Premier Rock Forum

Yngwie Einstein wrote:At what point are we responsible for our own decisions?

This question is being asked a lot in this thread, but mainly as a rationale for not holding the rapist responsible for his decisions.

Gramsci wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:...I hope this one comes out the other way.

This woman was a fuck'n idiot as well. End of story.

So the rule is: Idiots cannot be raped? Are you going to apply this to the "idiot" who decides to get drunk at a frat party? The "idiot" who decides to go jogging in Central Park at midnight? The "idiot" who wears a too-short skirt or a too-tight top? What types of idiocy make a woman "fair game" in your book?

Yngwie Einstein wrote:Yes she's a victim, but not of rape.

A victim of being a total moron.

As said above, people try and lie to me everyday, I just got two "I have millions in a account, help me unlock it!". Would you guys have any sympathy for me if I came crying that I'd lost my life saving by going along with them? No you would not.

Whether that's true or not, there's more to it than that.

Should these women be regarded any differently simply because it was sex and not money (or in one case both).

In terms of sympathy or in terms of criminal liability? In terms of sympathy, people can feel how they're going to feel. I don't have a particular lot of sympathy for this victim, though perhaps a bit more than you do. But in terms of criminal liability, no, I don't think it should be any different just because one is sex and one is money. You are the one arguing that it should be. The person in your example could be prosecuted, and this guy shouldn't be regarded any differently.

These people are idiots and should be ignored at best, ridiculed at worst.

I think there's too much focus on the victim here. Remember, this isn't a lawsuit - Doe v. Sbano - this is a criminal prosecution. The "plaintiff" in a criminal prosecution is the State. I don't know how they do it in the UK, but it used to be Queen v. ___ or Crown v. ___ or similar. The point is, crimes are different from torts (private wrongs). If a given activity is a crime, that's the law's way of saying that the interest in punishing the behavoir goes beyond the interest of the aggrieved party. Society has an interest in punishing what this man did. Sympathy for the victim shouldn't enter into it. Society has an interest in punishing this sort of behavior - call it rape or call it what you will - regardless of whom it's committed against.

Linus, could you respond to my last post?

I'm NOT trying to put the blame on the victim. I don't think it's rape but whatever, I'm more interested in your complete views on the "counterfeit bills for hookers" conundrum.

Boombats wrote:Linus, could you respond to my last post?

I'm NOT trying to put the blame on the victim. I don't think it's rape but whatever, I'm more interested in your complete views on the "counterfeit bills for hookers" conundrum.

I'm not saying you are trying to put the blame on the victim. And I'm not saying anyone here is 100% blaming the victim, although some people are blaming the victim to at least some degree.

As far as counterfeit bills for hookers, it's the same thing - consent to the intercourse is contingent on getting paid. Counterfeit bills = not money. No money = not getting paid. Not getting paid = no consent. No consent + sex = rape. Now, there's rape and then there's rape and then there's rape. And the law recognizes this, as it should. The same with any crime, you have your first degree, your second degree, and so on. So I recognize there's a difference between this guy and a date rapist, and a 19-year-old who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, and the guy who hides behind the bushes with a knife. Clearly.

The hard part is, where to draw the line. I don't believe that the guy who lies when he says "I love you" in order to induce consent to intercourse should be prosecuted for rape. I don't believe that the guy who lies when he says "I'll marry you" should be either. But I do believe that the guy who lies when he says "I'll pay you" (with no present intent to perform) should be. I think the question has to be how tangible or how measurable the promise or representation is, and what kind of expectations it can raise in the woman, and how it can be measured by courts. You don't want to have a court case where the issue before the jury is whether or not the guy loved the girl. How can a jury decide that? But when a guy has a few counterfeit bills, and he says he'll pay for the sex, you can easily see that he never intended to pay. And again, what I'm mainly arguing for is some consistency. You pay for your guitar with counterfeit bills, that's theft. You pay for your doing-it with counterfeit bills, that ought to be rape. But rape law has long been different from other kinds of law, and while I'm not the kind of person to try to seek out misogyny where it doesn't exist (and I'm not accusing anyone here), I do think that's what's going on with rape law. There's a lot more to it than what we're talking about in this thread, but I've read some really disturbing cases that just lead me to the conclusion that courts hate women, and I'd really hope to see that turned around in the future.

I agree that the courst pathologically abuse women. I just think that if "phony cash for guitar=theft" that "phony cash for sex=theft of services." Like if I paid a plumber with fakes. Forcing a plumber to work against his will would be a different thing, and forcing a woman to have sex would be too.
I think if the crime was classified as rape and not theft that it would take away the woman's power. In other words, it would be as if she didn't have the right to decide what was happening to her body. The power of consent would be weakened if the law could decide what was consensual based on the quality of the legal tender. I mean if a prostitute was forced to have sex against her will, the guy could just pay her afterwards and walk away scot free according to what you're saying (of course I know that's not what you mean).

