Client Convicted of Rape after Refusing to Pay Escort

[marylander1940]

I disagree

 

I wish we could have a poll on this subject.

 

let's ask rape victims too.

[mike carey]

According to Victoria Legal Aid:

You only entered into the agreement because you were being paid, so there is the consent. I imaging that the law allows the judge to make that conclusion.

I wish we could have a poll on this subject.

The issue being discussed here is whether people agree or not, but the issue in the case is what the law is. This case was decided under ACT law which is not the same as Victorian law. I haven't researched the specifics of what the differences are but ACT law tends to be more progressive in some areas of law that have a social dimension such as what constitutes consent. NSW law, by contrast, at least until recently offered an absolute defence of having a belief that consent had been given. In general, laws on the subject are moving towards consent needing to be explicit and able to be withdrawn at any time. It can also be conditional, so for example in a male-female encounter consent to penetrative intercourse cannot assume both vaginal and anal intercourse had been consented to.

 

In the case in question, there is no debate that initial consent was granted, and it was for a legal sex work transaction, but as the judge ruled the consent was clearly conditional on payment. The escort did not retrospectively withdraw consent, it was ruled never to have existed. If the judge has erred in law, then no doubt the defendant's lawyers will take the case to an appeal. (There is also an issue on the initiation of the case, it wasn't one of the escort being allowed to sue the client, it was one of the police launching a criminal charge on the basis of the facts of the matter.)

 

I find the view that rape is horrific and this was not horrific so shouldn't be called rape to he somewhat disturbing. They remind me of the arguments that unless women fight and scratch and resist an attempted rape, then it's not really rape. It also seems to be part of a parallel argument that by putting up a shingle, a sex worker has consented to anything and everything so shouldn't complain.

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

Having served on a jury to decide a rape case just a couple of months ago, I've come to understand that each state in the USA has its own definition of what legally constitutes rape. One case might be rape in Ohio, but not meet the definition of rape in Delaware. (or vice versa)

 

I get how this case could be defined as rape. It may have been an easier criminal case to make than criminal fraud.

[Guest]

...The escort did not retrospectively withdraw consent, it was ruled never to have existed...

 

So if I have my car mechanic change the transmission in my car, then drive off the lot with my car without paying him, did I rape him? Clearly, he wouldn't have spent all day fixing my car if he knew I wasn't going to pay him. How about going to a fancy restaurant and then "Dine and dash"? The chef would never have prepared the meal if he knew I was going to stiff him. The consent was clearly given, even though the escort was ripped off. The client defrauded the escort. Since escorting is a legal business in ACT, he was providing a legal service, then not paid for said service. Why should escorts have more protection than anyone else? If I were on a jury, there's no way on earth I would ever vote to convict the client for rape. Fraud yes, rape no.

If I were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, what if a man or woman has a physical relationship with someone, then sometime later realizes the man she or he's been with is a total jerk. What if he or she decides that she never would have had sex with him had she known what a jerk he was? Does that mean consent was never given in the first place, because it was based on incorrect assumptions? Sorry, but yes means yes, and no means no. One cannot change one's mind after the fact and call it rape, or we could all be classified as sexual predators. The escort got ripped off and should be compensated accordingly, and the fraudster also dealt with accordingly.

Edited August 30, 2020 by Unicorn

[+ RJD]

Another scenario. What if the client only pays him a portion of what was agreed upon? This profession may be legal in several countries, but I doubt written proposals and contracts are being created when hiring. What happens in this case? Will the court then rule consent it revoked? What's the threshold when consent is revoked? Can consent be partially revoked and will that mean the provider is only partially raped? Or perhaps a more rational and pragmatic remedy is to take the client to court, provide texts and e-mails where amounts are discussed and agreed upon, and find the client guilty of the appropriate crime.

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

So if I have my car mechanic change the transmission in my car, then drive off the lot with my car without paying him, did I rape him?

 

Did you insert any of your body parts in the mechanic's anus or vagina? If not, then the criminal charges cannot include rape. (At least in Ohio.)

 

If I were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, what if a man or woman has a physical relationship with someone, then sometime later realizes the man she or he's been with is a total jerk. What if he or she decides that she never would have had sex with him had she known what a jerk he was? Does that mean consent was never given in the first place, because it was based on incorrect assumptions? Sorry, but yes means yes, and no means no. One cannot change one's mind after the fact and call it rape, or we could all be classified as sexual predators. The escort got ripped off and should be compensated accordingly, and the fraudster also dealt with accordingly.

