Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   If you rule as a judge that a sex workers rape was only a "theft of services," you can bet on it that people will have a problem with your ruling   (opposingviews.com) divider line 115
    More: Asinine, sex workers, RH Reality Check, Philadelphia Daily News, miscarriage of justice  
•       •       •

7688 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2013 at 5:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-11-01 08:27:06 PM  
Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?
 
2013-11-01 10:49:47 PM  
I'm OK with this
 
2013-11-01 10:50:33 PM  

KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?


You know, I see this as a logical extension of the brand of feminism that says sex workers aren't victims, they're revolutionaries and what's wrong with them selling their own property?  Unless you're a patriarchal pig who thinks a woman's body is not her own...

So, yeah - if a sex worker takes that tack, then she shouldn't be surprised when a court buys in.

It's still stupid, though.
 
2013-11-01 11:32:29 PM  
"you get bet"?

lolwut?
 
2013-11-01 11:48:39 PM  

calbert: "you get bet"?

lolwut?


Premature posting dysfunction ?
 
2013-11-01 11:53:24 PM  
Meh - reminds me of when people get bent out of shape arguing about whether something is a "hate crime" or just a regular plain old crime.
 
2013-11-01 11:55:35 PM  

AlwaysRightBoy: calbert: "you get bet"?

lolwut?

Premature posting dysfunction ?


ahhh... PPD. sorry to mention it. it was hardly noticeable. I have a cousin with that, if you didn't know that about him, you'd never be able to tell.

;)
 
2013-11-02 12:02:59 AM  

Triumph: Meh - reminds me of when people get bent out of shape arguing about whether something is a "hate crime" or just a regular plain old crime.


Are you implying that there's no difference between raping a sex worker and shoplifting, or am I reading too much into your post?
 
2013-11-02 12:06:54 AM  
Being a judge doesn't mean you can be judgemental
 
2013-11-02 12:48:24 AM  
If the men had told her they would pay her afterwards, then had sex with her and didn't pay I would call that theft of services.

But according to the article that wasn't what happened. The men said they weren't going to pay, the woman said then she wouldn't have sex, and then they forced her to at gun point. That's rape.

The actual sexual experiences are much different in the two scenarios.
 
2013-11-02 12:55:52 AM  

Krieghund: If the men had told her they would pay her afterwards, then had sex with her and didn't pay I would call that theft of services.

But according to the article that wasn't what happened. The men said they weren't going to pay, the woman said then she wouldn't have sex, and then they forced her to at gun point. That's rape.

The actual sexual experiences are much different in the two scenarios.


Yeah, very.  Sex at gunpoint is rape regardless.

This has taught me a valuable lesson:
Pay her, fark her, then catch her before she gets in her car and rob her at gunpoint to get your money back.  Then it really IS just theft.
 
2013-11-02 01:36:58 AM  
Theft of an illegal service?  How is that legally enforceable?
 
2013-11-02 01:42:43 AM  

Shedim: Triumph: Meh - reminds me of when people get bent out of shape arguing about whether something is a "hate crime" or just a regular plain old crime.

Are you implying that there's no difference between raping a sex worker and shoplifting, or am I reading too much into your post?


The judge didn't call it shoplifting, she called it armed robbery. Pulling a gun on somebody and threatening their life ought to be the main issue.
 
2013-11-02 01:53:53 AM  
The whole "held at gunpoint" thing should definitely make it rape.

However, if a guy screws a prostitute, and then refuses to pay, I'd say no crime took place. She did consent to the sex, with the belief that she would get paid. He refused to pay her, but she still consented. However, money for sex is not something that a contract can be formed for in most jurisdictions, so no contract would exist, and there would be no theft of services either.
 
2013-11-02 02:04:40 AM  

Sid_6.7: The whole "held at gunpoint" thing should definitely make it rape.

However, if a guy screws a prostitute, and then refuses to pay, I'd say no crime took place. She did consent to the sex, with the belief that she would get paid. He refused to pay her, but she still consented. However, money for sex is not something that a contract can be formed for in most jurisdictions, so no contract would exist, and there would be no theft of services either.


That's why they always ask for the money up front..


/From what I hear about people who engage in that sort of thing.
 
2013-11-02 02:09:11 AM  

Triumph: Shedim: Triumph: Meh - reminds me of when people get bent out of shape arguing about whether something is a "hate crime" or just a regular plain old crime.

Are you implying that there's no difference between raping a sex worker and shoplifting, or am I reading too much into your post?

The judge didn't call it shoplifting, she called it armed robbery. Pulling a gun on somebody and threatening their life ought to be the main issue.


No, the main issue is that someone was raped at gunpoint. The fact that the victim happened to be a prostitute is irrelevant - you can't consent to sex if your only choices are "let me fark you or die." Reducing a rape to an "armed robbery" or a "theft of services" trivialises a very serious crime and shows no concern for the bodily autonomy of the woman concerned.
 
2013-11-02 02:25:39 AM  

Shedim: Reducing a rape to an "armed robbery" or a "theft of services" trivialises a very serious crime


No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.
 
2013-11-02 02:30:06 AM  
Let's not turn this rape into a murder.
 
2013-11-02 02:31:30 AM  

Triumph: No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.


I see - we seem to have different interpretations on what the "main issue" is.

Why do you think the gun crime is the major issue, compared to the rape?
 
2013-11-02 02:36:44 AM  
I've heard this joke before.

Wait, this isn't a joke?
 
2013-11-02 02:45:32 AM  

Shedim: Triumph: No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.

I see - we seem to have different interpretations on what the "main issue" is.

Why do you think the gun crime is the major issue, compared to the rape?


Because her life was unquestionably threatened. That makes it the top crime. The judge's logic apparently is that she already had conspired with the men to commit a sex crime, so she's looking at it like it's comparable to a drug deal gone bad or something. Yeah, that's messed up, but the main thing still is that he brought a gun to the party and threatened her life.
 
2013-11-02 03:05:50 AM  

Triumph: Shedim: Triumph: No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.

I see - we seem to have different interpretations on what the "main issue" is.

Why do you think the gun crime is the major issue, compared to the rape?

Because her life was unquestionably threatened. That makes it the top crime. The judge's logic apparently is that she already had conspired with the men to commit a sex crime, so she's looking at it like it's comparable to a drug deal gone bad or something. Yeah, that's messed up, but the main thing still is that he brought a gun to the party and threatened her life.


Okay, I can follow that logic, and I still agree that the judge is showing terrible logic by dismissing the rape charges. To me, however, the judge is implicitly saying that the presence of a firearm is more important than the rape of a woman; that the presence of a weapon is, as far as her interpretation of the law is concerned, more important than the rape.

Frankly, a rapist doesn't need a gun to rape someone; the guy was likely to rape her no matter what weapon he brought with him. You can threaten someone's life with your bare hands. That's why I see the rape as the main issue, because it was going to happen no matter what; the presence of a firearm, while a notable issue, is not the principal crime that occurred.

