Quote:
Originally Posted by sortie
Well, if she agreed to have sex for a price before he pulled out the gun then maybe it is theft since the consent to sex was already established and it was only the price that was in dispute.
It's still bullshit though.
|
Consent is something that can be taken away at any time - the moment someone refuses, it's gone.
You could compare this case to someone asking a girl at a club if she wants to come home with him for sex, her agreeing and coming along, only to change her mind when they arrive. Pulling a gun on the girl from the club and gang-raping her would quite clearly still be rape, even if she consented to sex at some earlier point.
It doesn't matter that the woman in this particular case was a prostitute, and it doesn't matter that she agreed to sex for money under different circumstances. What matters is that the victim was forced to have sex with these guys against her will - at gunpoint, no less.
The judge's decision is sickening, because she doesn't seem to be aware of the one major feature of rape: lack of consent at the moment the act occurs. It doesn't matter if the victim is a whore, a slut, Mother Theresa or a porn star. It doesn't matter if the victim is married to the offender. The moment someone says no, it's time to stop.