 

The legal argument that would be made to counter your point is that the guy was always a jerk and the partner's lack of recognition of that fact does not revoke consent.

[Walker1]

 

 

I find the view that rape is horrific and this was not horrific so shouldn't be called rape to he somewhat disturbing. They remind me of the arguments that unless women fight and scratch and resist an attempted rape, then it's not really rape. It also seems to be part of a parallel argument that by putting up a shingle, a sex worker has consented to anything and everything so shouldn't complain.

 

This is service and fraud. Sex worker is selling services and issue is he was not paid. Now for example in the Boy george case, boy george got high on coke and shackled an escort to a boiler against his will and he was convicted-rightfully so. There is no argument from the escort that force was used. You cannot take failure to pay and make it into rape. Escorting is a business not love. In any business you have accounts receivables -some clients do not pay for services rendered-some enter into business knowing they can't pay. That is not rape. if it is then every politician who makes a promise he knows he won't keep is a rapist, every job applicant who adds a few fibs in his resume is a rapist. Every person who overdraws his checking account is guilty of felony bank robbery. This is one bridge too far and makes a mockery of real rape victims.

 

The issue here is non payment for legal services rendered. Not forcing someone against their will. This is how we end up in the police state we find ourselves in.

[mike carey]

So if I have my car mechanic change the transmission in my car, then drive off the lot with my car without paying him, did I rape him?

If I were to take your argument to its logical conclusion,

This is a false equivalence of comic absurdity. There is nothing about fixing a car that can in any context be criminal, although doing it negligently could be criminal negligence. There are laws about consent in sexual intercourse and failing to obtain it or honour the conditions of consent is a criminal offence. A criminal trial determines whether the act in question was an offence proven beyond reasonable doubt to be one of which the defendant was guilty. The 'logocal conclusion' you sought to draw is completely bereft of logic.

You cannot take failure to pay and make it into rape.

You can, and the court did. Whether you like that is not the question.

 

And as an aside, it could not be fraud, that is obtaining money under false pretences, nobody did that.

[Walker1]

You can, and the court did. Whether you like that is not the question.

 

And as an aside, it could not be fraud, that is obtaining money under false pretences, nobody did that.

And there are courts that give the death sentence for being gay. Doesn't make it right. If he hired an escort for a vanilla scene, drugged him and di things that they never agreed to-that is rape. Not this and it is a very very slippery slope. Tomorrow dating someone can lead to rape if you are guilty of misleading them. There is no end to this kind of stupid law-why we are in a nasty police state. Escort could have asked to show the money ahead of time.

[RealAvalon]

This is a false equivalence of comic absurdity. There is nothing about fixing a car that can in any context be criminal, although doing it negligently could be criminal negligence. There are laws about consent in sexual intercourse and failing to obtain it or honour the conditions of consent is a criminal offence. A criminal trial determines whether the act in question was an offence proven beyond reasonable doubt to be one of which the defendant was guilty. The 'logocal conclusion' you sought to draw is completely bereft of logic.

 

You can, and the court did. Whether you like that is not the question.

 

And as an aside, it could not be fraud, that is obtaining money under false pretences, nobody did that.

To me there are two sides to this coin. From the escorts side, the escort was contracted for a service. From the john's side, the john is having sex. Those are different things. Same act, two separate objectives.

 

If the john doesn't pay the escort, then maybe in his fantasy world he really was having sex, and not paying for a service. Who knows? (Who cares?)

 

However, if the escort doesn't get paid, the john has voided the contract for a service. And the 'sex' is no longer an agreed upon service, it's just rape.

 

The escort didn't agree to have sex, he agreed to be paid for a service. No free samples were on offer.

Edited August 30, 2020 by RealAvalon

[Guest]

This is a false equivalence of comic absurdity. There is nothing about fixing a car that can in any context be criminal, although doing it negligently could be criminal negligence. There are laws about consent in sexual intercourse and failing to obtain it or honour the conditions of consent is a criminal offence. A criminal trial determines whether the act in question was an offence proven beyond reasonable doubt to be one of which the defendant was guilty. The 'logocal conclusion' you sought to draw is completely bereft of logic.

 

You can, and the court did. Whether you like that is not the question.

 

And as an aside, it could not be fraud, that is obtaining money under false pretences, nobody did that.