Not only that, but dismissing the rape charges stinks of "blaming the victim" - the judge is implicitly saying that if she hadn't been a prostitute she wouldn't have been raped, that the perpetrators transgressions against polite society are more important than what the perpetrator actually did to the victim. That's why I said that I felt it was trivialising rape before.
 
2013-11-02 03:26:26 AM  
they couldn't legally consent to committing a crime because the men were drunk. that woman took advantage of them.

drunk means you cant consent to something. period.
 
2013-11-02 03:54:06 AM  
She's already a dirty slut, so she deserves to be punished. Like OPEC for pussy, you have to limit the supply to keep prices high.
 
2013-11-02 04:09:30 AM  
Why not both?
 
2013-11-02 04:48:12 AM  
theinfosphere.org
 
2013-11-02 05:00:01 AM  
No Cyril, when they're in court, they're just "sex workers".
 
2013-11-02 05:33:54 AM  

jaylectricity: Let's not turn this rape into a murder.


now we're talking.
 
2013-11-02 05:46:05 AM  
"Activist organization Pussy Division sent an email"

My new band name, I copyrighted it here.
 
GBB
2013-11-02 05:55:42 AM  
We took a report a couple weeks ago.  Cab driver says that he was called to pick a guy up and take him 20 miles up the highway.  Cab driver showed up, picked up the guy and drove him 20 miles.  Guy then asks the cab driver to take him to another location.  upon arrival at the other location, Guy asks cab driver to take him to a 3rd location.  Cab driver gets suspicious and asks if they guy can pay.  Guy pulls out gun and threatens the cab driver and demand he take him to the 3rd location.  Cab driver does, guy leaves the cab and doesn't pay.

What is this?
A) Theft of services.
B) Armed robbery.
C) Kidnapping.

Compare your answer to TFA.
 
2013-11-02 06:05:11 AM  

DemonEater: Yeah, very.  Sex at gunpoint is rape regardless


I seem to remember some Soprano scene where sis got off on that sort of thing.
 
HBK
2013-11-02 06:10:36 AM  

GBB: We took a report a couple weeks ago.  Cab driver says that he was called to pick a guy up and take him 20 miles up the highway.  Cab driver showed up, picked up the guy and drove him 20 miles.  Guy then asks the cab driver to take him to another location.  upon arrival at the other location, Guy asks cab driver to take him to a 3rd location.  Cab driver gets suspicious and asks if they guy can pay.  Guy pulls out gun and threatens the cab driver and demand he take him to the 3rd location.  Cab driver does, guy leaves the cab and doesn't pay.

What is this?
A) Theft of services.
B) Armed robbery.
C) Kidnapping.

Compare your answer to TFA.


A and C.
 
2013-11-02 06:20:58 AM  

KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?


Oh, we're being racist. Ok.
 
2013-11-02 06:21:02 AM  
Did the judge forget that you can convict a person or persons for multiple crimes stemming from the same incident?  If I rob a bank with a handgun, then steal a car on my getaway, do the other charges just disappear because of the "assault with a deadly weapon"?

/the answer is "no, no they do not"
 
2013-11-02 06:24:04 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk
Sorry gents but it's always rape until the lady gets paid and even then............and because of the "shield" laws it doesn't matter how many prostitution busts she has on her rap sheet, your defense lawyer can't ask about them.
 
2013-11-02 06:30:50 AM  

Triumph: Meh - reminds me of when people get bent out of shape arguing about whether something is a "hate crime" or just a regular plain old crime.


The motivation behind assault is rarely goodwill.
 
2013-11-02 06:31:02 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?

You know, I see this as a logical extension of the brand of feminism that says sex workers aren't victims, they're revolutionaries and what's wrong with them selling their own property?  Unless you're a patriarchal pig who thinks a woman's body is not her own...

So, yeah - if a sex worker takes that tack, then she shouldn't be surprised when a court buys in.

It's still stupid, though.


Of course it's stupid because it is nothing more than a phantom of your fevered imaginings.

There are no feminists who think sex workers can't get raped because "they're not victims".  It is not a "logical extension" of any kind of feminism except in your enfeebled brain.  Thinking a woman's body is her own does not ever lead to the conclusion that she can't be raped, in fact it will always lead to the exact opposite conclusion.
 I live in a country where prostitution is legal.  If someone commits or forces a sex act on a prostitute (of any gender) to which they did not consent it's still rape.  In fact coercing sex from a prostitute even in the absence of something meeting the legal definition of "rape" will land you in jail for up to 14 years in these here parts.
 
2013-11-02 06:31:48 AM  

armor helix: KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?

Oh, we're being racist. Ok.


no kidding. when I think "judge" the image of a young, black, lesbian is always the first thing that comes to mind. what kind of a sick mind would assume a judge in America would be an old white person??

damn racists make me sick.
 
2013-11-02 06:45:22 AM  
"She went to a North Philadelphia home on Sept. 20 to meet Gindraw, who had agreed to pay her $150 for sex. He then said a friend was coming with the money and that the friend would pay her another $100 to perform sex acts.
Instead, three other men arrived, and Gindraw pulled a gun and ordered the woman to have sex with all of them, she testified. "He said that I'm going to do this for free, and I'm not going nowhere, and I better cooperate or he was going to kill me," she testified at a preliminary hearing."


http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=5735923

I don't see how this isn't rape since she clearly did not consent to this scenario and her her life was being threatened at gunpoint. Doesn't get more "coercive" than this. Fark this judge to hell.
 
2013-11-02 06:50:47 AM  
So if I go into Wendy's and rip off the cashiers arm and eat it, it is theft of services too?
 
2013-11-02 07:01:24 AM  

SpdrJay: So if I go into Wendy's and rip off the cashiers arm and eat it, it is theft of services too?


Only if the cashier's arm was originally available for purchase.
 
2013-11-02 07:10:25 AM  
+1 subby!   Missing FlashLV?
 
2013-11-02 07:20:39 AM  

suebhoney:  Missing FlashLV?


wow. there's a name I haven't seen in forever
 
2013-11-02 07:21:35 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?

You know, I see this as a logical extension of the brand of feminism that says sex workers aren't victims, they're revolutionaries and what's wrong with them selling their own property?  Unless you're a patriarchal pig who thinks a woman's body is not her own...

So, yeah - if a sex worker takes that tack, then she shouldn't be surprised when a court buys in.

It's still stupid, though.


No, I think it's the other brand of feminism...the one so deep in the "objectifying women" tack that they end up being just as bad on women who have sex for pleasure as any right-wing Republican, only from the opposite direction.
 
2013-11-02 07:29:10 AM  
So by that line of thinking, once a woman agrees to sex she can no longer withdraw consent? I mean, that's what the Judge is saying right?  She agreed to sex, so she's obligated to it, and if the terms of the sex change than it's a contract dispute?
 
2013-11-02 07:34:00 AM  
A judge made a scary ruling and our primary goal is that we are gonna use it to bash our political opponents with it?

