Ashmond
Sergeant at Arms
I'm really trying to push beyond semantics with the question "Can a prostitute be raped?". Of course this question implies that the individual is on the job and not randomly doing those menial things required out of life. Given this question, I can't equate the prostitute with the average person who is going about their usual day to day business. Surely there are differences in the perpetrators who commit these offenses according to their respective targets.
According to the target, the perpetrator would differ cognitively and volitionally. There may be emotional differences as well, but the main differences would probably be by which means to the same end. To me, this represents two separate acts of violence and that should be addressed differently, especially in the legal sense.
Scenario one. The prostitute has, by its own volition, been placed into a subpar level of society. Whether prostitution is right or wrong, subjectively or objectively, is out of hand. In this scenario, the prostitute's body is no longer a sovereign entity that enjoys the standard rights to carnal privacy and privilege. They have stripped themselves of that shield and are now equivalent to meat at the market. Given this, how can they enjoy the same standards, by which the body is concerned, as the person who has retained the shield and therefore, their carnal rights? Why would the perpetrator be charged with anything besides robbery? For anyone persistent enough to stick with the standard definition of rape as forcible intercourse, then at what point would the rape become a robbery? Surely the act of either not paying or taking the money back, after the fact, would be robbery? No matter how you look at this scenario, the only function missing from an otherwise positive solution is the money.
Scenario two. You know what that is already, but I'll elaborate. I fully agree with laws that protect individual carnal privileges en masse. Even the scantily clad ones, so try not to confuse what I argue above as including those types. They may strip from themselves a bit of carnal privacy, but they still own the privilege. At least until they hang a "for sale"sign around their neck. As previously stated, I believe the perpetrators differ in these two scenarios and therefore should be handled differently.
Lastly, this stems from a dilemma I'm having in creating a dialog. I've never really thought about this specific question until then and I'm finding that my ethical radar is experiencing strange noise and interference with this question.
According to the target, the perpetrator would differ cognitively and volitionally. There may be emotional differences as well, but the main differences would probably be by which means to the same end. To me, this represents two separate acts of violence and that should be addressed differently, especially in the legal sense.
Scenario one. The prostitute has, by its own volition, been placed into a subpar level of society. Whether prostitution is right or wrong, subjectively or objectively, is out of hand. In this scenario, the prostitute's body is no longer a sovereign entity that enjoys the standard rights to carnal privacy and privilege. They have stripped themselves of that shield and are now equivalent to meat at the market. Given this, how can they enjoy the same standards, by which the body is concerned, as the person who has retained the shield and therefore, their carnal rights? Why would the perpetrator be charged with anything besides robbery? For anyone persistent enough to stick with the standard definition of rape as forcible intercourse, then at what point would the rape become a robbery? Surely the act of either not paying or taking the money back, after the fact, would be robbery? No matter how you look at this scenario, the only function missing from an otherwise positive solution is the money.
Scenario two. You know what that is already, but I'll elaborate. I fully agree with laws that protect individual carnal privileges en masse. Even the scantily clad ones, so try not to confuse what I argue above as including those types. They may strip from themselves a bit of carnal privacy, but they still own the privilege. At least until they hang a "for sale"sign around their neck. As previously stated, I believe the perpetrators differ in these two scenarios and therefore should be handled differently.
Lastly, this stems from a dilemma I'm having in creating a dialog. I've never really thought about this specific question until then and I'm finding that my ethical radar is experiencing strange noise and interference with this question.