That one court agrees with you doesn't mean you have a monopoly on being "logocal," or whatever it's called down under. Is the person who would rip off the car mechanic or restaurant chef engaging in slavery, because those laborers would never have agreed to perform their labor had they known they weren't going to get paid? According to Wikipedia: "In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud or recover monetary compensation), a criminal law (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities), or it may cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong." So, again, things may be different down under, or just in the ACT, but your statement that fraud only constitutes obtaining money under false "pretences" or pretenses does not seem to jibe with the commonly accepted definition on this planet.

The court decision that you mentioned seems to be unique in that I haven't heard of any similar kind of decision anywhere on the planet. The shyster who ripped off the escorts has broken plenty of laws, some of which would be felonies, at least in California. The escort was doing his line of work and got ripped off. The perpetrator should be convicted of the laws he did break. No need to change the laws of rape to allow for the retrospective "annulment" of consent.

Edited August 30, 2020 by Unicorn

[Guest]

Being as petty as you were there, for a moment, you're say @mike carey does have a monopoly on logic?

And I don't suppose you'd care to address the substance of my argument? No, I guess not.

[+ keroscenefire]

Issues of rape and consent are never black and white. I was just watching the HBO show, "I Will Destroy You," and one storyline involves a gay man who decided to pursue having sex with a woman just to see if he will like it. He meets a woman and they have a great date and they go back to her place and have sex. After he reveals to her that he is gay and she gets upset with him, saying that she only consented to sex with him because she thought he was straight. The gay man actually never released details of his sexuality either way and she never asked. Personally, I don't think that would be an incident of rape, but I do see it as an incident of fuzzy consent that could be hurtful. I mean, I am probably not the only gay man who has dated a woman while discovering my sexuality. And that has at least for me caused emotional pain for the women I had dated. Though I don't think having sex with any of them knowing I was probably gay would be rape.

[RealAvalon]

And I don't suppose you'd care to address the substance of my argument? No, I guess not.

You are welcome, I see you corrected your mistake, but kept the petty shot at @mike carey 's typo. And I already did address your argument, and you've already given it a thumbs down. We disagree on consent. And on the distinction between a contract for a service, and sex.

Edited August 30, 2020 by RealAvalon

[RealAvalon]

Issues of rape and consent are never black and white. I was just watching the HBO show, "I Will Destroy You," and one storyline involves a gay man who decided to pursue having sex with a woman just to see if he will like it. He meets a woman and they have a great date and they go back to her place and have sex. After he reveals to her that he is gay and she gets upset with him, saying that she only consented to sex with him because she thought he was straight. The gay man actually never released details of his sexuality either way and she never asked. Personally, I don't think that would be an incident of rape, but I do see it as an incident of fuzzy consent that could be hurtful. I mean, I am probably not the only gay man who has dated a woman while discovering my sexuality. And that has at least for me caused emotional pain for the women I had dated. Though I don't think having sex with any of them knowing I was probably gay would be rape.

That's a different situation than when a contract for services is being confused with agreeing to have sex (outside of a contract situation). Law is all about nuance. The client is having sex. The escort is being paid to do a job. If there is no payment, the contract is null and void. And if there is no contract, there is no consent.

Edited August 30, 2020 by RealAvalon

[Luv2play]

Having served on a jury to decide a rape case just a couple of months ago, I've come to understand that each state in the USA has its own definition of what legally constitutes rape. One case might be rape in Ohio, but not meet the definition of rape in Delaware. (or vice versa)

 

I find it interesting that both in the USA and Australia rape is considered a crime to be dealt under state laws. In Canada it like all other crimes is covered under national legislation. When their constitutions were established most people didn’t travel much from their home base so the distinction may not have been relevant but now everybody moves around a lot between jurisdictions so it must be something to have to keep up with them as citizens in those countries. Here in Canada we like to make life as simple as possible.

[mike carey]

And there are courts that give the death sentence for being gay. Doesn't make it right. If he hired an escort for a vanilla scene, drugged him and di things that they never agreed to-that is rape. Not this and it is a very very slippery slope. Tomorrow dating someone can lead to rape if you are guilty of misleading them. There is no end to this kind of stupid law-why we are in a nasty police state. Escort could have asked to show the money ahead of time.

And there are courts that convict you for engaging in sex for money, doesn't make that right. Today, dating someone and misleading them to have sex can be rape, if you know you have HIV. Consent is conditional.

[Luv2play]

And there are courts that convict you for engaging in sex for money, doesn't make that right. Today, dating someone and misleading them to have sex can be rape, if you know you have HIV. Consent is conditional.