Jesus farking Christ, people. This kind of talk is bullshiat because we lose focus on who was wrong in this.

The Judge did this.

This is on the judge

She deserves to be tossed out on her ass

Putting this as left v right is gonna ensure that people come to vote for her reelection

Please let this one go
 
2013-11-02 07:36:17 AM  
This is why we need the 10 Commandments in our court rooms.
 
2013-11-02 07:36:22 AM  
First article said one guy and he called his buddy.

Second article said there were multiple men,

So how many did she end up with at the end?
 
2013-11-02 07:39:51 AM  

ZzeusS: First article said one guy and he called his buddy.

Second article said there were multiple men,

So how many did she end up with at the end?


multiple just means more than one.

the articles to not disagree with each other
 
2013-11-02 07:50:42 AM  
Didn't read the article... But do you seriously mean to tell me that a judge legally instituted the old "raping a hooker is just shoplifting" joke..? For real..?
 
2013-11-02 07:54:38 AM  

blindio: So by that line of thinking, once a woman agrees to sex she can no longer withdraw consent? I mean, that's what the Judge is saying right?  She agreed to sex, so she's obligated to it, and if the terms of the sex change than it's a contract dispute?


It's incredibly retarded. It's like saying if you invite someone into your house once, you can never ever tell them to leave after they come or inside, or not to come back to your house again. If they break down your door at gunpoint and start eating shiat out of your fridge and camping out in your living room, they can only be charged with theft of the food, but not breaking and entering or trespassing because you said they could come over that one time.
 
2013-11-02 08:12:27 AM  

ambercat: blindio: So by that line of thinking, once a woman agrees to sex she can no longer withdraw consent? I mean, that's what the Judge is saying right?  She agreed to sex, so she's obligated to it, and if the terms of the sex change than it's a contract dispute?

It's incredibly retarded. It's like saying if you invite someone into your house once, you can never ever tell them to leave after they come or inside, or not to come back to your house again. If they break down your door at gunpoint and start eating shiat out of your fridge and camping out in your living room, they can only be charged with theft of the food, but not breaking and entering or trespassing because you said they could come over that one time.


I was all set to continue the feedback of how ridiculous the whole thing is, then your comment reminded me so much of my mother in law I started crying.
 
2013-11-02 08:16:01 AM  

DemonEater: This has taught me a valuable lesson:
Pay her, fark her, then catch her before she gets in her car and rob her at gunpoint to get your money back. Then it really IS just theft.



cs418131.vk.me
I just run her over with the car once she gets out...
 
2013-11-02 08:26:10 AM  
"You would have sex with me for a hundred dollars?"
"No, go away asshole!"
"How about a thousand dollars?"
"Are you crazy?  No!"
"Okay, I'm insulting you.  How about twenty thousand dollars?"
"Are you serious?"
"Absolutely.  Would you have sex with me for twenty thousand dollars?"
"I guess..."
"Okay!" *pulls out gun* "Now take off your clothes or I'll kill you...this is an armed robbery."
 
2013-11-02 08:36:24 AM  
This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.
 
2013-11-02 08:41:41 AM  
Don't get me wrong. I am no issue with sex workers.  If that is what they want to do it is their business, both literally and figuratively.  I just don't like the logical inconsistency of on the one hand saying the vagina is  just an object to be bartered and on the other hand claiming that someone else using it is deeply personal.
 
2013-11-02 08:43:04 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?

You know, I see this as a logical extension of the brand of feminism that says sex workers aren't victims, they're revolutionaries and what's wrong with them selling their own property?  Unless you're a patriarchal pig who thinks a woman's body is not her own...

So, yeah - if a sex worker takes that tack, then she shouldn't be surprised when a court buys in.

It's still stupid, though.


It's a matter how the "business" end of it is conducted, however in this case it appears more rape than theft.
This is why money should be exchanged up front, no money, no consent, thus rape.  If the deal is sex and then payment, then it'd be theft, since consent was only withdrawn after the act.
It's kinda like if you were to go into a fast food joint, where you order > pay > eat, but decide instead of paying, you're going to pull out a gun and demand food, that's armed robbery.  Now, if you go to a sit down restaurant, where you order > eat > pay, and then dash out between eating and paying, then it's fraud, not robbery.
 
2013-11-02 08:48:00 AM  

Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.


THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).
 
2013-11-02 08:49:12 AM  

Ima4nic8or: Don't get me wrong. I am no issue with sex workers.  If that is what they want to do it is their business, both literally and figuratively.  I just don't like the logical inconsistency of on the one hand saying the vagina is  just an object to be bartered and on the other hand claiming that someone else using it is deeply personal.


Very well said.

So let me ask you: When *did* you perform your first rape-murder?
 
2013-11-02 08:49:57 AM  
Rape is rape. It is an act of violence and inexcusable. No "she was dressed provocatively", or "she is not member of our tribe", or "she wanted it", or "she's a whore or a pariah or half-caste or untouchable" nor any other nonsense. If she was untouchable you wouldn't be touching her would you?

Raping a prostitute is "rape with robbery", not robbery simple. There is violence, and that violence is rape. Robbery with violence is an aggravated robbery. In this case aggravated not with assault and battery, but rape.

Judges can be such idiots, regardless of their ideological slant. In a case like this, the ideology goes around the circle from radical right to radical left or vice versa.

Every person has the right to say "no" to sex, even a professional or amateur. Every person has a right to protection from violence except when they themselves are the agressor, and also a right to self-defence (limited by circumstances and reasonable limits on the amount of violence used--it's not a right to kill or go medieval on the aggressor--the right of self-defence is limited to real and present danger or a reasonable anticipation of danger, and also to due force.

So says I, on behalf of common sense, decency and justice. Let's say that two thirds or 80% of the political circle agrees on these principles and that extreme leftists or rightests are equally prone to ideological derp.

I don't believe class, race, sex, age, or other attributes justify rape under any circumstances, including war. An army that rapes is out-of-control of its officers, or under the control of war criminals. Do I sound like a medieval Christian, say Saint Thomas of Aquinas? Tough shiat. Some medieval thinking was pretty good. As an atheist I will admit a certain admiration for those rare Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and what not that think and feel rightly. Not because God tells them to, but because their own human sympathies and reason tell them to. God can bugger off. He is more often used as a weapon and an instrument of torture than a tool for healing and health.
 
2013-11-02 08:50:58 AM  
www.head-fi.org
 
2013-11-02 08:51:34 AM  

Krieghund: If the men had told her they would pay her afterwards, then had sex with her and didn't pay I would call that theft of services.

But according to the article that wasn't what happened. The men said they weren't going to pay, the woman said then she wouldn't have sex, and then they forced her to at gun point. That's rape.

The actual sexual experiences are much different in the two scenarios.


I can't see how the judge can rule "theft of services" when the actual business transaction itself was illegal in the first place.  Why would laws protecting buyers and sellers apply in an illegal sale?  On the other hand, the guy held her at gunpoint and forced her to perform a sexual act.  There is no more obvious example of rape than that.
 
