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?

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' .

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?

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.

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

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?

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

Maggiethemagpie the argument you are talking is a tangent from what the thread is about. The basis of the argument is that, if having a sex with a person who is not willing but coerced equals rape. Having sex with someone who is not interested but only for the money. What they gain from sex is not sexual satisfaction but money. If a man is willing to have sex with a woman who is not interested physically even though the female has made a conscious decision to take the money, the question is would you call him a rapist for taking advantage by using her body?

Drug addicted prostitute: It's not about the choice to sell her body but the man taking advantage of a vulnerable woman. Rape is a form of power and dominance used to attack women who are vulnerable or in a vulnerable state. (Even if the woman was not a drug addict, most women are not physically as strong as men/making us vulnerable in regard to what is as accepted rape) They prey on vulnerable women and in this scenario they go for desperate women who are willing to exchange their bodies for money to get a fix at all cost. The person physically getting hurt is the woman with unwilling body being penetrated. The man also gets to have the upper hand by demanding a service which is the woman's body for the paid period of time for their satisfaction.

Thanks Ophelia, I was beginning to think there is a lots of men out there who only want to pay for women's company without sex.

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 (

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.

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.

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

Morally reprehensible describes it perfectly.

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?

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!

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.

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

I agree. Endorsing prostitution does this exactly how?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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

Yy DoinItFine

littleprincesssara