Is sex with a 3rd world prostitute a form of rape?

SugarHigh

If someone has no other choice but become a prostitute to survive then are they still able to give consent since they are not in a position to say no. If they don't really have choice to say no surely this would be the same as rape just in the same way we don't believe someone under the age of consent is capable of saying no.

I'm not against prostitution when the women actually has a choice but this does strike me as basically taking advantage of someone. Yet I've heard many men openly talk about having sex with prostitutes in Thailand and no one seems appalled.

seanybiker

Surely most prostitutes become prostitutes because they have no other choices

johnmcdnl

they are in a position to say no - as bad as a situation that they're in they could still "possibly" find work some other way..

prostitution is just the "easiest" way possibility but they are not in a position where they HAVE to consent to becoming a prostitute

looksee

I think it is a little naive to say they could say no, if they are being 'managed' by a gang/pimp, there doesn't seem to be much option of saying no.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sophia25

In many situations it is the only means they have that would give enough money to pay for sick elderly parents and/or young children. It is an obvious abuse of privilege and exploitation, the only difference with it and rape is the absence of violence (usually) and the added burden of the woman having to pretend she's enjoying it. I suppose also some men may feel more justified in this then rape as they have paid for it, but really....... are they kidding themselves it's a mutually beneficial agreement!

Ickle Magoo

Surely rape is having sex with someone without their consent - regardless of the conditions that led to them offering their bodies for money, there would be few clients who forcefully have sex with prostitutes.

There's a world of difference between preferring another occupation and not giving consent to sexual relations.

SugarHigh

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely rape is having sex with someone without their consent - regardless of the conditions that led to them offering their bodies for money, there would be few clients who forcefully have sex with prostitutes.

There's a world of difference between preferring another occupation and not giving consent to sexual relations.

You are missing my point that they may not be in a position to give consent. Rape doesn't have to be forceful to be considered rape. If an underage girl consents to sex it's still considered rape because she isn't believed to be capable of giving consent.

My argument is that if a women is under duress from poverty or a pimp than she isn't in a position to give consent. A legal document is void if it was signed under duress so why doesn't the same line of thinking apply to consent?

SugarHigh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrW_wfBRE0

Look at the girls reaction. I don't know what a rape victim looks like but I'd imagine it would be similar.

Ickle Magoo

I suppose the argument is that not all women in poverty are prostitutes so there is still a degree of choice. While it may not be the ideal or first choice occupation, it is still an adult making the decision to sell their body for money - in the case of pimping or trafficking then this is already illegal so I'm not sure why or how you would criminalise the client for the crime of a third party.

sophia25

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think it definitely depends on your definition of rape.

Rape:- The unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Any man who pays to have sex with a woman living in abject poverty and does not appreciate that she is doing this under duress are fooling no-one but themselves. No, violence may not be used but rape is about an abuse of power rather than sex, this is also obvious in the exploitation of a person desperate to feed a family.

SugarHigh

johnmcdnl wrote: »

they are in a position to say no - as bad as a situation that they're in they could still "possibly" find work some other way..

prostitution is just the "easiest" way possibility but they are not in a position where they HAVE to consent to becoming a prostitute

Click on the video I posted and watch all the parts of "The Vice guide to Liberia" and then point out what options the women have?

There is a contradiction where if going into prostitution is there best option if you remove that option they are surely in a worse position so the people who are potentially rapists are in fact helping them. There was program on the other night in Kenya and one of the guys who had sex with an underage prostitute used this reasoning and I couldn't really find fault with it but at the same time I still viewed him as a rapist.

SugarHigh

SugarHigh wrote: »

You are missing my point that they may not be in a position to give consent. Rape doesn't have to be forceful to be considered rape. If an underage girl consents to sex it's still considered rape because she isn't believed to be capable of giving consent.

My argument is that if a women is under duress from poverty or a pimp than she isn't in a position to give consent. A legal document is void if it was signed under duress so why doesn't the same line of thinking apply to consent?

You mean like someone drunk cant give informed consent or something?

SugarHigh

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I suppose the argument is that not all women in poverty are prostitutes so there is still a degree of choice.