2013-11-02 08:58:01 AM  
If the definition of rape is "sex that is not consensual", then this was not rape as the sex part clarly was consensual.  The "not consensual" part was the not paying for it.

I have no problem whatsoever with this judge's ruling, and stereotyping morans like Benevolent Misanthrope and brantgoose should learn to RTFA.

Let's be clear: there WAS consent for sex.
 
2013-11-02 09:00:29 AM  
Could it be the judge is ruling theft of services to be sure the men are convicted of a crime? The judge could be savy, and knows that a jury may not find the alleged rapists guilty. Further, theft and armed robbery may carry a stiffer penalty. The judge may very well be doing this in the victims interest to guarantee a conviction./jmtc
 
2013-11-02 09:00:40 AM  

brantgoose: Rape is rape. It is an act of violence and inexcusable. No "she was dressed provocatively", or "she is not member of our tribe", or "she wanted it", or "she's a whore or a pariah or half-caste or untouchable" nor any other nonsense. If she was untouchable you wouldn't be touching her would you?

Raping a prostitute is "rape with robbery", not robbery simple. There is violence, and that violence is rape. Robbery with violence is an aggravated robbery. In this case aggravated not with assault and battery, but rape.

Judges can be such idiots, regardless of their ideological slant. In a case like this, the ideology goes around the circle from radical right to radical left or vice versa.

Every person has the right to say "no" to sex, even a professional or amateur. Every person has a right to protection from violence except when they themselves are the agressor, and also a right to self-defence (limited by circumstances and reasonable limits on the amount of violence used--it's not a right to kill or go medieval on the aggressor--the right of self-defence is limited to real and present danger or a reasonable anticipation of danger, and also to due force.

So says I, on behalf of common sense, decency and justice. Let's say that two thirds or 80% of the political circle agrees on these principles and that extreme leftists or rightests are equally prone to ideological derp.

I don't believe class, race, sex, age, or other attributes justify rape under any circumstances, including war. An army that rapes is out-of-control of its officers, or under the control of war criminals. Do I sound like a medieval Christian, say Saint Thomas of Aquinas? Tough shiat. Some medieval thinking was pretty good. As an atheist I will admit a certain admiration for those rare Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and what not that think and feel rightly. Not because God tells them to, but because their own human sympathies and reason tell them to. God can bugger off. He is more often used as a ...


This here is the most reasoned comment.
 
2013-11-02 09:02:10 AM  
I'd like to hear comments from those who would (foolishly) support her in the campaign.
 
2013-11-02 09:02:57 AM  

AbortionsForAll: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).


If it wasn't legal to sell her vag, then it was never legally a product. Theft of services a pretty bogus wrap seeing as there was never legally any service offered.
 
2013-11-02 09:09:05 AM  
She's already been re-elected once, you may be over estimating the Power the Pussy Division to sway voters.
 
2013-11-02 09:09:12 AM  

italie: AbortionsForAll: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).

If it wasn't legal to sell her vag, then it was never legally a product. Theft of services a pretty bogus wrap seeing as there was never legally any service offered.


I see what you're trying to do there, but the fact that the sale was inherently illegal doesn't mean its not a sale. By your logic, if I go buy a bag of weed, there's actually no transaction happening because the act of buying the weed is illegal. Nope, the logic... She does not line up.
 
2013-11-02 09:22:01 AM  

AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).

If it wasn't legal to sell her vag, then it was never legally a product. Theft of services a pretty bogus wrap seeing as there was never legally any service offered.

I see what you're trying to do there, but the fact that the sale was inherently illegal doesn't mean its not a sale. By your logic, if I go buy a bag of weed, there's actually no transaction happening because the act of buying the weed is illegal. Nope, the logic... She does not line up.


And if you steal the weed, will it EVER be a theft of service charge? No.

//None of the logic lines up, that's the point.
 
2013-11-02 09:23:20 AM  
so by that judge's reckoning, prior consent trumps all?  excuse me while I duck out and start collecting on some ass I'm owed.
 
2013-11-02 09:28:48 AM  

italie: AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).

If it wasn't legal to sell her vag, then it was never legally a product. Theft of services a pretty bogus wrap seeing as there was never legally any service offered.

I see what you're trying to do there, but the fact that the sale was inherently illegal doesn't mean its not a sale. By your logic, if I go buy a bag of weed, there's actually no transaction happening because the act of buying the weed is illegal. Nope, the logic... She does not line up.

And if you steal the weed, will it EVER be a theft of service charge? No.

//None of the logic lines up, that's the point.


If someone steals your weed, it's still stolen weed. Unless you're saying that one can't legally own weed in the first place... Which obviously isn't the case, since one can be prosecuted for owning weed.
 
2013-11-02 09:29:31 AM  

cman: A judge made a scary ruling and our primary goal is that we are gonna use it to bash our political opponents with it?

Jesus farking Christ, people. This kind of talk is bullshiat because we lose focus on who was wrong in this.

The Judge did this.

This is on the judge

She deserves to be tossed out on her ass

Putting this as left v right is gonna ensure that people come to vote for her reelection

Please let this one go


Would you care to point out an example of politics being brought up? I see a couple people being a bit bigoted against a woman's rights, but I don't see this as a right vrs left thing.
 
2013-11-02 09:31:19 AM  

TheKiltedDutchman: Could it be the judge is ruling theft of services to be sure the men are convicted of a crime? The judge could be savy, and knows that a jury may not find the alleged rapists guilty. Further, theft and armed robbery may carry a stiffer penalty. The judge may very well be doing this in the victims interest to guarantee a conviction./jmtc


Of course this is what's going on.  The reaction is similar to that of a serial killer being convicted of murders 1-7 and sentenced to death while the family of victim number 8 complains that their case is either forgotten, dismissed, or results in a lighter sentence.
 
2013-11-02 09:38:36 AM  

AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).

If it wasn't legal to sell her vag, then it was never legally a product. Theft of services a pretty bogus wrap seeing as there was never legally any service offered.

I see what you're trying to do there, but the fact that the sale was inherently illegal doesn't mean its not a sale. By your logic, if I go buy a bag of weed, there's actually no transaction happening because the act of buying the weed is illegal. Nope, the logic... She does not line up.

And if you steal the weed, will it EVER be a theft of service charge? No.

//None of the logic lines up, that's the point.

If someone steals your weed, it's still stolen weed. Unless you're saying that one can't legally own weed in the first place... Which obviously isn't the case, since one can be prosecuted for owning weed.


This is a rather disgusting conversation all around. There is no comparison that would be appropriate. I cannot believe we're even discussing if being a sexworker somehow mitigates a gang-rape at gunpoint. Please, step back and see the humanity of it all. This woman likes to fark, and likes to get paid for it. I fail to see how she deserves to be kidnapped at gunpoint and then gang-rapped by three men.
 
