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?

Then you get one prostitute saying she loves it and it paid for college and that seems to serve as the default argument.

Don't be stupid

I didn't say It wasn't bad. I said it wasn't comparable to some of the other scenarios

It's all very well stating that men who use prostitutes are rapists and so on... but how does this translate to helping the women?

If you made it absolutely impossible for any man anywhere to pay a woman for sex... how does that help these women who are so desperate for money that they will resort to prostitution?

They still need the money, they still can't get a "proper" job, they still need to pay the rent... they've probably got children to feed... where do they get the money from?

IMO it is consent. I don't think you can say that just because someone's doing it for money then it's not consent. It's a business transaction.

I think if you are saying it's rape, then that's changing the definition of rape somewhat.

And saying it's rape if the prostitute is drug addicted and has no choice makes no sense, does that mean that drug addicts who burgle or rob to get money have no choice either? In which case they would never be guilty of a crime?

It may be a constrained choice, in the case of a prostitute who's addicted, but it's still a choice. Otherwise no one would ever be able to stop.

Maybe ask the traffickers why they traffick? Start with the offenders and the real beneficiaries.

I definitely view it as rape. Any man that can get a hard on over a girl with no option to say no, flinching away from him is a scary and disgusting man.

It translates to the Scandinavian model. Selling isn't criminal, buying is. That way there is a lower standard of proof for a woman to get justice in the event of assault. Sex work still goes on but men, society and the police treat the punters as criminals.

I was an 'escort'.
The concept of it being a choice makes me laugh. You have no idea. All the girls I worked with, including me, were sexually abused as kids. Most of us were raped, at work, by guys who thought paying meant anything goes.
I do consider prostitution to be rape, yes.

I'm so sorry that happened to you.

Giles it's not a standard response to needing money "I'll sell sexual access to my body to some disgusting man" is it? Therefore I think that women who do think that are likely to have a history of abuse and/or are being groomed and coerced by (again) some disgusting man.
Any man who is involved is a disgusting rapist.

Almost all of prostitutes are doing it for reasons other than because they love sex with strangers, therefore it is not true consent. Consent is not a purchasable commodity - it is either freely given or it isn't there at all.

Morally, if not legally, it is rape because most prostitutes are subject to coercion. This may take many forms, including financial coercion, drug addiction, physical abuse by a pimp or being explicitly forced by a trafficker. None of it represents consent though.

So sorry that happened to you Smart
X post

Consent is not a purchasable commodity - it is either freely given or it isn't there at all
Yes, exactly

I also have no problem with calling men who use prostitutes 'rapists'. They know full well that they are having sex with a woman who (a) doesn't want sex with them and (b) is almost certainly not in a position to refuse, but they go ahead anyway. It mag not be legally rape, but morals and laws aren't the same thing.

If you made it absolutely impossible for any man anywhere to pay a woman for sex... how does that help these women who are so desperate for money that they will resort to prostitution?

One would hope that there could be such a society that people would never be that desperate. Proper universal welfare etc.

And saying it's rape if the prostitute is drug addicted and has no choice makes no sense, does that mean that drug addicts who burgle or rob to get money have no choice either? In which case they would never be guilty of a crime?

Drug addiction is an illness, and should be treated as such.

Thanks, Mrs P. I'm lucky, I had a loving family and friends and the ability to leave. I remember the friend who was murdered shortly after I left, by an angry punter. She had two little girls. She was intelligent, bright, vivacious, beautiful.

smart

That's why this thread is so sad yet so confusing.

I consider myself one of the lucky ones. Saying no was naturally not an option really. But nothing "bad" happened to me and I was able to get out when I wanted which was pretty soon after really as I hadn't wanted to push my luck.

I really don't feel comfortable being lumped as a victim like others as I wasn't trafficked or addicted to drugs .

I didn't like it I wish I'd not had to do it but reading yours and others stories I can't put myself on that even it doesn't feel right

If it's not a choice how could anyone ever stop?

I know women who used to be escorts and stopped escorting after they'd had enough and made a decision not to do it any more.

So if they made a decision to not do it, surely it was a choice to do it when they did do it?

I'm not talking about women who've been trafficked maybe you could argue for them it is rape ,I'm talking about the women who can and do choose to leave the 'profession'.

And just because you've been an escort yourself, smartleatherbag, doesn't mean you can tell other posters they have no idea what they're talking about. It doesn't make you some sort of authority on the subject or make your opinion more important than anyone else's.

Level

Bloody phone

A drug addiction bungling houses still has a choice, they can choose not to break into that house and take that stuff. A prostitute is quite often beholden to someone else and has no choice. If she says no then there will be repercussions.

I think there is something very wrong with people who pay for sex. There is no way it's purely about meeting a physical need. Not to cast aspersions on my home town but if I had an itch I couldn't scratch myself I could go down to the local bars on a weekend and, provided I wasn't too choosy, could find someone more than willing to have a one night stand and all for free. Paying someone who is not entirely willing (despite what they might say), possibly trafficked, and only there for the money is grim and shows an utter contempt of women.

So if they made a decision to not do it, surely it was a choice to do it when they did do it?

Of course not. Circumstances change. Because you have no choice at one point in time, does not mean choices don't open up for you later in life.

There are still some people who insist on putting a romanticised spin on the men who use prostitutes.

One read of PN, as linked above, should be enough to disabuse them of that idea. Unless they are punters themselves, of course. In which case, it's every Tom, Dick or Harry (insert male name as you wish) for himself.

I think Smart's witness testimony is very powerful, actually.

If you made it absolutelyimpossiblefor any man anywhere to pay a woman for sex... how does that help these women who are so desperate for money that they will resort to prostitution?

If you made if absolutelyimpossiblefor employers to run unsafe sweatshops using cheap labour, children even, how does that help these families who are so desperate for money that they will resort to sending their children to work in them?

It doesn't. But providing a fucking safety net within society would. No one should have to be that desperate in a civilised society.