That doesn't mean the women have a choice because they are in a different situation. Just because some people manage to find work I don't think it's fair to use them as a stick to beat the ones who can't find work i.e. If they can get work then why can't you? There is of course only a limited amount of work.

While it may not be the ideal or first choice occupation, it is still an adult making the decision to sell their body for money - in the case of pimping or trafficking then this is already illegal so I'm not sure why or how you would criminalise the client for the crime of a third party.

You should criminalise both the pimp and the rapist because they are both taking advantage of someone.

SugarHigh

bluewolf wrote: »

You mean like someone drunk cant give informed consent or something?

Yes, there are many reasons someone can't give consent. It's not an easy thing to define whether someone is capable of giving consent but I would have thought if you can't sign a legal document under duress then how can it be ok to consent to sex under duress.

If a woman is afraid that her pimp will beat or even kill her if she refuses a client than she isn't in a position to consent to sex with that client. She won't say no because that's not really viable option she is being forced to say yes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

SugarHigh wrote: »

That doesn't mean the women have a choice because they are in a different situation. Just because some people manage to find work I don't think it's fair to use them as a stick to beat the ones who can't find work i.e. If they can get work then why can't you? There is of course only a limited amount of work.

Okay, so some are making an informed decision to become prostitutes - and you don't mind using those who are coerced as a stick to beat them with?

SugarHigh wrote: »

You should criminalise both the pimp and the rapist because they are both taking advantage of someone.

When you start using hysterical language to describe all clients of prostitutes then your argument loses credibility. There are undoubtedly plenty of women who choose prostitution for whatever reasons that are well beyond my comprehension and that is their right, their clients are not rapists in any sense of the word. It is known as the oldest profession in the world for a reason.

That said, there are definitely seedy, predatory and distasteful sides to the sex industry - the differing laws and acceptabilities in different countries mean that there will be sex tourists, that's the nature of the beast. Jumping from acknowledging that to assuming all men who pay for sex must there for be rapists and automatically criminalising all aspects helps no-one, it does nothing to differentiate between those who choose prostitution and those who are coerced - nor even attempt to answer why prostitution exists even in affluent societies when there are plenty of career options.

SugarHigh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Statutory rape is still rape. When you hold someone at knife-point you are refusing them the choice of consent and we also believe that a child isn't capable of giving consent, so I don't see why it's wrong to call it rape.

You seem to follow the Whoopi Goldberg logic of "It wasn't rape rape".

Rape is sex without someones consent. The reasons why they didn't give consent or weren't able to give consent do not change the fact it is rape.

SugarHigh

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Okay, so some are making an informed decision to become prostitutes - and you don't mind using those who are coerced as a stick to beat them with?

I mentioned that I have no problem with prostitution when the person is capable of giving consent. Read my first post again.

When you start using hysterical language to describe all clients of prostitutes then your argument loses credibility. There are undoubtedly plenty of women who choose prostitution for whatever reasons that are well beyond my comprehension and that is their right, their clients are not rapists in any sense of the word. It is known as the oldest profession in the world for a reason.

Again read my first post. I have no problem with prostitution in cases where the women is able to give consent. Calling someone who has sex without the other persons consent a rapist is not hysterical language. This discussion is really about whether these women who have no other choice are capable of giving consent. If you are going to be killed for saying no than how do you have a choice?

That said, there are definitely seedy, predatory and distasteful sides to the sex industry - the differing laws and acceptabilities in different countries mean that there will be sex tourists, that's the nature of the beast. Jumping from acknowledging that to assuming all men who pay for sex must there for be rapists and automatically criminalising all aspects helps no-one, it does nothing to differentiate between those who choose prostitution and those who are coerced - nor even attempt to answer why prostitution exists even in affluent societies when there are plenty of career options.

Where did I say this? You are the one being hysterical and trying to put words in my mouth.

Ickle Magoo

SugarHigh wrote: »

I mentioned that I have no problem with prostitution when the person is capable of giving consent. Read my first post again.

