[newgeezer]

It all depends on whether the specific sex act was consensual.

I believe the point of dungeonmaster's #28 and #41 is that, when she put it up for sale, she implied consent. Therefore, it's not rape. It's theft, aggravated robbery, something more along those lines.

It seems like a point worth considering.

[dmz]

It's kind of interesting watching folks twist about trying to diminish the actions of the, say it with me, Law Enforcement Officer.

I find the efforts, to say the least, ludicrous.

It's really very simple. If you force someone to have sex with you against her will, you have raped her. And here's how you can make the determination in this specific case. Replace the prostitute with a, for example, bank teller, or whatever 'honest' profession you choose. What would you call it then?

I think we all know the answer to that question, don't we?

[Dead Corpse]

It seems like a point worth considering.

Not really. Once a person says "no", it stops being "consentual" regardless of their occupation. Using the force implied by his position of authority, this cop crossed more than one legal line.

[monday]

"I believe the point of dungeonmaster's #28 and #41 is that, when she put it up for sale, she implied consent. Therefore, it's not rape. It's theft, aggravated robbery, something more along those lines."

Because a prostitute does consent to sex for money sometimes, does not mean she has to consent to sex all the time, or with people, or under circumstances she doesn't want. In those cases it is rape.

If you did tax returns in exchange for money, would it be theft if a cop held a gun to your head and demanded you do his taxes, or would it be kidnapping, extortion, and false imprisonment?

Quit trying to justify rape in the case of prostitutes. If you do it, you won't be a thief, you will be a rapist.