What about sticking a few banknotes in a foreign currency in with a stack of bills to pay a hooker? Some foreign bills have border designs similar to that of the US dollar and could fool someone if only the corner is sticking out.

It wouldn't be counterfeit money, since it is legal tender somewhere and could probably be redeemed for US currency, although it would be a pain in the ass.

How would that trick fit into this debate?

Wouldn't matter. Her pimp would beat the shit out of you.

Boombats wrote:I agree that the courst pathologically abuse women. I just think that if "phony cash for guitar=theft" that "phony cash for sex=theft of services." Like if I paid a plumber with fakes. Forcing a plumber to work against his will would be a different thing, and forcing a woman to have sex would be too.

Thank you. This is what I've trying to get across.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Society has an interest in punishing this sort of behavior - call it rape or call it what you will - regardless of whom it's committed against.

With respect Linus, but if the "victims" concerned had of not been ridiculously naive... we wouldn't be discussing this.

If I came to you guys and said, "geez, I was at a party and this guy tricked me into fucking him in at ass by telling me I could could get sick if my penis didn't touch another man's colon after I ate all that shrimp."

How much sympathy would you have?

I'm sure that the guys in these stories are total assholes, just as I am sure the women must be boardline retarded...

I'm sure these women were upset, but that they weren't so ashamed of their total silliness that they never spoke of it to anyone is a testament to how stupid people can be and still not realise it when other people hear their story.

Bad People + Stupid People = Something to fill page 5 on a quiet news day

How did this get to be about paying women for sex?

The prostitution angle is completely irrelevant to what happened in the "vag cream penile application hoax" case.

I don't understand the claim that refusing to pay a prostitute for sex is equal to rape. If somebody (male or female) chooses to embark on the solicitation of their sex for money, then they are essentially working in a service industry. It is a very unusual kind of trade, but it's a business nonetheless. Anyone who's ever owned a company will tell you that one of the risks of commerce is that you will have to eat the occasional non-collectible AR. It's a fact of doing business.

Now I'm not saying that it's OK to rip somebody else off, and I'm certainly not implying that just because prostitutes sell sex, they are not vulnerable to being raped. But remember, rape is non-consensual sex. You cannot give consent to an action, participate in it, then decide later that it was a bad idea and retract your consent. It doesn't work that way. Sex is an act involving two people. If the consent was given by both persons at the time the event took place, then no rape has occurred.

If, however, a prostitute is attacked and has sex forced on her, then of course that is rape. If she's below the age of consent and a man has sex with her--whether or not money is exchanged--then that is also rape. However, if a prostitute negotiates a business transaction for sex and then the john fails to honor his end of the contract, the crime would be theft of services, not rape.

Anyway, in most jurisdictions throughout the world, contracting sex for money is a crime in and of itself. Patronizing a prostitute and refusing to pay is still soliciting sex, and that's illegal.

Any contract that purports to bind party(s) to illegal activity is not legally enforceable.

For example, if I'm a dope dealer and I front you an ounce of blow on credit, then you refuse to pay, can I have you arrested for violating a contractual agreement? Of course not. Go to the cops with a story like that and they'll laugh their asses off, if they don't arrest you on the spot for sale of narcotics. No legal contract can be made that binds a party to illegal activity; in this example, a drug deal.

As I see it, the main issue which differentiates "The Case of the Vag Cream Penis Applicator" from your typical "sleazy guy lying to pick up women" scenario, is that he had convinced her that her health and well-being was in jeopardy unless she sexed with him. That's a big difference from a guy misrepresenting himself as a bazillionaire diamond merchant, a rock musician, a golf pro or whatever, hoping to score based on prestige. In light of that, I'd say the most appropriate charge would be some form of fraud.

Boombats wrote:I agree that the courst pathologically abuse women. I just think that if "phony cash for guitar=theft" that "phony cash for sex=theft of services." Like if I paid a plumber with fakes. Forcing a plumber to work against his will would be a different thing, and forcing a woman to have sex would be too.

Except having a plumber sort out your toilet isn't exactly in the same sphere as allowing (under the agreement of being paid) a stranger have sex with you.

It's hard to find a fitting analogy for your prostitute query, but that's because it involves taking a human being and reducing them to a 'service'. Added to that, the 'service' is more dangerous and unpleasant than fixing your toilet (pending how much fibre you eat, I guess). You rip off a plumber, he's going to be pissed off, but it can't be counted as a bodily violation.

Okay, this case with the magic healing cream is a bit dodgy, but declaring her an idiot who deserved it (not that you did, Boombats, but that's the general tone of the thread) is an extremely dangerous path to be treading, if you ask me.