Bad news for rape victims: a prostitute is forced to have sex at gunpoint, and her judge doesn’t even consider a rape charge. This shows how confused our culture is about sexuality, power, and commodification. Feminism, justice, rape victims, sex workers… for how many people is this a step backwards?
Before we hit the big analogies - talking about the body as a commodity, the difference between product and service, alienation and voyeurism - we should at least acknowledge the common-language definition of “rape.” Rape is forced sexual activity or intercourse, a coerced appropriation of another person’s body. It’s a uniquely visceral crime, a violation of the sense of self that precedes ownership, or even love or family. If the body is a temple, rape is the universal heresy; in a dualistic universe, rape is a hijacking of the physical part that’s closest to the mental part.
In this common-language semantic mode, the story from Philadelphia was obviously rape. The moment the sexual act is forced at gunpoint, it becomes rape. Rape is about the intersection of sex and power, and the moment one person is no longer an agent in the transaction, the whole arrangement (whether it’s monetary or emotional) is off. That’s why pederasty is a form of rape, and that’s why a gun rules out any contractual agreement.
But Judge Teresa Carr Deni dropped the rape charge. She only acknowledged a “theft of services” charge. This is because the victim agreed beforehand to have sex with the defendant for money. What judge Deni seems to have overlooked is that 1) this is a violent sexual offence, rather than a simple refusal to pay, which by default doesn’t involve a weapon, and 2) that the victim wasn’t just forced to have sex with one man — she agreed to have sex with two, for money, and was forced to have sex with three more.
This second point is most important on a technical level. The victim agreed to have sex with the first two men, but she didn’t agree to render the service before the payment was presented, and she certainly didn’t agree to have sex with the other two. Even if we break the situation down into commodity terms, there were multiple offenses, and at least three of them were rape.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
Interesting article and very telling about society. I understand the point about moral degradation that was being made but the bench is not the proper forum for such antics especially with these stakes. The judge way overstepped her bounds on this one and should be held accountable and removed from duty. This precedent could allow for an unarmed 'theft of services' where if the prostitute was asking for little enough could be a simple misdemeanor. Really sad.
There is a circumstance where I could see this rule applying. If someone defrauded a prostitute with fake money, a bad check, fake drugs, etc. That's not really rape (she was consenting at the time) it is more like theft of services.
What matters in determining rape is the consent of the party at the time of the sex, not before or after. That is clear, and logical, and well established (and also completely contrary to this decision)
2 - Doug Hunter
Oh, and prostitution should be legal anyway. Just had to get that in.
3 - alessandro
Let's "legalize" every vice shall we? There are unintended consequences to everything - including legalizing marijuana.
Interesting that the judge would make that distinction. So. With that logic and everything remaining equal in this case, would she have come to the same decision with a non-prostitute?
4 - Dave Nalle
Let's "legalize" every vice shall we?
Sounds good to me. Our government is hardly equipped or qualified to legislate morality.
Dave
5 - dee
She has to be a republican appointed judge, can anyone verify that? The ruling is a joke, it is all part of the GOP plan of stacking the judiciary with hard right conservative nut bags who don't care about people who are vulnerable. The GOP needs to be snuffed out of power before they ruin this country.
6 - Martin Lav
I can see the Bush signing now.
It is to be considered rape, unless the President as the Executive in Chief, considers it to be a matter of National Security and then it is to be considered or not considered whatever I deem appropriate or inappropriate.
7 - Jesse
Honestly, I understand that insane things happen all the time... there's a scandal or an injustice every other day if you're politically savvy. What really bothers me is the lack of an outcry in this case. I searched for "Judge Deni," "Philadelphia rape Deni," and a bunch of other related phrases on Google News (which isn't exactly discriminating in its choice of listings) and all I got was that original Philly.com article. This is a horrible decision by someone put in a high place of authority, and there appears to be no consequence or oversight at all... neither from higher courts, nor from the public.
8 - Jesse
Interesting that the judge would make that distinction. So. With that logic and everything remaining equal in this case, would she have come to the same decision with a non-prostitute?
I don't understand this question at all. You mean, if a woman who wasn't being paid for sex was forced to have intercourse at gunpoint, would it be ruled a rape? I should certainly hope so.
9 - alessandro
Awkwardly put on my part, my apologies. But you got the picture. The ruling has little logic.
10 - Cindy D
We should be able to eliminate judges.
11 - Dr Dreadful
We can. Can't judges be recalled?
12 - Zedd
Folks,
I'd have to agree with the judge on this one.
You cant have it both ways.
I think that prostitutes have the right to sell their bodies. I don't think that it is psychologically beneficial. I believe that the affects of prostituting ones self may be similar to the affects that rape must have in terms of loss of self worth, vulnerability, etc.
In this case the prostitute chose to make her body a product. In that setting, she WAS a product.
Had she been walking around her neighborhood in normal pedestrian mode and a rapist grabbed her and forced her to have sex, that would have been rape. However, SHE had declared that sexual acts with her, were for sale. She made it clear that the encounter was not an emotional one or a relationship based exchange. It was economic, period. In other words, you get to put XY or Z on or in XY or Z for money. An individual put XY or Z on or in there but didn't pay.
