at least.

I don't need to read the thread to gain people's opinions - I read the first few pages and it was very similar opinions many of which appeared to be generalised and opinion rather than factually based.

I am not saying there is not sex trafficking and so that brings the aspect of consent concerns or that there are not some men who use prostitutes for 'control' as some have said, but claiming all men who use prostitutes are rapists and prostitutes aren't offering consent is ridiculous...

I know these women very well and have been around them when they have laughed at the money they have made out of men for 'minor' satisfactions or for the money spent on the 'girlfriend' experience....

Too many think women are always the 'victim' and vulnerable in the sex industry ... When often they are fully in control....

Linking women who offer a service and get paid for a service to women who are attacked and forced to have sex is not right...

Yeah men use prostitites for cuddles.

Yes because that's exactly what I said.....

Actually I think spotty made me think about something.

In some cases (i.e. When the women feels she has to have sex with the man because she is worried about finding drugs/has MH issues/has been abused etc.. but NOT if she is worried about her safety re reaction of the guy to be told NO), the woman will be 'forced' to give consent. But the cause for the lack of free consent is NOT the man in front of her.
Does it then mean that the man's responsibility extend to all those other things that he has no control over?

Just musing really.
I think we can all agree that the consent from these women isn't free. That they are put in a position where saying NO isn't an option.
But where does the responsibility of the man buying these services start and end?
When we buy clothes from India or China and they are likely to have been made using child labour, are we guilty of imposing child labour? Or is the people 'employing' them that are guilty?

Does it then mean that the man's responsibility extend to all those other things that he has no control over?

The evidence shows that men who use prostitutes know / believe that they are likely to be forced by a pimp or trafficker. If a man knows this, and goes ahead anyway, then yes, I consider him just as responsible.

Pimps only do it because there is demand. If men boycotted the industry it wouldn't survive.

Clothes are different in that clothes are essential to a certain degree (sex isn't) and it's possible to buy fair trade. There is also the question of distance - the consumer isn't going into a factory and engaging in the exploitation, carrying it out with their bare hands, like a punter is.

If consumers were buying goods that they knew full well had been produced with slave/child labour, and physically going into factories and engaging in the cruel treatment themselves, they might be comparable, but that isn't the case.

My opinion was formed after doing (admittedly not extensive) research including looking at survey results where prostitutes had answered about why and how they became prostitutes and also surveys on why men use them, it was several surveys too.

It's also formed from reading and gaining from other sources information about the subject.

There's also been posts from people who've worked with prostitutes in the way of helping them overcome the results of working in this way. One of the sources I looked at was produced by rape crisis.

There is I feel a lot of evidence that the majority of prostitutes are at best coerced at worse forced by violence or threat of violence to be in prostitution.

NRTFT but I don't think bought consent is actual consent and I'd love to be in a place where the law recognises this.

Mariepoppins I thought your post was very good, and the sweat shop comparison is valid.
We still buy clothes from Primark knowing, but not certain that we might be buying something made under abhorrent conditions conflicting with human right. But we still buy it. (there has been enough publicity on this issue for anyone to claim ignorance). The ethical option is to buy fair trade / make yourself etc.

A man buys sex knowing full well there is a high probability she is coerced in some way, and is not enjoying the sex, but convinces himself she is all "happy hooker" and loves to get fucked, and so continues to buy sex. The "ethical" option would be to find a woman who reciprocates sexual attraction, consents without bribery and fuck her instead.

There is a huge level of cognitive dissonance when it comes to exploitation and abuse. Personal gratification seems to come top.

Surely those who argue that it isn't rape can't deny that buying consent is a bribe? And if you have to bribe someone into having sex with you...

Hmmm, yes. A bribe.

Not the "valid business transaction" the unaffected libertarians like to argue in favour of.

A friend of mine thinks Mumsnet is full of crazy, man hating, sexless feminists. I don't agree, but reading threads like this makes we wonder.