So how do you differentiate? I can't understand why anyone would want to be a prostitute, it seems like an inherently dangerous and unpleasant occupation to me and yet there are plenty of those that choose to do it because presumably it has certain remunerations - so surely all prostitutes are working under duress? In fact, don't most people work under duress?

SugarHigh wrote: »

Again read my first post. I have no problem with prostitution in cases where the women is able to give consent. Calling someone who has sex without the other persons consent a rapist is not hysterical language. This discussion is really about whether these women who have no other choice are capable of giving consent. If you are going to be killed for saying no than how do you have a choice?

Okay, so how do you determine those who are being coerced from those who are not?

SugarHigh wrote: »

Where did I say this? You are the one being hysterical and trying to put words in my mouth.

Well, no. Your OP is suggesting sex with 3rd world prostitutes aught to be classed as A FORM OF rape - which is assuming A) there must be different forms of rape - oddly enough something you were arguing against in a later post and there is no such thing as voluntary prostitution in the 3rd world. I am just pointing out if women in the affluent west choose it as a career path, why wouldn't or shouldn't those in the third world? What purpose do you think arbitrarily labelling clients as rapists actually has?

SugarHigh

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So how do you differentiate? I can't understand why anyone would want to be a prostitute, it seems like an inherently dangerous and unpleasant occupation to me and yet there are plenty of those that choose to do it because presumably it has certain remunerations - so surely all prostitutes are working under duress? In fact, don't most people work under duress?

This is obviously something that would have to be decided on a case by case basis the same way if someone claimed they only signed a contract because they were under duress it would be judged on it's own merits. My point is that I consider sever poverty to be a form of duress. Yes I'm sure there are prostitutes in the 3rd world who aren't under duress and my thread title doesn't represent them.

Okay, so how do you determine those who are being coerced from those who are not?

It is obviously difficult the same way any rape case is difficult. It's not easy to say if a girl was too drunk to give consent and each case get's judged on it's own.

Well, no. Your OP is suggesting sex with 3rd world prostitutes aught to be classed as A FORM OF rape - which is assuming A) there must be different forms of rape - oddly enough something you were arguing against in a later post

I did not argue against there being different forms of rape in fact I did the opposite. You are once again making up stuff I did not say.

and there is no such thing as voluntary prostitution in the 3rd world.

Again I'm sure there are prostitutes in the 3rd world who aren't under duress and I admit my thread title doesn't represent them. If you actually read my post instead of just the title you would obviously realise I am not against prostitution where the girl isn't forced into it.

I am just pointing out if women in the affluent west choose it as a career path, why wouldn't or shouldn't those in the third world? What purpose do you think arbitrarily labelling clients as rapists actually has?

Prostitution isn't really the same in the west though is it? A girl in Liberia doesn't have the option to decline clients, well it's not certainly not a safe option anyway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

SugarHigh wrote: »

This is obviously something that would have to be decided on a case by case basis the same way if someone claimed they only signed a contract because they were under duress it would be judged on it's own merits. My point is that I consider sever poverty to be a form of duress. Yes I'm sure there are prostitutes in the 3rd world who aren't under duress and my thread title doesn't represent them.

I think in theory its a great idea - but completely unworkable. Hell, they can't police prostitution, trafficking and so on in London or Dublin; how do you propose it works in countries where the police are the pimps?

SugarHigh wrote: »

It is obviously difficult the same way any rape case is difficult. It's not easy to say if a girl was too drunk to give consent and each case get's judged on it's own.

By whom? You seem to be suggesting some form of global legislation?

SugarHigh wrote: »

I did not argue against there being different forms of rape in fact I did the opposite. You are once again making up stuff I did not say.

I thought rape is just rape, contrary to anything Ms Goldberg has had to say on the matter?

SugarHigh wrote: »

Again I'm sure there are prostitutes in the 3rd world who aren't under duress and I admit my thread title doesn't represent them. If you actually read my post instead of just the title you would obviously realise I am not against prostitution where the girl isn't forced into it.

But how can you possibly know the difference? How can you not be against prostitution where someone isn't forced into it when you have no way of knowing if poverty or drugs or some other form of duress has also forced them into the industry?