Perhaps I am missing something. If so, tell me what it is.
VIVA Springboks!!!
Boks rule the world!!!!!
13 - Tanya
Viva, are you nuts???
When someone "sells" thier body they do so under certian presumtions, and within certian parameters. "buy me dinner, we might have sex". "Put a ring on my finger, we can have sex" "pay me 50 bucks, we can have sex".
"selling" of sex in a "barter" system is done and has been done by women for 1000s of years, it is the only commidty many women have.
but it is still your body. if you are forced into an act you do not want to do, or forced to do said act with people you didn't agree to. or, fankly, BY LAW and BY COMMON SENSE, if you decide you don't want to finish the sex act (and return the money, of course), any further action by the other party is necessarily rape.
I've been raped by a violent situation, and by a date rape that simply "went too far". i dont' care if i was taking money for either - rape is rape is rape is rape.
you have a right, ALWAYS to say "no". It is your body, not the other person's.
14 - Zedd
Tanya,
Sorry about your situation.
Your statement however lacks in logic.
You said that she made her body a product to be sold or bartered. Stick with that. Don't start jumping over to some other stuff including infusing your personal experiences.
The person took the product that she was attempting to barter with, without payment. THAT IS STEALING. She was robbed and not rapped.
People don't exchange vows for sex. People don't generally exchange a meal for sex. People have sex because they want to engage in sex and the courting makes it feel safe.
15 - Che
I'm very disheartened by the lack of coverage I've seen on this story. The judge should be de-frocked, or whatever they do to judges. She had no right to impose her moral opinions on what is very clearly the law.
And Zedd, you're full of it. How is forced sex with multiple partners at gunpoint NOT a rape? No matter WHAT your fuckin' job is, its rape! The moment fear, violence, and a deadly weapon entered the picture, it ceased to be a transaction and became a bodily assault. The moment consent was withdrawn it became rape.
16 - Zedd
Che
It's fine for you to FEEL that it is rape but you have to explain why based on this particular situation.
We aren't talking about a sacred act being trampled upon. We are talking about a monetary exchange and that is all. Prostitutes will tell you that they differentiate between their John's and the men that they date or love. They have intimate sex with those that they have relationships with and they sell sex to their Johns. A John didn't pay for sex. He stole it.
The author said "If the body is a temple...."
If the body is a temple, you don't sell it.
Women cant claim liberation when their bodies are used as a bartering tool and when the tool is stolen, they become damsels in distress. All merchants expect revenue loss from theft. It goes with the territory.
What am I missing?!!
There is a reason why people don't prostitute themselves. It is demeaning and it dissolves the sacred nature sex. People don't want to feel empty, used, detached, dirty, discarded, etc. THAT is the horror of non intimate sex. What is left is the lack of safety that rape brings. So prostitution has a lot of elements that rape does.
17 - Jesse
Zedd's being contrary. She demands logic, and says, "Perhaps I am missing something. If so, tell me what it is." Unless she didn't read the blog post at all, this is feigned ignorance... my post makes a clear case for both semantic errors and pragmatic harms in this court judgment. Zedd just wants to pretend she doesn't understand the logic at all, like we're autistic aliens who are speaking gibberish, and I know she's smarter than that.
Rape is a crime, not a vague social policy that's responsible for maintaining the sanctity of the commodity. It's about extracting by force what a person always has the right to refuse. There's a word for theft of products ("robbery") and for non-payment for services ("theft of services"). When the sexual organs are involved, it's not a physical product, nor a service already rendered... it's rape. There's no reason to go conflating it with other crimes because you're judgmental of a person who temporarily allows themselves to be objectified.
Although I must admit, I <3 this expression: "... it dissolves the sacred nature sex." Ahhhh, the sacred nature sex. I LOVE that stuff.
18 - Zedd
Jesse,
Perhaps you probably think you offered a clear argument but you didn't even begin to.
When the sexual organs are involved, it's not a physical product, nor a service already rendered.
Who says?
You just made that up and stated it as if it some sort of universal law. You cant base an argument on flimsy stuff like that.
If you sell something, it is a product Junior. If you attempt to sell an organ (say, a kidney) if it is stolen, would you call that rape? No, smarty pants. So taking and using someone's organ without paying, that they have put up for sale, is not rape. It is theft.
You see, with rape there is no breech of contract (or agreement). Rape is a physical approximation that is unwelcomed, unexpected, and unwanted.
In this case, the physical interaction was wanted, expected, and pursued. The only problem is that there was no payment. This was a breech of a contract (verbal). It was theft.
The question is, if they had paid her after they held the gun to her head, would SHE have considered herself raped?
19 - Che
Based on this particular situation? The woman consented to a sexual encounter in exchange for money with two men, provided protection was used. Instead a gun was pointed at her, she was forced to have unprotected sex with four men. Threat with a deadly weapon dissolved all issues of consent (after all, I seriously doubt she consented to be terrorized either) - and even if you consider the sex with the two men she'd originally agreed to have sex with as robbery (and I consider it rape) then the additional two men MUST be considered rape.