2013-11-02 09:41:04 AM  
What of they paid her, finished their business and then pulled the gun and took the money back?

Would that be rape or robbery?
 
2013-11-02 09:42:01 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: If the definition of rape is "sex that is not consensual", then this was not rape as the sex part clarly was consensual.  The "not consensual" part was the not paying for it.

I have no problem whatsoever with this judge's ruling, and stereotyping morans like Benevolent Misanthrope and brantgoose should learn to RTFA.

Let's be clear: there WAS consent for sex.


So if you meet a woman in a bar and she agrees to go back to your place (because we all know what THAT means, amirite) then when you get her there she's sobered up a bit and reconsidered, of course you can just force her to have sex, because there was consent originally.

She withdrew her consent. Why she did so isn't relevant, only that she did, and then they raped her.
 
2013-11-02 09:49:05 AM  

Dedmon: cman: A judge made a scary ruling and our primary goal is that we are gonna use it to bash our political opponents with it?

Jesus farking Christ, people. This kind of talk is bullshiat because we lose focus on who was wrong in this.

The Judge did this.

This is on the judge

She deserves to be tossed out on her ass

Putting this as left v right is gonna ensure that people come to vote for her reelection

Please let this one go

Would you care to point out an example of politics being brought up? I see a couple people being a bit bigoted against a woman's rights, but I don't see this as a right vrs left thing.


Thats some bullshiat right there and you know it.

Many in this thread are implying that this is the right's fault that a judge ruled this way.

Its not

Its right vs wrong.

Stop this

Stop this farking blame game

Stop this bullshiat
 
2013-11-02 09:58:00 AM  

Sid_6.7: However, if a guy screws a prostitute, and then refuses to pay, I'd say no crime took place.


It's a crime in spirit, and it's just assholish.

/not to mention suicidal. Those prostitutes do no take kindly to being stiffed.
//neither do their pimps.
 
2013-11-02 10:26:21 AM  
 "Yahweh said to Hosea: Go, marry a whore, and get children with a whore, for the country itself has become nothing but a whore by abandoning Yahweh" (Hosea 1:2).

Thanks, Obama.
 
2013-11-02 10:27:29 AM  

cman: A judge made a scary ruling and our primary goal is that we are gonna use it to bash our political opponents with it?

Jesus farking Christ, people. This kind of talk is bullshiat because we lose focus on who was wrong in this.

The Judge did this.

This is on the judge

She deserves to be tossed out on her ass

Putting this as left v right is gonna ensure that people come to vote for her reelection

Please let this one go


In fairness, I think that most folks are putting it on the judge. And it's a sh*tty ruling. Prior consent doesn't mean that when things change, that the act remain the same. That her fellow judges have criticized the ruling was mentioned.

You're correct, in this is NOT a Right vs Left issue, but it IS being latched onto by folks who are typically on the Left, as advocates for women's issues. I think that latter portion of that statement is the more pointed: advocates for women's issues. That advocates for women are seen as "Left" IS something that is sort of telling about where the country is at this moment. That folks don't feel that they are represented by Conservatives IS an issue. In your mind, a separate issue. It shouldn't be a Right vs Left sort of thing. Women are represented and represent the party, and their districts, and some with great tenacity, vigor, and integrity. There are a great many that do not, but that is not exactly news. Idiots get put into chairs for ideological reasons as often as for intellectual and professional prowess.

That you feel it necessary to leap to the defense is telling. And it shows a weakness at this point for the party.

The judge made not just a bad call, it calls into question her entire basis for jurisprudence, and her qualifications to continue as a seated judge. Not for a "right" or "left" basis, but on the grounds that she seems to have some blinders on about what crimes actually are, and her own bias about "real rape." That those who are typically on "the Left" are calling for her removal, and reminding folks about this case, and NOT folks on "the Right" IS telling of how screwed up things are.

As a Conservative--I'm no longer registered Republican but that's no real surprise--I'm more than a little sickened by this case. Because rape isn't a "right" or "left" issue. Folks should be outraged by it. And party affiliation shouldn't stand in the way of being outraged by it. But let's not pretend that there is dearth of folks on "the right" who are standing with the woman, and THAT is a telling absence.

Mind you, I'm not from Philly. There very well might be local Conservatives who are JUST as outraged, but not mentioned in this article, because our Dear Author really wanted to get the names Pussy Division and SlutWalk Philly out there. Folks from Philly might help if they could fill in the details a bit, if there are folks who are united beyond the usual partisan bullsh*t who are outraged by this, and were when it happened in 2007.
 
2013-11-02 10:29:58 AM  

hubiestubert: cman: A judge made a scary ruling and our primary goal is that we are gonna use it to bash our political opponents with it?

Jesus farking Christ, people. This kind of talk is bullshiat because we lose focus on who was wrong in this.

The Judge did this.

This is on the judge

She deserves to be tossed out on her ass

Putting this as left v right is gonna ensure that people come to vote for her reelection

Please let this one go

In fairness, I think that most folks are putting it on the judge. And it's a sh*tty ruling. Prior consent doesn't mean that when things change, that the act remain the same. That her fellow judges have criticized the ruling was mentioned.

You're correct, in this is NOT a Right vs Left issue, but it IS being latched onto by folks who are typically on the Left, as advocates for women's issues. I think that latter portion of that statement is the more pointed: advocates for women's issues. That advocates for women are seen as "Left" IS something that is sort of telling about where the country is at this moment. That folks don't feel that they are represented by Conservatives IS an issue. In your mind, a separate issue. It shouldn't be a Right vs Left sort of thing. Women are represented and represent the party, and their districts, and some with great tenacity, vigor, and integrity. There are a great many that do not, but that is not exactly news. Idiots get put into chairs for ideological reasons as often as for intellectual and professional prowess.

That you feel it necessary to leap to the defense is telling. And it shows a weakness at this point for the party.

The judge made not just a bad call, it calls into question her entire basis for jurisprudence, and her qualifications to continue as a seated judge. Not for a "right" or "left" basis, but on the grounds that she seems to have some blinders on about what crimes actually are, and her own bias about "real rape." That those who are typically on "the Left" are calling for her removal, ...


You are correct

Thank you for helping me see my bias.

I reacted with anger. I am just getting sick of it all

Hyperpartisanship is DESTROYING us, and we really need to stop it.

All of us need to stop it
 
2013-11-02 10:37:16 AM  

wildcardjack: DemonEater: Yeah, very.  Sex at gunpoint is rape regardless

I seem to remember some Soprano scene where sis got off on that sort of thing.


It was Ralphie who got off on it, and Tony's sister Janice just went along with it to humor him...

/He also liked her to peg him with a dildo while holding the gun to his head...
 
2013-11-02 10:37:27 AM  

AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).

If it wasn't legal to sell her vag, then it was never legally a product. Theft of services a pretty bogus wrap seeing as there was never legally any service offered.

