*Deposit, nudes, and sexting

[SecretProvider]

1 hour ago, KensingtonHomo said:

While what happened to Brazilian is terrible, it’s not sexual assault. Conflating the two is incredibly dismissive of those of us who have been raped or sexually assaulted. 

Let's ask chatgpt got shall we?

"if a sex worker agrees to have sex with someone for money, and after they have sex the client runs away with paying - has the sex worker suffered a sexual assault?"

Short answer: Yes, it can be considered a sexual assault in some places.
Whether it legally counts as sexual assault depends entirely on the laws of the country or state — but many jurisdictions increasingly treat “sex obtained through fraud” or “consent obtained under false pretenses” as a form of sexual offense. Here’s the clearer breakdown:

In some places, consent must be “informed and voluntary.”
If the sex worker agrees only because they are being paid, then the payment is part of the condition for consent.

So if the client never intended to pay (or later refuses and runs off):

• The sex worker did not consent to unpaid sex

• The consent was obtained through fraud or deception

• Some legal systems recognize this as a form of sexual assault or coercive sexual act

For example:

• Some European countries and parts of the U.S. treat fraud vitiating consent as a sex crime.

• Courts have ruled in some cases that “sex obtained by deception” can invalidate consent.

In other jurisdictions, the law treats this situation as:

• Theft of services

• Fraud

• Violation of sex-work regulations

…rather than a sexual assault.  The harm still occurs, but the legal category is different.

 

Seems like you seem to think it's ok for providers to be lured into non-consensual sex and be the victims of theft. so GTFOH. 

 

Edited December 2 by SecretProvider
update

[Mark_fl]

16 minutes ago, SecretProvider said:

Let's ask chatgpt got shall we?

Shouldn't even need chatgpt. Common sense should be enough to deem it sexual assault.

Just like surreptitiously removing a condom. Consent is contingent on several things.  If you  knowingly have an STD and lie about it can also be SA, for example.

This is no different than consent based on payment. It may not be a legal agreement, but without the payment, there is no consent.

[SecretProvider]

2 minutes ago, Mark_fl said:

Shouldn't even need chatgpt. Common sense should be enough to deem it sexual assault.

I agree. If only common sense was common. 

 

[mike carey]

13 minutes ago, SecretProvider said:

I agree. If only common sense was common. 

There was a case in Canberra some years ago (you may have heard about it) where a client agreed to pay an escort for sex and afterwards declined to pay (both were male fwiw). I think I mentioned it here at one stage and was met with a degree of incredulity, not unlike some commentary in this thread. The client was successfully tried for rape as the sex was legally deemed to have occurred without consent in the absence of payment. 

[+ KensingtonHomo]

2 hours ago, SecretProvider said:

Let's ask chatgpt got shall we?

No, let’s ask SA survivors, who will mostly reject this technical definition being conflated with being held down and fucked, being cornered with weapons, or being drugged and waking up violated.

Honestly, using ChatGPT to try and override an SA survivor is some ugly nerd Reich shit. 

[NYXboy]

22 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said:

No, let’s ask SA survivors, who will mostly reject this technical definition being conflated with being held down and fucked, being cornered with weapons, or being drugged and waking up violated.

Honestly, using ChatGPT to try and override an SA survivor is some ugly nerd Reich shit. 

Being a SA survivor doesn't mean you are now the final arbiter of what constitutes sexual assault. In fact, most sexual assault does not include extreme violence -  this is very a Hollywood idea. Most SA victims are in fact compliant during the act in the hope that it minimizes and deescalates the violence. This attitude you are presenting is very damaging (why didn't they fight back if it was SA?) 

Thankfully it seems the consensus here is that it is lack of consent is all that is required, which as someone else as mentioned should be common sense. 

And if you are a SA survivor - I would expect you not to belittle someone else's experience simply because it was not as 'bad' as yours.  There are many different levels of this - including any non-consensual sexual contact, through coercion, manipulation, or threats not just physical force.

Also: friendly reminder it's not a competition buddy. 

It's kind of wild how this thread has taken a bad turn. I am so sorry for what happened to Brazilian Cutie. It is a stark reminder about why some providers are so cautious. Especially with attitudes like this. 

Edited December 2 by NYXboy

[+ KensingtonHomo]

8 hours ago, NYXboy said:

Being a SA survivor doesn't mean you are now the final arbiter of what constitutes sexual assault. In fact, most sexual assault does not include extreme violence -  this is very a Hollywood idea. Most SA victims are in fact compliant during the act in the hope that it minimizes and deescalates the violence. This attitude you are presenting is very damaging (why didn't they fight back if it was SA?) 

Thankfully it seems the consensus here is that it is lack of consent is all that is required, which as someone else as mentioned should be common sense. 

And if you are a SA survivor - I would expect you not to belittle someone else's experience simply because it was not as 'bad' as yours.  There are many different levels of this - including any non-consensual sexual contact, through coercion, manipulation, or threats not just physical force.

Also: friendly reminder it's not a competition buddy. 

