Holy flirb. She was flexoring raped at gunpoint. I hate you people.

Internet.

Where did I or anyone ever try to justify it and say it was okay? Did you even read the thread? Cut the reactionary personal **** and read the thread.

but how can you compare that with what happens to women who DON'T sell their bodies, who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who meet the wrong guy?

I absolutely think that what the guys "stole" should be taken into full account. Put them away for as long as you can for theft of services, armed robbery, etc. I also realize that technically it IS rape, as defined as forcible sex. I just feel that a distinction within the law exists for a reason, because sex is a very special case, and when she sells it, she ****s on all of that.

That's true, but she was selling it, was my point. She herself demeaned sex into a service to be bought and sold. The judge didn't do that, she did. Don't confuse this with a lack of sympathy.

I agree, I mean, I had dismissed rape as a viable charge on a technicality but it was a silly technicality...prostitution isn't a legal service and therefore I think they're ALL guilty of rape, and NONE are guilty of theft of a service or armed robbery or anything. I firmly disagree with separating them into different groups. Something is either for sale or it isn't, it's either a service or it isn't. The person asking (or taking) doesn't change that.

Er... you know what I meant :-P

I see your point, and it's a good point. The boxer analogy is a very appropriate one. With that in mind, I think that, if prostitution were a legal service:

Guy #1 (if money was given) is just dandy in regards to his initial encounter

Guy #2 she agreed to have sex with for a certain amount of money. if he had sex with her and then didn't pay, then i'd consider that some sort of theft, but not rape. if she requested money up front and he refused and forced her to have sex, then I'd say that's rape.

The rest of them are pretty clearly rape no matter the circumstances.

You're making this very difficult for me.

Haha. Well, I guess it's not really about legality, it's about definition. No (sane) law is going to make weed not be defined as a physical thing to be taken from another person. However, a law CAN deny something the definition of "service". How that applies, hell if I know. This stuff is getting too complicated.

Section 637:8
637:8 Theft of Services. –
I. A person commits theft if he obtains services which he knows are available only for compensation by deception, threat, force, or any other means designed to avoid the due payment therefor. ""Deception'' has the same meaning as in RSA 637:4, II, and ""threat'' the same meaning as in RSA 637:5, II.
II. A person commits theft if, having control over the disposition of services of another, to which he knows he is not entitled, he diverts such services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another who he knows is not entitled thereto.
III. As used in this section, ""services'' includes, but is not necessarily limited to, labor, professional service, public utility and transportation services, restaurant, hotel, motel, tourist cabin, rooming house and like accommodations, the supplying of equipment, tools, vehicles, or trailers for temporary use, telephone or telegraph service, gas, electricity, water or steam, admission to entertainment, exhibitions, sporting events or other events for which a charge is made.
IV. This section shall not apply to the attachment of private equipment to residential telephone lines unless the telephone company can prove that the attached equipment will cause direct harm to the telephone system. Attached equipment which is registered with the public utilities commission shall not require a protective interconnecting device. If the telephone company cites this section in its directories or other customer informational material, said company shall duplicate the entire section verbatim therein.

I was going to use that analogy earlier too. If a drug deal went bad, no one would be charged with theft of services. It's absurd. If the judge is so bent out of shape about the fact the the girl was a hooker, slap her on the wrist with a prostitution charge.

Being a judge is about separating your emotions from the judgement of what the law means and how it applies. I try to do that. You need to separate your emotions and read what people say without that bias.

See, now you guys are making me lean back to the way I was thinking before. Especially since boxing isn't a service, it's a sport, and therefore it's a fairly separate entity altogether.