I see what you're trying to do there, but the fact that the sale was inherently illegal doesn't mean its not a sale. By your logic, if I go buy a bag of weed, there's actually no transaction happening because the act of buying the weed is illegal. Nope, the logic... She does not line up.

And if you steal the weed, will it EVER be a theft of service charge? No.

//None of the logic lines up, that's the point.

If someone steals your weed, it's still stolen weed. Unless you're saying that one can't legally own weed in the first place... Which obviously isn't the case, since one can be prosecuted for owning weed.


Not really, To the letter of the law you are prosecuted for possessing weed, not owning it. Legally the definitions are not as similar as Merriam Webster would have you think.

So now it appears we need clarification, did he own the hooker or just possess the hooker?
 
2013-11-02 10:47:39 AM  
cman:  Hyperpartisanship is DESTROYING us, and we really need to stop it.

All of us need to stop it


Agreed. Very much so. The instant defense for ANYONE who seen as being on a "side" is a problem, that we don't just face in this country, but across the globe. Even politicians we LIKE make calls that we disagree with. It's up to us to weigh those issues against their record, and vote accordingly. I am proud to have worked on Olympia Snowe's campaign, and I'm proud as heck of Impie for a LOT of her career, but that doesn't mean that she hasn't made some votes that I disagree with. There are a LOT of pols that I personally like--and John McCain has been one of them, but he LOST my vote by doing some damn stoopid stuff, and supporting some damn stoopid stuff. I wish that he hadn't, but wishing doesn't make someone's record go away.  Some of the idiocy that he rambled on about, was an attempt to make appeals to the Wing Nut Brigade, and I can understand that at least. Not approve, but I understand it. What I couldn't cotton to was an ignorance in foreign policy that showed a blatant and willful ignorance that would have gotten the country involved in brinksmanship we can ill afford.

We all need to look hard at the folks who we choose to represent us. And hold them accountable. Party be damned, because party shouldn't trump reason. That it often does, is an indictment against our process, and the nation as a whole.

In this case: the judge made not just a questionable call, but made a decision that has dangerous implications for folks in her district. She should be removed, not out of partisanship, but because she is basing her decisions on poor jurisprudence.
 
2013-11-02 10:49:58 AM  

hubiestubert: cman:  Hyperpartisanship is DESTROYING us, and we really need to stop it.

All of us need to stop it

Agreed. Very much so. The instant defense for ANYONE who seen as being on a "side" is a problem, that we don't just face in this country, but across the globe. Even politicians we LIKE make calls that we disagree with. It's up to us to weigh those issues against their record, and vote accordingly. I am proud to have worked on Olympia Snowe's campaign, and I'm proud as heck of Impie for a LOT of her career, but that doesn't mean that she hasn't made some votes that I disagree with. There are a LOT of pols that I personally like--and John McCain has been one of them, but he LOST my vote by doing some damn stoopid stuff, and supporting some damn stoopid stuff. I wish that he hadn't, but wishing doesn't make someone's record go away.  Some of the idiocy that he rambled on about, was an attempt to make appeals to the Wing Nut Brigade, and I can understand that at least. Not approve, but I understand it. What I couldn't cotton to was an ignorance in foreign policy that showed a blatant and willful ignorance that would have gotten the country involved in brinksmanship we can ill afford.

We all need to look hard at the folks who we choose to represent us. And hold them accountable. Party be damned, because party shouldn't trump reason. That it often does, is an indictment against our process, and the nation as a whole.

In this case: the judge made not just a questionable call, but made a decision that has dangerous implications for folks in her district. She should be removed, not out of partisanship, but because she is basing her decisions on poor jurisprudence.


Exactly what I wish I could say.

Thank you for being able to explain it where I cannot

/BTW, I am a Mainer. I am sad Snowe left the Senate, but I am happy that King won. I voted for him.
 
2013-11-02 10:52:00 AM  
If you hire a house cleaner and decide that instead of paying them, you are going to brandish a lethal weapon and threaten to kill them until your house is clean, that is NOT theft of services. It's assault and false imprisonment.

fark this judge.
 
2013-11-02 11:02:13 AM  

Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.


Bullshiat. Prostitution does not make a person's vagina a product any more than bricklaying makes a person's arm a product.

The transaction is not money for body parts, it's money for labor. You don't get to wrap it up and take it home in a box, you creepy fark.
 
2013-11-02 11:05:35 AM  
Rape at gunpoint. Absolutely rape, no question about it. This ruling makes me sick.

AlwaysRightBoy: brantgoose: Rape is rape. It is an act of violence and inexcusable. No "she was dressed provocatively", or "she is not member of our tribe", or "she wanted it", or "she's a whore or a pariah or half-caste or untouchable" nor any other nonsense. If she was untouchable you wouldn't be touching her would you?

Raping a prostitute is "rape with robbery", not robbery simple. There is violence, and that violence is rape. Robbery with violence is an aggravated robbery. In this case aggravated not with assault and battery, but rape.

Judges can be such idiots, regardless of their ideological slant. In a case like this, the ideology goes around the circle from radical right to radical left or vice versa.

Every person has the right to say "no" to sex, even a professional or amateur. Every person has a right to protection from violence except when they themselves are the agressor, and also a right to self-defence (limited by circumstances and reasonable limits on the amount of violence used--it's not a right to kill or go medieval on the aggressor--the right of self-defence is limited to real and present danger or a reasonable anticipation of danger, and also to due force.

So says I, on behalf of common sense, decency and justice. Let's say that two thirds or 80% of the political circle agrees on these principles and that extreme leftists or rightests are equally prone to ideological derp.

I don't believe class, race, sex, age, or other attributes justify rape under any circumstances, including war. An army that rapes is out-of-control of its officers, or under the control of war criminals. Do I sound like a medieval Christian, say Saint Thomas of Aquinas? Tough shiat. Some medieval thinking was pretty good. As an atheist I will admit a certain admiration for those rare Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and what not that think and feel rightly. Not because God tells them to, but because their own human sympathies and reason tell them to. God can bugger off.  ...


Quoting this for truth.
 
2013-11-02 11:05:40 AM  

brantgoose: Rape is rape. It is an act of violence and inexcusable. No "she was dressed provocatively", or "she is not member of our tribe", or "she wanted it", or "she's a whore or a pariah or half-caste or untouchable" nor any other nonsense. If she was untouchable you wouldn't be touching her would you?

Raping a prostitute is "rape with robbery", not robbery simple. There is violence, and that violence is rape. Robbery with violence is an aggravated robbery. In this case aggravated not with assault and battery, but rape.

Judges can be such idiots, regardless of their ideological slant. In a case like this, the ideology goes around the circle from radical right to radical left or vice versa.

Every person has the right to say "no" to sex, even a professional or amateur. Every person has a right to protection from violence except when they themselves are the agressor, and also a right to self-defence (limited by circumstances and reasonable limits on the amount of violence used--it's not a right to kill or go medieval on the aggressor--the right of self-defence is limited to real and present danger or a reasonable anticipation of danger, and also to due force.

