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?

Another one who finds it uncomfortable reading.

and not said a word afterwards.

...and there's the difference. Your DH did say 'a word' afterwards. Why?

He's obviously laughing about it now, but he was moved enough at the time to say he wasn't happy and felt pressured.

I'm bumping this after mentioning it in AIBU, hope you don't mind.

Hello. It's been mentioned to us that it would be a shame if this thread disappeared after 90 days. With that in mind we're going to move it over to Feminism chat.

Interesting thread.

However, none of that changes the fact that consent, as a concept, is totally incompatible with being a purchasable commodity. The very nature of consent is such that, in order for it to be genuine, it must be freely given. It is not for sale.

Does this mean that anyone doing a job is not consenting to do it ? I don't understand your comment. Given the definition of consent as permission or agreement - I think you're wrong about it being incompatible with being purchasable surely ?

So you're coming from the "prostitution is a job like any other" angle.
Which is something I disagree with given the risks involved (abortion, STI's, being murdered, the criminal aspect of it all)

A job is a job. You are protected by your union or legislation that forces compensation for accident or your family are by law compensated for death on the job.

No family has ever been compensated for the murder of a prostitute.

You must be blind not to see the grey area surrounding this so-called consent in prostitution.

Re. being like a job - ItalianGreyhound posted this link on another thread which I thought was insightful.

I agree it is not a job like any other, but that's not what was said. What was said was that you couldn't consent to sex for money.

To clarify my thinking....if someone thinks they were raped, we would all surely agree that they were because they would know whether they consented. However if someone believes they are consenting to sex for money, and there seem to be many "happy hookers" who say this, then why would we deny their claims to know whether or not they consented ?

girlwith
You're confusing sexual consent with any type of consent.
If you agree prostitution is not like any ordinary job then that negates your sentiment entirely.

Typed before your second post.

Well most of the time women who are raped are completely misbelieved.
In a rape culture you might see why women might choose prostitution but it wouldn't exist outside of misogynistic coersion.

Coersion of any form does not equate consent to me.
.

If you are telling women who say they consent to sex that they actually are wrong and they are being raped, which is what it would be, then you have a different definition of consent from most people and indeed the dictionary.

I don't like prostitution but sadly there are many women who say they are happy with the lifestyle. I don't think telling them they don't know their own mind and are being raped is either helpful or logical.

That is not to say that "happy hookers" represent anything like the majority, but they do imo, none the less consent to sex for money, to deny this seems illogical and is to deny that they know their own mind surely ?

It's more telling the men who use prostituted women that they are raping that's important, rather than focusing on telling the women they are being raped, imo. Trying to remove the normalisation and acceptance of men feeling entitled to buy sex, not trying to make the women feel worse or shame them. The focus is different.

Have not read the full thread but this puts it very well. There is no question the first scenario is rape morally or legally.

The second morally rape - so far as legally I wonder if it is the case it has never been tested in court?.

There's no doubt that sex which was not part of the agreed price is rape but I doubt if the wider issue has been considered.

Consider the following.
1
Him: "Have sex with me or I'll shoot your children"
Her "Yes yes I want to have sex with you (to save my children).
Not consent. Coersion. Rape.

2
Him: "You need money? Have sex with me and you'll get some"
Her: "Well my children will starve without money. Yes I'll have sex with you" Is this coersion and therefore rape? Or true consent?

Whatever the focus it still comes down to denying that woman knows whether she consented which is problematic however you look at it.

I have no problem with saying that prostitution is harmful to society and should be banned on that basis. However that does not deny that some women appear willing to sell sex for money and they consent to it.

Ok well we'll have to agree to disagree there

"I have no problem with saying that prostitution is harmful to society and should be banned on that basis. "

Excellent. I'll go with that

Whatever the focus it still comes down to denying that woman knows whether she consented which is problematic however you look at it

I have no problem with saying that prostitution is harmful to society and should be banned on that basis. However that does not deny that some women appear willing to sell sex for money and they consent to it

I agree. It is possible to make a persuasive case that prostitution is so harmful to society that it should not be legal. The question of individual consent then is irrelevant.

Prostitution is directly harmful to the women and men selling themselves.

It opens up far too many possibilities of links to organised crime, extortion, trafficking, drugs, coercion of minors and money laundering.

It is harmful to those who live and work in areas where prostitution happens but who are not directly involved. All and all it is not compatible with a fair and decent society.

But is "banning" i.e. full criminalization, illegal to buy and illegal to sell sex, the right thing either?
I imagine that would cost the taxpayer rather a lot.

That's why I suppport NM. It holds men to account and protects women while streamlining law agencies.

girlwith your happy hookers eagerly opening their legs for money are urban legend status IME. You will not find a single WG outside of a tiny bloggers fantasy bubble who didn't choose it due to severe economic disempowerment or socioeconomic disadvantages. (i.e. IRL).

I think although maybe wrong, that that Nordic model does ban it, it criminalises buying sex and without bought sex, there is no prostitution. I do wonder though if every prostitute or escort in the country is only doing it because it's a last resort and you take away their income, then it would also surely be a burden on the taxpayer to not leave them unable to live ?

But is "banning" i.e. full criminalization, illegal to buy and illegal to sell sex, the right thing either?

It is well intentioned but illogical that something should be legal to sell but not to buy but on the other hand it is not helpful to anyone who wishes to escape from prostitution to have a conviction.

Possibly selling , as long as it is not aggravated by say pimping or brothel keeping should only attract a caution which can be excluded from a DBS check.

I'm definitely in favour of making buying illegal.

No. NM does not "ban" it. The police aren't camped outside all known establishments picking up all the blokes. The men are arrested on informer basis so you have to really piss off a WG to be arrested.
The NM has worked extremely well in reducing street prostitution (being so visible) and SP is the most dangerous, lowest paid form of prostitution so this is a positive result.

Sure, if you "ban" prostitution it's the double whammy cost to the taxpayer 1. the cost of law agents patrolling after all WG's and punters to keep them in check / lock them up, and 2. supporting all would-be WG's by the state.

NM is more streamline and WGs can still make cash. The punter is forced to be more respectful so as not to get reported.

(That was to girl)

Lass I'd be in favour of an exclusionary caution for selling and in practice you'd probably only get one if you were causing an antisocial nuisance.

Hmm, I had not appreciated the Nordic model worked like that- that seems to be saying prostitution is OK/we will turn a blind eye if the punters "play nice".

Lass I'd be in favour of an exclusionary caution for selling and in practice you'd probably only get one if you were causing an antisocial nuisance

Yes , that makes sense.