And lets pretend for a moment that Zedd is being logical here. I know its a stretch, but I have a good imagination. Regardless of how logical your argument, the law is very clear on the definition of rape. And according to the LAW, it was rape, and the judge was remiss in her duties when she dropped these charges. It is the judge's sworn duty to uphold the law, not redefine it.
To be honest I don't think Zedd read the post, or the original article.
20 - Jesse
Zedd's post is an interesting rearticulation, though. According to some of our philosophies, criminal law is designed to protect individuals, both from institutions and from one another.
Zedd's claim here is that it's not about the attacker, it's about the victim... because the victim rendered her sexuality for sale, it completely changed the nature of the whole interaction. Her hypothesis is that sex is only sex when it's "intimate," i.e. sacred and personal. This is what rape laws are supposed to protect... the sacred, personal institution of romantic intimacy. Because the victim didn't adhere to this philosophy, she gave up her right to be protected by the rape laws. They're there to protect the act of sex from being corrupted, not to protect the individual.
It turns out this relates to her stance on marriage. Zedd objects to gay marriage, not because it's any threat to individuals, but because it threatens the institution of marriage, which she sees as a "temple" (to use my own expression) built on the foundation of biological reproduction and traditional male-female pairing.
If I'm right about this, it's an interesting, and as of yet unresolved, philosophical difference. To me and most of the posters on this thread, laws are supposed to protect the individual from personal, psychological, and economic harm. To Zedd, the laws seem to be there to protect the institutions from the transgressions of non-compliant individuals.
At the moment, I can't prove that my ethical/legal assumption is any better than hers. I'll have to think about it a bit further.
21 - Zedd
The law is there to protect EVERYONE.
The law is to be just.
If a person asks his doctor to perform an assisted suicide on him and specifies just how he wants it done. If the doctor agrees but then assists the patient to die using another concoction (other than one agreed upon) to reach the same end. Is this then murder?
The end result was what the person expected to occur. He would be dead. What was different is the agreement being adhered in the manner that the patient specified.
You see, prostitution is against the law so there is no legally binding contract for a Jon vs prostitute engagement. So it boils down to, the prostitute came there for sex. She came expecting sex for pay. She got sex but didn't get paid so sex was stolen from her.
The FACT that she came for the purpose of sex, expected sex makes the claim of rape null. She was robbed. Those men came for sex and expected sex but (most likely didn't come prepared to pay for it).
The contention is that they were not prepared to nor didn't pay. Not that she didn't want sex.
22 - Zedd
BTW Jesse,
Oh ye of tiny mind. Don't speak for me. You don't have the chops. You honestly don't understand what I say and certainly why I say it. Stop yourself.
Lets hope in a few years you will have the tools to make broader and more logical conclusions. You are young right now and still believe in fairy dust (at least that is how you come across to me). I know, you don't buy it. I wouldn't have at your age. But just trust me. Let it go. Unless you are trying to build a massive portfolio of things to cringe about in 15yrs.
23 - gonzo marx
Zedd...sorry, but yer premise is completely incorrect...
once the gun came out..it was rape
if you really want to go with the judge's idiocy on this, then those who were not verbally contracted, but who took sex by force (ie:the gun) entered the scenario...it was rape by every legal definition...since there was NO contractual arraingement involved, and force was used/threatened to violate the victim against their will....
rape - /reɪp/
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
under both definitions of the word, the woman was indeed raped
ask yourself...if you had met some guy, and in playing around told him you wanted to and were going to have sex with him after he paid for dinner, then he took out a gun (no dinner for you), forced you to have sex with him, AND some of his friends...
were you raped?
of course...just like this woman was...no matter her profession, once force was used against her Will..it's rape
Excelsior?
24 - Zedd
Gonzo,
What does the gun have to do with anything. It could have been a fist or a mean look. What differentiates rape and theft in this case, is that she was selling sex. They took it at gun point.
We cant diminish the significance of rape by labeling everything rape. We have to give it a clear and non-blurry definition. Women are not always damsels in distress. Women are sometimes suckers or fools. This woman entered into a dangerous profession. She sold a product which like any other product could be stolen. It was stolen at gun point and now she wants to go all conventional?
If a guy was dealing drugs and was making deals with some really tough guys in some secluded location of his choosing. Would you even pity him if two more men showed up, slapped him around and took his drugs? NOPE. He chose to live dangerously.
This case is even more ridiculous. She was going there to have sex with them. She did. They just didn't pay.
25 - Dr Dreadful
Zedd,
Every so often you adopt a position on something which is diametrically opposed to that of the majority of posters, and proceed to wallow in how pleased with yourself you are about it.
I don't think you really believe in your own opinion when this happens. Your argumentation style changes: instead of following coherent logic you start playing with language and being arrogant and patronizing. It's not classy and it's not nice.
And in the case of Jesse, please remember that seniority does not equal intellectual superiority.