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?

Prostitution isn't something men typically resort to, to pay for drugs, put a roof over their heads, put food on the table for their kids. There must be a reason why. The homeless beggar on the street could be in a nice warm hostel, if he just...

Some do, but the punters, again, are almost always male.

We can rigorously defend the choice of women to sell their bodies if they so wish, but we should also question why men don't. Men are generally physically stronger then women, so the risk is minimized somewhat for them. And there's no chance of them getting pregnant. So the risks are materially less for men, yet they still don't choose it for the money, in anything like the numbers women do.

Is it because women don't need sex in the same way men seem to need it? Does anyone actually need sex, then? Is it because women don't feel entitled to buy sex from someone who wouldn't otherwise have it with them? Is it because men need to be aroused to have (PIV) sex, whereas women do not have to aroused at all for men to have sex with them?

I don't know the answers, but when you turn it around, you see some of the implicit assumptions society has around the way sex is quite different for men and women.

YY about assumptions.
And actually it does feed into the 'choice' thing.

Even though these men have been abused as children have some MH issues, use drugs (and thee are plenty of them) they aren't choosing to go into prostitution. They can find other ways to deal with the lack of money and poverty.

Imo the reason for that is that men will always feel that more choice are open to them (due to their privilege) whereas women will always assume that few options are available, that it will be hard, that it will not work so resort for the thing that they know will 'work' (or that they are worthy of?).
You see that a lot when marriage brake down. Few men worry about what they will do when they will be on their own. Women worry a lot assuming they wont be able to cope with it.

Obviously the gender pay gap is a factor

Haven't read this whole thread, but although it's an interesting moral discussion, many posters seem to lack knowledge of what the law says.

The assertion that all men who use protitutes are rapists is just wrong.

The law says that: person A penetrates person B with his penis and he does not reasonably believe that person B is consenting.

Of course a prostitute can be raped, consent can be removed at any point. The point about whether or not she is giving true consent given her individual circumstances is valid. But- if sex is on offer as a service and the female does not withdraw her implied consent, then how exactly does the punter 'reasonably believe she is not consenting'?

In this scenario it is not rape, the male does not have the required mens rea, it cannot be rape. Therefore all punters are not rapists.

Whether the prostitute is in a coercive situation I.e under the control of a pimp is irrelevant as far as punter is concerned. Pimp is committing the offence here under S4 sexual offences act- causing another to engage in sexual activity without consent.

Obviously this is what the law states, morally yes it may be considered rape, but as the law stands currently it is not.

Pretty much every form of sex apart from enjoyable sex done for the pleasure of it is rape according to the mumsnet jury, Dizzynorthernbird

dizzy the whole point of the discussion is whether a woman who is a prostitute is EVER in a situation where she is consenting.
So the issue isn't whether she is withdrawing consent but the fact she has never given consent (or not depending on what you believe).
That and the issue of whether consent can be bought.

Personally, I would add another side to it too.
We know rape is never about sex, its about control.
If a man has a sexual encounter with a woman with the prostitution framework, want is it that he is looking for? Sex (that he could probably have got very easily going into a nightclub) or power over the woman/control.

One of the sites linked previously showed what these men are thinking and how the see prostitutes.
At best, ot shows they have a very poor image of women, seeing them as a tool for their own pleasure. At worst, they are clearly wanting full control of the woman's body, which could be related to rape.

There's a quote in the last link posted, to taken from a review someone posted about a prostitute he used. I don't want to post too much detail because it could be very triggering to some people but the basic of it is that he starts doing an act and she asks him to stop and do a different act however he doesn't stop because he's enjoying himself and keeps going until he's had his satisfaction.

Who would that prostitute complain to? She's withdrawn her consent, regardless of whether that consent was shoddy or solid to begin with, it was withdrawn and he didn't stop. As far as he is concerned, he was paying and could do what he liked because he'd bought her for the duration of the session. The customer is always right blah blah blah. The police might believe her, I'd hope, but how on earth could they bring about a prosecution? The jury would hear the word 'prostitute' and their minds would be made up. You can't say yes to one customer and no to another, you also can't say yes to a customer one minute and no to him the next, especially once you've taken his money and he's already enjoying himself.

It makes me wonder, if punters are not rapists as the law stands at this time, how many of them are committing rape at the current definition of what constitutes rape? And how many of those rapes go unreported? And how many people don't view them as 'real' rapes because, well, she's a prozzie anyway...?

I remember at the time of the Ipswich murders that the language used was always "the body of a prostitute has been found...." and "police are investigating the murder of a prostitute....". Never "a woman has died" or "a female body has been discovered". It's like they were going out of their way to point out that these were not your every day 'nice girls' or normal women, that they were prostitutes first and foremost and their status was defined by their role as a sex worker.

I agree that 'prostitute murder' is reported differently and it's like there's the assumption of 'oh well she's a prostitute what did she expect', which is totally wrong.

Those poor women, I remember one was doing it in secret and her family had no idea.

