Client Convicted of Rape after Refusing to Pay Escort

[SirBillybob]

I cannot see any evidence that the presiding Justice used the term “rape”, because the poorly conceived and seemingly hyped media reports do not reference the transcripts or the specific criminal code. It may be that no better term legally exists for negation of consent based on deception.

 

She said sexual episodes were unpaid and the crime was neither sophisticated nor uncommon for commercial sex workers. The media translates this as the loser having “raped“ a few dudes. I don’t think the judge would use rape as a verb in this case, and maybe not even literally as a noun, depending on the code, but it is not her role to disabuse the press of their choice of wording in reductively spinning the terms of a situation more nuanced than forcible sexual assault as it is conventionally understood.

 

Rape is his silly games but on a much more pronounced figurative steroid cycle than actually transpired. The dudes could not pay their bills and will be anxious about a common occupational hazard. Will they psychologically dissociate with revivified trauma when engaging in future sex? Commercial sex workers are prone to dissociate anyway as an artefact of sexualizing with punters out of sync with subjective attraction.

 

The media is doing a big favour for commercial sex workers including the escorts in this case. It is financially lucrative to conceptualize and portray sexual exchange that is consensual (at the basic level outside of the parameters of deception, etc) but is taboo enough to exaggerate its differential worth relative to nonsexual services. Male sex workers in Brazil would be rolling on the floor, splitting their sides, incredulous at the notion that there is a transactional hierarchy in which they could be considered assault victims. You would get your lights punched out if it was insinuated that compensation manipulation was tantamount to rape and you had better hope they have no friends in your prison wing. lol

Edited August 31, 2020 by SirBIllybob

[RealAvalon]

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....

I don't get how you don't understand the difference between a personal arrangement and a business arrangement.

Edited August 31, 2020 by RealAvalon

[Guest]

I don't get how you don't understand the difference between a personal arrangement and a business arrangement. I don't need to.

And I don't get how you don't see the obvious: the business arrangement in this instance WAS a personal arrangement! The sex was intended as a business arrangement, not for the escort's personal pleasure.

[RealAvalon]

The sex was intended as a business arrangement, not for the escort's personal pleasure.

 

You are now agreeing with what I said before. The consent was for a 'business lunch' it wasn't a 'date'.

Edited September 1, 2020 by RealAvalon