<p>Or she just really liked the sex.</p>
<p>When I first read this, I wondered, “Why would the john take back the money?” Was anyone else thinking about this?
This action violates the very principle of prostitution. If one is to assume that she would not have had sex with him without the initial payment, the prostitute may see it as rape while an observer may see it as theft.</p>
<p>Still a bad hooker. Take the money first.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s where I thought this was going when I was reading the first post</p>
<p>Thinking about how I’d feel if I were in the prostitute’s situation, I do feel like it’s rape. But it’s not consent that was violated, it was the condition, so I think that it’s more akin to breaking a contract.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’d be “renege:” to go back on a promise, undertaking, or contract.</p>
<p>Haha true, MIT, very true.</p>
<p>If in a place where prostitution is legal, She should get the guy with both rape and theft.</p>
<p>Is it moral? No. Well dealing with prostitutes is immoral to begin with, but it’s even moreso.</p>
<p>However, it is not rape, only theft. The prostitute consented to sex originally and that’s what matters. It does not matter that she consented under the assumption that she would be paid.</p>
<p>Its akin to telling a girl (or a guy if you lean that way…) that you will buy them a ring if they engage in coital relations, and never buy them the ring. It’s underhanded and deceptive, but it is not rape.</p>
<p>If a woman agrees to have sex with a man because she thinks he’s going to marry her, but afterwards he doesn’t, it isn’t rape, is it?</p>
<p>^Edit: Lol, I didn’t see your post.</p>
<p>Even if it’s true that the prostitute wouldn’t have consented if she knew she wouldn’t get paid, that doesn’t make it rape when she doesn’t know. </p>
<p>If it does, then I’d argue the following are also rape: (1) A man lies to a woman and says he loves her and she has sex with him because she believes him, when she would have refused otherwise. (2) A married man tells a woman he is single and coaxes her into bed, when she would have refused otherwise. (3) A woman lies and tells a man she is on the pill, so he sleeps with her when he otherwise would have abstained. Etc, etc, etc.</p>
<p>Rape is when you don’t consent . . . not when you wouldn’t have consented if things had been different.</p>
<p>Edit: lots of us saying the same thing at the same time. Sorry!</p>
<p>Then again, there are some radicals in this world who would argue that all heterosexual sex is rape…</p>
<p>“Violation is a synonym for intercourse” - Andrea Dworkin</p>
<p>smh</p>
<p>^ person in my English class 9th grade said that before.</p>
<p>I don’t think it would be considered rape. It would be more of stealing. She did consent to it, but on the grounds that she would get paid at the end. If he doesn’t pay, he would A) be stealing and B) be a huge ___.</p>
<p>Well if he’s in the position to be propositioning a prostitute in the first place, he probably is a douchnozzle to begin with…</p>
<p>
And then there are judges that say that if a prostitute is raped, [it</a> isn’t really rape](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307245,00.html]it”>Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos).</p>
<p>^ Last time I checked, prostitution isn’t even legal in Philadelphia. So while the rapists should be charged with rape, the victim should also be charged with prostitution. The judge is an idiot. He could have knocked out two birds with one stone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>plagiarism is no laughing matter</p>
<p>@HarryJones, I think having sex with a prostitute would only be rape if you didn’t pay her and also if you physically forced her (e.g. tied her down). Just my opinion.</p>
<p>^ Even if you paid her, that would still be rape if you tied her down…</p>