Gosh, I thought it was obvious that this wasn't a discussion about what the law states.

This is more of a philosophical discussion about what we believe and why.

Pretty much every form of sex apart from enjoyable sex done for the pleasure of it is rape according to the mumsnet jury

I've been on MN since late 2009 in various guises and have never encountered that view being pushed by the "MN jury". Which parts of the site are you looking at?

Well, if it's done with ulterior motives, and the woman is a drug addict then it is clearly rape according to this thread!

But rape is a legal concept, dowager
Of course, if you just want a thread to redefine a word, then go ahead
We may aswell start a thread to say 'the word elephant should include both elephant and hippos' in that case.

Maggie - that's exactly what this thread is about.

Asking whether having sex with a prostitute constitutes rape.

Legally it may not be, but the pages and pages of discussion show exactly how grey it is.

This is a thought exercise, is it not?

Yes, but asking if it's rape when you're redefining the concept of rape is a bit circular.

So according to the legal, accepted definition I'd say it's not rape
But according to the mumsnet definition it isn't.

I can't say whether I agree with the question in the thread title unless I know to whose definition I am referring!

I meant according to the mumsnet definition it is rape!

So, discuss it! Isn't that the entire point of this forum?

Otherwise, the question is asked, someone says no, the legal definition says it's not rape. The thread ends after two posts. That's not how it works on here!

Besides, it's about debating whether the legal definition is correct, or even adequate.

The same way people debated other legalities that are defunct - the right to abortion, rape in marriage, etc.

I've done nothing but discuss it Dowager

I believe

If a woman can refuse to do it, it's not rape

So, homeless beggar and coke addict girl who was tempted are both examples of women in dire straights who could have become prostitutes but didn't.

Therefore other woman who did have made a free choice to do that

So it isn't rape IMHO

But I respect other mumsnetters right to have a different opinion to mine.

"So, homeless beggar and coke addict girl who was tempted are both examples of women in dire straights who could have become prostitutes but didn't."

There are always exceptions-people who can face incredible challenges and overcome them. But most people can't. Most people aren't the homeless beggar or the coke addict or Alan Sugar.

dowager as previously stated I haven't had the opportunity to read the whole thread yet. And whilst I'm sure it has evolved into a philosophical discussion I was merely responding to the OPs original post - is it rape?

Most of the posts I had the chance to read were jumping to the conclusion that yes, it is rape, however all I wanted to point out was that most are missing an element of what constitutes rape. There are two parties involved and of equal importance to consent is what is going on in the mans head. To say that all men who have sex with a prostitute are rapists is completely wrong.

However I see that this discussion has evolved beyond the simple point I wanted to make so I shall retreat.....

"I do believe that having unwanted sex that wouldn't be taking place of there wasn't an imbalance in economic need between the participants is damaging for the person who is being paid in lieu of consent. "

Exactly.

Dizzy, I for one stated clearly that I didn't think they law as it stood would make a man using a prostitute a rapist, though it might if he proceeded immediately after hearing her pimp threaten her, say.

To come on to a 17 page thread and assert "many posters seem to lack knowledge" and then a few posts later say, "oh, I haven't read the whole thing, the discussion has evolved, I was just responding to the OP" is kinda impolite to those you said lacked knowledge, isn't it?

Dizzy, there's no need to retreat.

But we can quite easily wait while you RTFT. Your post is no more or less important than anyone else's on this thread - if you can't be bothered to read everyone else's, you can't expect us to take much heed of yours.

The discussion is around whether the current law is accurate and/or adequate, and whether men who don't really care that they have to buy 'consent' could be considered to be rapists.

Someone like you would have come blithely onto a thread back in 1990 to say that it's not possible for a man to rape his wife. The law might have been on your side, but you'd have been wrong nonetheless.

Bertrand Russell - are you saying because people choose to become prostitutes it is because they can't not choose to, despite the fact that others in similar situations (yes, homeless beggar and coke girl again) decided not to?

If so, you're really questioning free will - like your philosophical namesake. (Which is kind of ironic)

This is turning into quite an interesting free will v determinism thread

But, if the prostitutes don't have free will maybe the men who use them don't. Sex addicts, for example. What if THEY had a difficult/invalidating upbringing?

But of course you won't apply the same logic to them, THEY are responsible for their choices.

Personally, I don't think much of men who use prostitutes and I'm certainly not making excuses for them as I'm sure some posters will be quick to point out. I think they can CHOOSE not to use prostitutes and exercise their freedom of choice just as I believe a woman can CHOOSE not to become a prostitute and exercise their freedom of choice (trafficked women excepted)

But it's interesting that you believe in free will for one group of humans and not another.

I do wonder if you can see how inconsistent you are being.

But once a woman becomes a prostitute does her right to choose her own partners still exist?

Of course Tarla, she can decide to stop being a prostitute and not have any (paying) sexual partners. Or decide not to work with a particular punter, many prostitutes of the call girl variety vet clients I belive

What's your understanding of how it works?