So says I, on behalf of common sense, decency and justice. Let's say that two thirds or 80% of the political circle agrees on these principles and that extreme leftists or rightests are equally prone to ideological derp.

I don't believe class, race, sex, age, or other attributes justify rape under any circumstances, including war. An army that rapes is out-of-control of its officers, or under the control of war criminals. Do I sound like a medieval Christian, say Saint Thomas of Aquinas? Tough shiat. Some medieval thinking was pretty good. As an atheist I will admit a certain admiration for those rare Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and what not that think and feel rightly. Not because God tells them to, but because their own human sympathies and reason tell them to. God can bugger off. He is more often used as a ...


What's your take on...surprise sex?

www.thenewage.co.za
 
2013-11-02 11:33:18 AM  
The prohibition of prostitution means more prostitutes get raped. It's that simple. If you actually care about these women, you'd make it possible for them to go the police like any other person who's been wronged, and more importantly they'd be able to work surrounded by security and co-workers at licensed brothel instead of on their own, meeting random guys at hotel rooms. Anyone who thinks rape and prostitution are inextricably linked, I invite you to go to a legal Nevada or German brothel and try to touch one of those women without their permission. If you're lucky, they'll call the police... eventually.
 
2013-11-02 11:41:38 AM  

Polyhazard: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

Bullshiat. Prostitution does not make a person's vagina a product any more than bricklaying makes a person's arm a product.

The transaction is not money for body parts, it's money for labor. You don't get to wrap it up and take it home in a box, you creepy fark.


Sounds like you are arguing that prostitution is a service rather than a case of renting an object.  That doesn't change the logic much for me.  My argument would still be more or less the same: once you decide that giving up the snoo snoo is just a service then a person stealing that service can not be guilty of a gross violation of the woman's person. Its just theft of services.
 
2013-11-02 11:42:27 AM  

Polyhazard: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

Bullshiat. Prostitution does not make a person's vagina a product any more than bricklaying makes a person's arm a product.

The transaction is not money for body parts, it's money for labor. You don't get to wrap it up and take it home in a box, you creepy fark.


If you want to make that comparison you should go for the tools used in bricklaying. The vagina is something used to perform the act of sex in the same way that a trowel is used to perform the act of bricklaying.

While you are correct that it is money for labour, the labour necessitates the use of the tools. At the end of the day, after being ripped off, both the bricklayer and the prostitute still possess the tools of their trade.

italie: And if you steal the weed, will it EVER be a theft of service charge? No.


Weed is a physical product, sex is not. Therefore not paying for weed can never be theft of services, while not paying for sex can never be "regular" theft.
 
2013-11-02 11:49:16 AM  

DerAppie: At the end of the day, after being ripped off, both the bricklayer and the prostitute still possess the tools of their trade.


Wow, someone straight-up arguing that "you can't rape a whore". That's.... special, to put it mildly. 

If I break your arm, that's not assault, it's just destruction of property, right?
 
2013-11-02 12:07:27 PM  

DerAppie: Polyhazard: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

Bullshiat. Prostitution does not make a person's vagina a product any more than bricklaying makes a person's arm a product.

The transaction is not money for body parts, it's money for labor. You don't get to wrap it up and take it home in a box, you creepy fark.

If you want to make that comparison you should go for the tools used in bricklaying. The vagina is something used to perform the act of sex in the same way that a trowel is used to perform the act of bricklaying.

While you are correct that it is money for labour, the labour necessitates the use of the tools. At the end of the day, after being ripped off, both the bricklayer and the prostitute still possess the tools of their trade.

italie: And if you steal the weed, will it EVER be a theft of service charge? No.

Weed is a physical product, sex is not. Therefore not paying for weed can never be theft of services, while not paying for sex can never be "regular" theft.


Okay then, theft of property.
 
2013-11-02 12:16:03 PM  

blindio: So by that line of thinking, once a woman agrees to sex she can no longer withdraw consent? I mean, that's what the Judge is saying right?  She agreed to sex, so she's obligated to it, and if the terms of the sex change than it's a contract dispute?


Isn't it always a contract dispute?
 
2013-11-02 12:19:18 PM  

AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).

If it wasn't legal to sell her vag, then it was never legally a product. Theft of services a pretty bogus wrap seeing as there was never legally any service offered.

I see what you're trying to do there, but the fact that the sale was inherently illegal doesn't mean its not a sale. By your logic, if I go buy a bag of weed, there's actually no transaction happening because the act of buying the weed is illegal. Nope, the logic... She does not line up.

And if you steal the weed, will it EVER be a theft of service charge? No.

//None of the logic lines up, that's the point.

If someone steals your weed, it's still stolen weed. Unless you're saying that one can't legally own weed in the first place... Which obviously isn't the case, since one can be prosecuted for owning weed.


From a legal standpoint, in the US, you cannot own weed, you can only possess it.
 
2013-11-02 12:55:38 PM  

KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?


Looks at pic..  are you sure?
 
2013-11-02 01:06:38 PM  

Churchill2004: DerAppie: At the end of the day, after being ripped off, both the bricklayer and the prostitute still possess the tools of their trade.

Wow, someone straight-up arguing that "you can't rape a whore". That's.... special, to put it mildly.
If I break your arm, that's not assault, it's just destruction of property, right?


I am not arguing that. I was commenting on a metaphor. Nowhere in that post did I state that you can't rape a prostitute. I even started with "If you want to make that comparison ..." But hey, don't let that keep you from feeling outrage.

/Breaking my arm would deprive me of using that arm
//Raping a prostitute would not deprive her of the use of her vagina
 
2013-11-02 01:08:44 PM  

cman: A judge made a scary ruling and our primary goal is that we are gonna use it to bash our political opponents with it?

Jesus farking Christ, people. This kind of talk is bullshiat because we lose focus on who was wrong in this.

The Judge did this.

This is on the judge

She deserves to be tossed out on her ass

Putting this as left v right is gonna ensure that people come to vote for her reelection

Please let this one go


...nobody's doing that...

/I mean, not on Fark, anyway, but IRL judges do tend to run on political platforms
//Here on Fark, the problem is that some people apparently think sex workers can't be raped.
 
2013-11-02 01:09:46 PM  

Churchill2004: DerAppie: At the end of the day, after being ripped off, both the bricklayer and the prostitute still possess the tools of their trade.

Wow, someone straight-up arguing that "you can't rape a whore". That's.... special, to put it mildly.
If I break your arm, that's not assault, it's just destruction of property, right?


By the way, my stance on this subject is pretty much this
 
2013-11-02 01:12:23 PM  

log_jammin: armor helix: KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?

Oh, we're being racist. Ok.

no kidding. when I think "judge" the image of a young, black, lesbian is always the first thing that comes to mind. what kind of a sick mind would assume a judge in America would be an old white person??

damn racists make me sick.


And some unfunny sarcasm to go with it. Got it.
 
