stiffing a prostitute: rape or theft?

[axlryder]

Random thought I had. Obviously most prostitutes would want to get paid up front, but let's say one agreed to be paid after the deed was done.

The man/women in question leaves without paying, what is their crime?

Does the situation change depending on the legality of prostitution? How about the manner in which they are bamboozled? Where does "partial payment" fit in?

Well, thoughts?

 

[Saelune]

If its legal prostitution, theft. If its illegal prostitution, then its soliciting a prostitute and being a jerk.

Its not rape when someone has consensual sex with you after a date and says they will call you but never calls you. Its jerky, but not illegal.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Refusing to pay the agreed amount for services rendered is theft. Conning someone of right mind into sex is not rape. You can't revoke consent after the fact, otherwise bitter ex-lovers across the nation would be filling the courtrooms every day.

That said, prostitution is illegal in most of the US, so this question would only be pertinent in Nevada. Outside of Nevada, I'm pretty sure any guy who didn't pay a prostitute would receive visitors in the night that he WISHES were cops.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

On the one hand decisions made under false pretenses are arguably not consensual. On the other hand, that's probably not something that should face the same legal punishment as other forms of rape. If there were different classes of rape charges which included a lesser category for sex under false pretenses it would definitely go there. I would definitely say it is a kind of rape, but should face a different level of legal punishment, like the varying classes of homicide.

 

[Fox12]

It's theft.

Still, good luck explaining that to the judge. Or the pimp.

 

[Lufia Erim]

Go look up rape in the dictionary. This question is dumb. You said the word " agree" in your question, therefore it cannot be rape by definition.

 

[MeatMachine]

Deception is a pathetic mating strategy, but it is not rape, as consent is still provided by either party.
Gypping a prostitute is theft... probably the absolute lowest, most pathetic form of theft imaginable.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'd say someone consenting to sex on the condition you pay them followed by not to be as much rape as pretending to be their boyfriend in costume and having them consent to someone you're not. Not technically illegal, but it probably should be.

And then theft, obviously. I'ma go with "both".

 

[stroopwafel]

Refusing to pay the agreed amount for services rendered is theft. Conning someone of right mind into sex is not rape. You can't revoke consent after the fact, otherwise bitter ex-lovers across the nation would be filling the courtrooms every day.

It's true that there is consent but it is conditional consent: the condition being a mutually agreed upon financial transaction. When this condition isn't met there would have been no consent. This is different from scorned lovers b/c there is no preceding agreement that both parties agreed upon before sex. Here consent isn't conditional, but in the case of prostitution there definitely is.

I'd say it's borderline rape. Punishment should probably be a hefty fine and payment of the outstanding sum as well as a record for vice crimes to discourage others from cheating a prostitute. Not that I think solliciting the services of a prostitute itself should be illegal though. Cases like this(lack of legal representation) is actually a good example why making prostitution illegal is bad idea.

 

[sageoftruth]

Refusing to pay the agreed amount for services rendered is theft. Conning someone of right mind into sex is not rape. You can't revoke consent after the fact, otherwise bitter ex-lovers across the nation would be filling the courtrooms every day.

It's true that there is consent but it is conditional consent: the condition being a mutually agreed upon financial transaction. When this condition isn't met there would have been no consent. This is different from scorned lovers b/c there is no preceding agreement that both parties agreed upon before sex. Here consent isn't conditional, but in the case of prostitution there definitely is.

I'd say it's borderline rape. Punishment should probably be a hefty fine and payment of the outstanding sum as well as a record for vice crimes to discourage others from cheating a prostitute. Not that I think solliciting the services of a prostitute itself should be illegal though. Cases like this(lack of legal representation) is actually a good example why making prostitution illegal is bad idea.

Damn. You might have a point there, sort of. As you said, when paying a prostitute, you're paying for her consent. After all, you could tell her you won't pay right off the bat and then it would just be plain rape. The question then is whether or not by stiffing her, you're basically stealing her consent, or is she free to retroactively withdraw her consent? I doubt that would fly in court. The ways that could be abused are pretty scary, as Kolby Jack pointed out. Still, consent is tricky. I work in a law office. I'll see what my co-workers think and get back to you if I find anything.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

You know GTA has cheats you can use if you're that short on cash, right?

 

[happyninja42]

It's not rape if both parties consent to the act. I'm not sure if it would considered theft, since the act of prostitution is illegal in most places. So can you break a law about breaking a law? Since actually giving the sex worker the money would be the crime, not giving her money would actually keep you safe. Since you could honestly tell the police that you didn't pay that person for sex. Regardless, it's a dick move to do. That person has a job, and sometimes it's not a pleasant one, and they do it to live. Not paying them the agreed upon remuneration makes their life harder.

I've never understood the cultural behavior to treat sex workers like sub-humans. What's wrong with a job that gives people orgasms? I fail to see how a higher number of people with access to stress relief, happy endorphins, and some physical intimacy is a bad thing. As George Carlin put it once "Of all the things you can do to a person for money, giving them an orgasm is hardly the worst thing. Why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?!"