Whatever the laws are in a particular jurisdiction, I just think it is good policy and the right thing to do for anyone, including the escort, who has HIV, to disclose the fact in advance of setting up an appointment. With Prep and HIV medications that keep the virus undetectable and therefore highly unlikely to be contagious, the risks of being rejected are less than what they were in the past. It is everyone’s right to choose though, and informed consent is the way to go in my book.

[Guest]

And there are courts that convict you for engaging in sex for money, doesn't make that right...

Well, I'm glad that we agree that just because a court somewhere makes a ruling, that doesn't mean what they did was right. I would hate to live under a system in which a man could agree to have sex with me, then have to worry about being a convicted rapist should he later decide "You know, I never would have had sex with you had I known....". I once had sex with an escort, then learned (from items he'd left out on the open on his desk) that he was actually 10 years older than he said he was (he was over 50, and I was in my early 40s at the time). Quite frankly, I never would have had sex with him had he been truthful about his age. Did he rape me? I did feel deceived, but I wouldn't say I was raped.

[RealAvalon]

Well, I'm glad that we agree that just because a court somewhere makes a ruling, that doesn't mean what they did was right. I would hate to live under a system in which a man could agree to have sex with me, then have to worry about being a convicted rapist should he later decide "You know, I never would have had sex with you had I known....". I once had sex with an escort, then learned (from items he'd left out on the open on his desk) that he was actually 10 years older than he said he was (he was over 50, and I was in my early 40s at the time). Quite frankly, I never would have had sex with him had he been truthful about his age. Did he rape me? I did feel deceived, but I wouldn't say I was raped.

You're conflating sex (a personal interaction) with a contracted service (a business interaction) as if they are the same thing. There is a difference, and the consent was for business, not for pleasure.

Edited August 30, 2020 by RealAvalon

[mike carey]

You're conflating sex (a personal interaction) with a contracted service (a business interaction) as if they are the same thing. There is a difference, and the consent was for business, not for pleasure.

There are people who link unrelated things to claim proof of things that are not so.

[+ purplekow]

Well, I'm glad that we agree that just because a court somewhere makes a ruling, that doesn't mean what they did was right. I would hate to live under a system in which a man could agree to have sex with me, then have to worry about being a convicted rapist should he later decide "You know, I never would have had sex with you had I known....". I once had sex with an escort, then learned (from items he'd left out on the open on his desk) that he was actually 10 years older than he said he was (he was over 50, and I was in my early 40s at the time). Quite frankly, I never would have had sex with him had he been truthful about his age. Did he rape me? I did feel deceived, but I wouldn't say I was raped.

All this arguing about right and wrong and that is not a legal decision. It is legal and illegal and in that jurisdiction it is illegal, at least in that judge's courtroom. As to whether this is just ruling or an unjust ruling, my opinion is that it is excessive interference and legal overreach. That said, I will bet that the client does not reneg in such a way again, especially if he gets rape jail time instead of theft of services jail time.

Edited August 30, 2020 by purplekow

[Guest]

You're conflating sex (a personal interaction) with a contracted service (a business interaction) as if they are the same thing. There is a difference, and the consent was for business, not for pleasure.

Pretty preposterous. The business interaction was very obviously for a personal interaction. I don't expect a car mechanic to take any special pleasure in fixing my car, although hopefully he doesn't exactly hate his line of work. If he enjoys it, so much the better for him, but that's irrelevant. I would hope most escorts don't hate having sex with strangers, but that's not the point. If they enjoy it, that's great for them (and probably means they'd be better escorts). The escort didn't agree to have sex because he expected pleasure. He agreed to have sex for financial gain. I'm sorry the escort got ripped off, but he wasn't raped, just cheated financially. At least that's how most people and most legal jurisdictions see it, at least for now.

[RealAvalon]

Pretty preposterous. The business interaction was very obviously for a personal interaction. I don't expect a car mechanic to take any special pleasure in fixing my car, although hopefully he doesn't exactly hate his line of work. If he enjoys it, so much the better for him, but that's irrelevant. I would hope most escorts don't hate having sex with strangers, but that's not the point. If they enjoy it, that's great for them (and probably means they'd be better escorts). The escort didn't agree to have sex because he expected pleasure. He agreed to have sex for financial gain. I'm sorry the escort got ripped off, but he wasn't raped, just cheated financially. At least that's how most people and most legal jurisdictions see it, at least for now.

Keep telling yourself its the same if you need to do that.

[Guest]

Keep telling yourself its the same if you need to do that.

I always appreciate your cogent argumentation. How can one refute such a well thought through analysis? Oh, as @Charlie pointed out, people don't understand sarcasm these days....