SugarHigh wrote: »

Prostitution isn't really the same in the west though is it? A girl in Liberia doesn't have the option to decline clients, well it's not certainly not a safe option anyway.

Isn't it? How do you know? Do you think irish pimps are kinder than liberian ones?

If someone is prostituting themselves because they are under duress or fear for their life, what makes you think they are going to press criminal charges? Or even own up to being under duress?

Look, while I think the aim of abolishing all coerced prostitution is a noble one, proposing unpoliceable global legislation which would require a lot of time, money and effort from local legislators and judicial bodies, in an area of the law notoriously difficult to prosecute successfully in a part of the world renowned for corruption is a fairly pointless exercise.

SugarHigh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yet we all agree that there is a point where someone is not able to give consent because of there age. I am arguing that there is a point where someones situation is so dire that they aren't in a position to say no. Whether for financial reasons or safety reasons because of the consequence of saying no. I never defined that point and it isn't easy to define.

Then, can you explain why an 18-year-old Irish male, who had what he considered to be consensual intercourse with a 16-year-old girl, will not be charged with the crime of rape?

Why are you even asking me this question? It seems like a question you should be asking the people who actually made that judgement. Where did I say they would be charged under the Irish legal system, are we a 3rd world country?

Whether it is legally called rape or not would depend on each legal system. I don't know why you are arguing such a pedantic point. Statutory rape and defilement of a child are two ways of saying the same thing. I genuinely don't care which one you decide to use.

SugarHigh

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I thought rape is just rape, contrary to anything Ms Goldberg has had to say on the matter?

Where are you getting "rape is just rape" from?
You are once again trying to put words in my mouth and I'm just getting bored talking to someone who is more interested in arguing against what they make up.

I was arguing that there are types of rape but they are all still rape.

But how can you possibly know the difference? How can you not be against prostitution where someone isn't forced into it when you have no way of knowing if poverty or drugs or some other form of duress has also forced them into the industry?

*Bangs head on desk*
I have stated numerous times I am against any type of prostitution where the prostitution doesn't have a choice because I believe a lack of choice makes it impossible to give consent. It isn't up to me to know the difference because I simply don't use prostitutes. It would be up to a court to decide if she was in a position to give consent. If a guy has sex with someone who believes is not being forced into it and it turns out she is well then he still deserves to be charged the same way you get charged for unknowingly buying stolen goods. I don't know what this charge would be called and I don't care. By having this charge you are making men more cautious of who they decide to buy sex from and hopefully creates a situation where they will only buy from registered brothels which I believe should be legalised.

Isn't it? How do you know? Do you think irish pimps are kinder than liberian ones?

Yes of course. I don't think an Irish pimp would kill his prostitutes without fear of consequence. Did you watch the Doc on LIberia I posted. You have men feeding children to other children. It not a country where you say no. UN soldiers also go to these prostitutes.

If someone is prostituting themselves because they are under duress or fear for their life, what makes you think they are going to press criminal charges? Or even own up to being under duress?

The same argument can be made against numerous laws. The prostitutes situation may change.

Look, while I think the aim of abolishing all coerced prostitution is a noble one, proposing unpoliceable global legislation which would require a lot of time, money and effort from local legislators and judicial bodies, in an area of the law notoriously difficult to prosecute successfully in a part of the world renowned for corruption is a fairly pointless exercise.

The same argument could be made against countless laws. Why even have murder be illegal in Liberia when the police force is completely incompetent and corrupt? Why have any laws there?

Ickle Magoo

Before you bang your head on your desk and accuse anyone else of anything, perhaps you could stop selectively quoting and answering others, otherwise your protestations are most disingenuous.

Although it obviously appears to be completely logical to you; your entire premise was based originally upon labelling anyone using 3rd world prostitutes, without any form of authority of adjudication and despite later acknowledging there would be voluntary prostitutes, as rapists. That then changed to somehow arbitrarily knowing which prostitutes are working under duress and which aren't and applying the charge only to their clients - irrespective of the presumption of innocence that belays the western judicial system.

Now you seem to be denigrating liberia's legal system - in which I'd be completely supportive - but that has nothing do with your original point of presumption of guilt and charge of rape by some theoretical global police force based entirely on your supposition of a prostitutes monitory or geographical situation.