It's kind of wild how this thread has taken a bad turn. I am so sorry for what happened to Brazilian Cutie. It is a stark reminder about why some providers are so cautious. Especially with attitudes like this. 

Being an SA survivor makes my views more valid than ChatGPTs or yours or that matter. I never said SA required extreme violence. In fact, two of mine didn't include physical violence. Nor did I belittle anyone else's experience. What happened to Brazillian Cutie is awful but he did, in fact, consent to the sex. What happened in his case was "theft of services." He provided a service and was not paid for it. Based on what he said, he was not coerced, threatened or manipulated. The "client" stole his fee by failing to pay it. If he provided any other service and the client didn't pay you wouldn't claim he was sexually assaulted. 

[Mark_fl]

1 hour ago, KensingtonHomo said:

 The "client" stole his fee by failing to pay it. If he provided any other service and the client didn't pay you wouldn't claim he was sexually assaulted. 

Interesting hypothetical: If he paid the provider, and then stole the money while he was in the shower, is that theft or SA? Would there be a legal difference in what he was charged with.  

(It's my thread,  so I'm allowed to hijack it 😉)

[NYXboy]

3 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

Being an SA survivor makes my views more valid than ChatGPTs or yours or that matter. I never said SA required extreme violence.

You did actually:  "mostly reject this technical definition being conflated with being held down and fucked, being cornered with weapons, or being drugged and waking up violated."  How you don't think that is minimizing what happened is beyond me.  

You do seem to think your opinion is more valid than everyone else's on a lot of topics actually and your comments here are in my view, reprehensible. As someone who works with people who have gone through this kind of trauma - your comments here are glib at best, alarming at worse, and shameful either way. Imagine arguing in front of the person who has been violated in this way that it's not a sexual violation 'enough', instead of offering support a guidance. Then in the next breath when you have been called out, say 'oh no my SA was actually not violent too', The mind boggles and your audacity, and also your ability to make everything about yourself. As I said previously - it's not a competition. 

 I'd advise you to do some research about 'conditional consent' how it applies in particular to sexual consent.  

Finally - You clearly think but don't know everything about everything. You do not actually know if I have been a victim of sexual assault. Don't bother replying to me I am done with you. I give little to no value to your opinions or experience on these forums anymore. 

1 hour ago, Mark_fl said:

If he paid the provider, and then stole the money while he was in the shower, is that theft or SA? Would there be a legal difference in what he was charged with. 

I would say it's still been a sexual violation. from a legal perspective it would come down to the 'mens rae', that is to say the intention. If there was intention to rob the sex worker the whole time, then it would be sexual assault. If the client intended to pay, and then later saw an opportunity to rob them and took the money, it would be able to be separated in to two different acts instead of one. Either way, completely scummy act and as mentioned before - a plight of providers having to deal with things we may never otherwise have to worry about. 

[+ PhileasFogg]

On 12/1/2025 at 5:32 PM, SecretProvider said:

*rolls eyes*

giving $50 to some random from sniffles is not comparable to laying down a $50 deposit to a confirmed provider who has reviews both here and on rentmen.  It's not rocket science 

Don’t for one minute think that it doesn’t happen on RM

[Pd1_jap]

On 12/1/2025 at 6:08 PM, SecretProvider said:

Let's ask chatgpt got shall we?

ChatGPT is not a lawyer, a judge, or a person. It's in the disclosure of the product that you should not use ChatGPT for legal services. Anything you get from ChatGPT should be held to the highest scrutiny. Also, sex work is illegal in the United States and if you took this case to a DA they would not prosecute the client but they would prosecute the provider. So please don't give legal advise when you're not a lawyer. 

[Pd1_jap]

5 hours ago, PhileasFogg said:

Don’t for one minute think that it doesn’t happen on RM

I once paid a $100 deposit to a provider on RM with glowing reviews on this forum. The day of, he said his mom was sick and cancelled. Never heard from him again. 

[Pd1_jap]

On 12/1/2025 at 8:40 PM, NYXboy said:

Thankfully it seems the consensus here is that it is lack of consent is all that is required, which as someone else as mentioned should be common sense. 

Considering consent can be withdrawn retroactively, this is bullshit. 

To be clear, what happened to Brazilian is shitty and the guy who did it should have some kind of consequences but given the laws against sex work in the United States and in many places you cannot use the legal definition. It would be like a bank robber claiming the bank security guard assaulted the bank robber. Not saying it's the way it should be but that's is the way it is. 

Edited December 7 by Pd1_jap
Clarity

[SecretProvider]

12 hours ago, Pd1_jap said:

DA they would not prosecute the client

incorrect. The Da prosecute the John, not the sex worker, just in case you are thinking of pulling the same stunt 

[NYXboy]

12 hours ago, Pd1_jap said:

onsidering consent can be withdrawn retroactively, this is bullshit. 

having consent withdrawn takes nothing away for the validity of what I am saying. consent can be withdrawn whenever and its withdrawal must be respected.

the end. 