2013-11-02 02:02:42 PM  

Shedim: Triumph: Shedim: Triumph: No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.

I see - we seem to have different interpretations on what the "main issue" is.

Why do you think the gun crime is the major issue, compared to the rape?

Because her life was unquestionably threatened. That makes it the top crime. The judge's logic apparently is that she already had conspired with the men to commit a sex crime, so she's looking at it like it's comparable to a drug deal gone bad or something. Yeah, that's messed up, but the main thing still is that he brought a gun to the party and threatened her life.

Okay, I can follow that logic, and I still agree that the judge is showing terrible logic by dismissing the rape charges. To me, however, the judge is implicitly saying that the presence of a firearm is more important than the rape of a woman; that the presence of a weapon is, as far as her interpretation of the law is concerned, more important than the rape.

Frankly, a rapist doesn't need a gun to rape someone; the guy was likely to rape her no matter what weapon he brought with him. You can threaten someone's life with your bare hands. That's why I see the rape as the main issue, because it was going to happen no matter what; the presence of a firearm, while a notable issue, is not the principal crime that occurred.

Not only that, but dismissing the rape charges stinks of "blaming the victim" - the judge is implicitly saying that if she hadn't been a prostitute she wouldn't have been raped, that the perpetrators transgressions against polite society are more important than what the perpetrator actually did to the victim. That's why I said that I felt it was trivialising rape before.


 I'm curious why rape would be the main issue in this case though. Especially since rape in our culture carries more of an emotional and mental baggage than anything else pertaining to it (assuming no STDs and damage to the physical tissues or pregnancy).

 I can understand for someone who does not engage in sex often/at all and attaches significant importance to the event, why rape would be mentally disturbing. 

 But for someone who has sex as their vocation. Does it quite frequently, and attaches little to no significance to it. It ought to come across as more irritating and pissing you off to do something you don't want, then mentally scaring. 

 Now, adding a gun to the mix, yeah the whole threatening of their lives would definitely be mentally traumatic. 

 But I'm not sure why we would attach the same psychological importance to it socially, if the two women view it that differently? 

/from a legal precedent, if it qualifies as rape, it definitely should be prosecuted as such.
//I'm speaking more to the media blitz and such that usually surrounds these types of cases.
 
2013-11-02 02:33:06 PM  

LoneWolf343: Sid_6.7: However, if a guy screws a prostitute, and then refuses to pay, I'd say no crime took place.

It's a crime in spirit, and it's just assholish.

/not to mention suicidal. Those prostitutes do no take kindly to being stiffed.
//neither do their pimps.


I never said it wasn't morally wrong.
 
2013-11-02 02:43:32 PM  
When I read about judges like this, it makes me wonder about the law schools they went to.
 
2013-11-02 03:37:12 PM  

Churchill2004: The prohibition of prostitution means more prostitutes get raped. It's that simple. If you actually care about these women, you'd make it possible for them to go the police like any other person who's been wronged, and more importantly they'd be able to work surrounded by security and co-workers at licensed brothel instead of on their own, meeting random guys at hotel rooms. Anyone who thinks rape and prostitution are inextricably linked, I invite you to go to a legal Nevada or German brothel and try to touch one of those women without their permission. If you're lucky, they'll call the police... eventually.


Pretty damn much. Legalize it. Let these women have a legal income, and legal recourse, and get the pimps and criminal element out of things. And then we can really crack down on human trafficking on top of it.
 
2013-11-02 04:58:40 PM  
I think the key here would be timing. If she consented to sex under the assumption that she would be paid, then they had sex, then he refused to pay her, that would not be rape. It would be theft of services (you cannot revoke consent after the fact.) On the other hand, if she consented to sex, then decided not to, or if she went with him to have sex and then he pulled a gun and raped her, then those conditions would be rape. The comments mention a gun, was there a gun? (Did not read the full wharrgarrbl)
 
2013-11-02 05:07:50 PM  

hubiestubert: You're correct, in this is NOT a Right vs Left issue, but it IS being latched onto by folks who are typically on the Left, as advocates for women's issues. I think that latter portion of that statement is the more pointed: advocates for women's issues. That advocates for women are seen as "Left" IS something that is sort of telling about where the country is at this moment.


I think you're off on that one. This is a Left v. Left issue, where two different waves of feminism are clashing over which ideology should be dominant.
 
2013-11-02 07:14:33 PM  
Anything done at gunpoint is not consensual. She was raped.

You people who seem to know how a sex worker *should* feel about rape when it happens to them should check their empathy. Same with those that think prostitution is the sale of a body part rather than a service.
 
2013-11-02 09:09:09 PM  

AirGee: Anything done at gunpoint is not consensual. She was raped.

You people who seem to know how a sex worker *should* feel about rape when it happens to them should check their empathy. Same with those that think prostitution is the sale of a body part rather than a service.



It can't be real "rape" rape. The female body has a way of shutting these things down.
 
2013-11-02 10:48:27 PM  
I wonder what the statistics on judges actually being voted out are. Local elections hardly ever seem to include any common sense, because no one bothers to get off their ass and just vote, even if they complain every day about their city or county.
 
2013-11-02 11:11:36 PM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: If the definition of rape is "sex that is not consensual", then this was not rape as the sex part clarly was consensual.  The "not consensual" part was the not paying for it.

I have no problem whatsoever with this judge's ruling, and stereotyping morans like Benevolent Misanthrope and brantgoose should learn to RTFA.

Let's be clear: there WAS consent for sex.


She consented to sex with two men, but four showed up and the gun was pulled out. That negated the original consent since the terms had changed. Consent was gone at that point, so rape.
 
2013-11-03 12:32:55 AM  

silvervial: Bomb Head Mohammed: If the definition of rape is "sex that is not consensual", then this was not rape as the sex part clarly was consensual.  The "not consensual" part was the not paying for it.

I have no problem whatsoever with this judge's ruling, and stereotyping morans like Benevolent Misanthrope and brantgoose should learn to RTFA.

Let's be clear: there WAS consent for sex.

She consented to sex with two men, but four showed up and the gun was pulled out. That negated the original consent since the terms had changed. Consent was gone at that point, so rape.


still seems like a contract dispute to me.
 
2013-11-03 02:31:32 AM  
Sorry, but if you sell it, it's no longer special, now is it? I pretty much have to agree with the judge.

Rape is a horrible thing, but that horrible thing is horrible because of the huge violation of intimacy bordering on something sacred for love's sake. If on the other hand your crotch has seen as many served as McD's, there's nothing really "special" about what you're selling. At most, assault...

If you're claiming rape is special for any other reason, than it really is just plain old assault on another region.
 
2013-11-03 03:51:05 PM  

Polyhazard: If you hire a house cleaner and decide that instead of paying them, you are going to brandish a lethal weapon and threaten to kill them until your house is clean, that is NOT theft of services. It's assault and false imprisonment.

fark this judge.



Yes, to me that is a good analogy. I don't see how this is right.
 
Displayed 115 of 115 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report