SugarHigh

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Although it obviously appears to be completely logical to you; your entire premise was based originally upon labelling anyone using 3rd world prostitutes, without any form of authority of adjudication and despite later acknowledging there would be voluntary prostitutes, as rapists.

Repeating the same point that I have already answered.

That then changed to somehow arbitrarily knowing which prostitutes are working under duress and which aren't and applying the charge only to their clients - irrespective of the presumption of innocence that belays the western judicial system.

This just doesn't make any sense. Where did I claim to know who was under duress? That would be a matter for the court to decide. Where did I say only the client would be charged? The pimp would also be charged.

Now you seem to be denigrating liberia's legal system - in which I'd be completely supportive - but that has nothing do with your original point of presumption of guilt and charge of rape by some theoretical global police force based entirely on your supposition of a prostitutes monitory or geographical situation.

It was you who brought the legal system into it.

Ickle Magoo

So sex with 3rd world prostitutes should be a form of rape, it's a matter for the courts but I'm the one who deigned to bring the legal system into it...

And you think I don't make sense?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CDfm

Lets try to be a little less judgemental here.

I have never gone with a prostitute.

Prostitution is sex in exchange for cash - voluntarily and presumably the client and the prostitute accept this.

I know of one guy -a friend who worked as a male prostutute for older women in Dublin and there are a lot of stories of older women going to poor countries and sleeping with or marrying young guys for visas or money etc. So sex tourism isn't simply a male phenomena.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/26/us-sextourism-idUSN2638979720071126

I also know of one physically handicapped guy who goes to Spain for sex a few times a year as prostitutes/sex workers there treat him differently.

The prostitute needs to attract the client.

Moving it to a developing country the client will have not have any knowledge of coercion.So the intention is not there to rape.

I imagine if you broaden the definition of both the gender and circumstances of the client and that of the prostitute from the usual stereotype it becomes a fairer and more interesting debate.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ok, I'll give you a slightly different scenario, that has a historical basis.

Between 1942 and 1945, Auschwitz and nine other Nazi concentration camps contained brothels (Freudenabteilung 'Joy Division'), mainly used to reward cooperative non-Jewish inmates - Wikipedia, House of Dolls entry.

Were the men who used the Joy Division rapists? I think they were. Permabear, I wonder about your morality - I think it may have some holes. Just because you have someone else hold the gun to the victims head, doesn't abdicate your moral responsibility.

The coercion exists to facilitate the client. The client effectively outsources the manufacture of consent. The consent is obtained through some form of force - either through 'have sex with the client, or get a savage beating' - or in ultra-free market economies like you have in the third world 'have sex with the client or starve to death'. You're free to do whatever you want, starve to death or do as the market demands.

People think of the sexual revolution as being something of the left. When you look closer at it you see it's driven by the right. Pornography production was once a fringe criminal enterprise - now it's very big and legit business. There are "respectable" publishers who have their fingers right up to their knuckles in it. Sir Tony O'Reilly has made millions from providing pornographic services - but you won't hear about that from any journalists - or in our "free" press (which is a market driven press - ie, journalists only write and publish what suits the rich.)

Neo-liberals want to erode societies sexual mores even further. Job centres in the UK have started advertising jobs in massage parlors and strip clubs.

In the UK, if you refuse to take jobs offered by the job centre you can have your benefit removed. At this point, the job centres are not cutting anyone's benefit who refuses to take jobs in what is euphemistically known as the adult services industry. That could change - the right are agitating for "normalisation" of the sex industry. Already I have heard of jobs facilitators in UK jobcentres advising young women that working in a massage parlor or a strip club could be an option for them.

Neo-liberals would like to see a situation where the poor are forced into prostitution. Neo-liberals very much want a situation where the economically advantaged can very literally put the economically disadvantage over a barrel and screw them.

Rape by "free" market - rape you won't go to jail for - and rape that if you believe the market is the ultimate moral arbitrator than rape without guilt. Let the market decide who you consent to have consensual sex with.

Neo-liberals want to bring the standards of the third world to the first world.