[+ FrankR]

Like so many other threads, this one has now also devolved into “i am right and you are wrong” mud slinging. Also interesting to see which members enjoy that kind of thing - nothing to do with the topic at hand. We can’t take you boys anywhere nice… 😐

[Pd1_jap]

4 hours ago, SecretProvider said:

incorrect. The Da prosecute the John, not the sex worker, just in case you are thinking of pulling the same stunt 

I would never stiff anyone. However the evidence is not in your favor. Please supply an example of this happening in real life. 

[Pd1_jap]

3 hours ago, NYXboy said:

having consent withdrawn takes nothing away for the validity of what I am saying. consent can be withdrawn whenever and its withdrawal must be respected.

the end. 

In this instance consent was given. Only after the John stiffed the provider was consent withdrawn.

[Mark_fl]

1 hour ago, Pd1_jap said:

In this instance consent was given. Only after the John stiffed the provider was consent withdrawn.

Not really at all.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp. If you give consent to sex with a condom, and you realize afterwards they slid it off without you knowing,  you are not withdrawing consent. You never consented to that. It is legally a form of sexual assault.

Similarly if you consent based on payment, and never got payment, you did not consent to that. 

[Pd1_jap]

4 minutes ago, Mark_fl said:

Not really at all.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp. If you give consent to sex with a condom, and you realize afterwards they slid it off without you knowing,  you are not withdrawing consent. You never consented to that. It is legally a form of sexual assault.

Similarly if you consent based on payment, and never got payment, you did not consent to that. 

🤦‍♂️

1. That's a false equivalency. In your example consent was never given for sex without a confirm so it can't be withdrawn. BTW this has happened to me and it's horrifying. 

2. In places where sex work is illegal you cannot go to the police to have a John arrested. They will just arrest you for prostitution.

[Mark_fl]

13 minutes ago, Pd1_jap said:

🤦‍♂️

1. That's a false equivalency. In your example consent was never given for sex without a condom so it can't be withdrawn. BTW this has happened to me and it's horrifying. 

How is it false? Consent was never given for sex without a payment either. 

Sorry you experienced that, however it doesn't change theno other scenario.

[pubic_assistance]

On 12/1/2025 at 11:26 PM, KensingtonHomo said:

let’s ask SA survivors, who will mostly reject this technical definition being conflated with being held down and fucked, being cornered with weapons, or being drugged and waking up violated.

I tend to agree with @KensingtonHomo here. Although ChatGPT may conflate the two, it is as KensingtonHomo stated: a "technical" definition. I feel the same way about women who claim "sexual assault" when someone made them feel uncomfortable in their company. ACTUAL sexual assault is a matter of sex with NO consent. Tricking an escort into having sex with you for money and then not paying or taking the money back is breach of  contract. The sex was completely consensual in this arrangement. No one was feeling assaulted during the session. 

Edited December 7 by pubic_assistance
grammar

[+ KensingtonHomo]

1 hour ago, Mark_fl said:

How is it false? Consent was never given for sex without a payment either. 

Sorry you experienced that, however it doesn't change theno other scenario.

If you have someone come to clean your house and they consent to do the job, and then you refuse payment, have you sexually assaulted them? 

If your gardner mows your lawn, and you refuse to pay him, have you sexually assaulted him? 

If sex work is work - as I believe it is - what we are talking about here is "theft of services" not "sexual assault." Because consent was never withdrawn, the person didn't pay for the services they received. By some posters' logic, I could consent to having sex with someone on the condition that I have an orgasm. If I don't have an orgasm can I claim they sexually assaulted me? My consent was conditional and the conditions weren't met. 

None of this diminishes that Brazillian was fucked over and treated like shit. It doesn't diminish that the "client" stole from him and took advantage of him. But it's not sexual assault. 

[Mark_fl]

18 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said:

If you have someone come to clean your house and they consent to do the job, and then you refuse payment, have you sexually assaulted them? 

If your gardner mows your lawn, and you refuse to pay him, have you sexually assaulted him? 

If sex work is work - as I believe it is - what we are talking about here is "theft of services" not "sexual assault." Because consent was never withdrawn, the person didn't pay for the services they received. By some posters' logic, I could consent to having sex with someone on the condition that I have an orgasm. If I don't have an orgasm can I claim they sexually assaulted me? My consent was conditional and the conditions weren't met. 

None of this diminishes that Brazillian was fucked over and treated like shit. It doesn't diminish that the "client" stole from him and took advantage of him. But it's not sexual assault. 

In case you didn't realize, in your examples the theft wasn't sex. If you want to change the example,  say I allow you to beat me up for $100 and after the fact, you decide not to pay.  I think its clearly obvious that what you did was assault, not theft of service, but apparently some might not.  They'd be wrong.

And there are no guarantees of an orgasm with sex, but if a provider DID make that guarantee and didn't deliver, you would be well within your rights to withhold payment.

[pubic_assistance]

4 minutes ago, Mark_fl said:

I think its clearly obvious that what you did was assault, not theft of service,

No, its not. Its breach of contract. You clearly consented to being beat up. You werent violated by someone who beat you up randomly.