We applaud, and try and hero-fy blue collar work as being "good old fashion work, that keeps the country going!" And yet prostitutes are somehow less than human, and worthy of nothing but scorn and derision. And hey, it's ok right? She's just a whore right? Who fucking cares? It's not like she's a person or anything.

Fuck that noise.

 

[stroopwafel]

The question then is whether or not by stiffing her, you're basically stealing her consent, or is she free to retroactively withdraw her consent?

I'd say by not paying you violate the agreement which is her consent. And sex without consent is considered rape.

I've never understood the cultural behavior to treat sex workers like sub-humans.

Me neither. Blame social stigma and cultural attitudes I guess. Fact remains that prostitution is the world's ''oldest profession'' for a reason and here to stay whether it's legal or not(ofcourse I'm not talking about human trafficking or forced prostitution here). It's a 'crime' with no perpetrators or victims since it's a mutual agreement between two consenting adults(as long as the prostitute gets paid and her boundaries are respected ofcourse). Making prostitution illegal is also detrimental for the safety and protection of sex workers(which this topic exemplifies).

Espescially in the U.S. this attitude is hypocritical since prostitution is illegal but prostitution with a camera(ie porn) is perfectly legal. Makes no sense to me.

 

[happyninja42]

Espescially in the U.S. this attitude is hypocritical since prostitution is illegal but prostitution with a camera(ie porn) is perfectly legal. Makes no sense to me.

Porn is actually really easy to explain. They are not being paid to have sex. They are being paid to act in a movie, which involves sexual activity. On the books, the money being given to them isn't "To suck my dick, or let me stick it in your ass." It's for "acting in an adult film, parodying *insert popular culture thing*, in which, we have sex." But the check isn't for fucking, it's for acting.

So there is a difference. And honestly I'm fine with that, as I see the distinction, and I don't really consider it splitting hairs.

But yeah, personally I don't see it as being any different from the long list of stupid jobs that were lauded on shows like Dirty Jobs, and in most cases, it's probably more beneficial.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Refusing to pay the agreed amount for services rendered is theft. Conning someone of right mind into sex is not rape. You can't revoke consent after the fact, otherwise bitter ex-lovers across the nation would be filling the courtrooms every day.

It's true that there is consent but it is conditional consent: the condition being a mutually agreed upon financial transaction. When this condition isn't met there would have been no consent. This is different from scorned lovers b/c there is no preceding agreement that both parties agreed upon before sex. Here consent isn't conditional, but in the case of prostitution there definitely is.

I'd say it's borderline rape. Punishment should probably be a hefty fine and payment of the outstanding sum as well as a record for vice crimes to discourage others from cheating a prostitute. Not that I think solliciting the services of a prostitute itself should be illegal though. Cases like this(lack of legal representation) is actually a good example why making prostitution illegal is bad idea.

Does conditional consent have any sort of legal basis? I've never heard of any cases involving it.

 

[WindKnight]

Refusing to pay the agreed amount for services rendered is theft. Conning someone of right mind into sex is not rape. You can't revoke consent after the fact, otherwise bitter ex-lovers across the nation would be filling the courtrooms every day.

It's true that there is consent but it is conditional consent: the condition being a mutually agreed upon financial transaction. When this condition isn't met there would have been no consent. This is different from scorned lovers b/c there is no preceding agreement that both parties agreed upon before sex. Here consent isn't conditional, but in the case of prostitution there definitely is.

I'd say it's borderline rape. Punishment should probably be a hefty fine and payment of the outstanding sum as well as a record for vice crimes to discourage others from cheating a prostitute. Not that I think solliciting the services of a prostitute itself should be illegal though. Cases like this(lack of legal representation) is actually a good example why making prostitution illegal is bad idea.

Does conditional consent have any sort of legal basis? I've never heard of any cases involving it.

there's 'rape by deception' which is when someone consenting because they thought you were someone else.

Say, a girlfriend follows her boyfriend into a darkened room, sleeps with 'him' only the boyfriend flips on a light to reveal his best friend was in the bed instead of him, and it was all a prank, that would be Rape By Deception. (see also Revenge of the Nerds where the cheerleader sleeps with a nerd because he's wearing a Darth Vader mask like her boyfriend is, and the nerd does nothing to tell her he is not her boyfriend until afterwards)

 

[FalloutJack]

Both, I would say. A violation in every sense of the word.

 

[09philj]

Both. You violated the terms of the sexual consent, which could be considered rape (At the very least it's bad practice), and you failed to provide proper payment for the service, which is theft.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Both. You violated the terms of the sexual consent, which could be considered rape (At the very least it's bad practice), and you failed to provide proper payment for the service, which is theft.

But then what if you pay her eventually? is it rape until you pay, like some kind of Schrodingers rapist situation??