Man Faked Payment for Sex - Rape Charges Dropped
Man Faked Payment for Sex - Rape Charges Dropped
- Thread starter Johnnymac
- Start date
- 133
- 214
- 43
Yes as the law currently is, however I would be in favor of it being changed. I remember a girl who I was a regular of told me that she had been booked by a guy and the booking had gone fine, hed paid up front. He then booked her for an overnight booking that same night and had used a fake payment document. She obviously didn't find that out till after the booking so she was pretty devastated
- 3,158
- 6,819
- 113
Obviously it's best to check you have received payment before doing the deed. Harsh lesson I suppose. If you do an ASB to ASB transfer it is instant. ANZ to ANZ is also instantaneous. That's why it is helpful to have accounts at a few different banks so you can receive payments instantaneously. Sex workers should check their accounts, not just some bozo's word for it lol
- 188
- 416
- 63
Based off that report the fact this guy was offering $2k for a booking and $5k for a month should have raised some red flags. The old maxim if it sounds too good to be true, then guess what.
All of that said, he sounds like a slimy SOB.
All of that said, he sounds like a slimy SOB.
I initially assumed it was you @Johnnymac, but then read 27 not 77.
ElodieEvans
Adventurer
- 44
- 184
- 33
In an ideal world it would be this easy... unfortunately transfer reversals are a thing that can and does happen. It's especially prevalent for WGs who take payment through third parties like pay pal (and also why I can't really see afterpay taking off in the industry)
I have a strict cash only policy excepting regulars, even though it can cost me business - there are plenty of legitimate requests that come through last minute, so short of opening an account with every single bank there's some motivation to take the risk. Although just because someone takes that risk doesn't mean its any more okay.
As to the case, XF had this conversation not that long ago, and I stand by my argument that the vagueness of the anti-stealthing law wording means it could just as easily apply to fake/reversed payments. I'm not sure why the prosecution didnt take that angle with their arguments, but I'm not a lawyer so there might be something I'm missing.
- 600
- 1,019
- 93
It’s fraud, not rape. It can be distinguished from stealthing, on the basis that payment can place the SW in the position she would have been in, had the terms of the contract been fulfilled.
Stealthing is an unconsented physical violation of the terms of the contracted services. As such, there is no action which can restore the SW to the position she would have been in had that act not occurred.
It’s appalling conduct, but legally distinct from stealthing.
It should have been rape though as consent was based on meeting certain conditions which were not met.
I hope NZ follows suit with Australia and change their laws. This is disgusting
It'd be safer to add harsher penalties for specifically this kind of fraud.
Generalized 'Rape by deception' laws tend to have questionable consequences.
One man in the zionist entity who told a woman he was a neurosurgeon and a pilot was prosecuted under such laws. Certainly, not a nice chap, but all men and women tell little gray lies in the mating game- I think it's fair to suggest that those who would rely on someone's claims about their material circumstances to decide whether to have sex with them or not are under some obligation to verify.
More generally, you get a lot of really questionable prosecutions. 'False promise to marry' cases in India are just an excuse for police corruption. And did a nutty teenage lesbian in Britain really deserve for pretending to be male to fellow teenagers?
- 3,158
- 6,819
- 113
Yes well I guess I only ever pay cash anyway so you will get no argument from me. Although I imagine there must be a few sex workers who have had bums try and pay in fake counterfeit bank notes lol.
- 40
- 48
- 18
.
Last edited:
From a techical legal prespective I sort of get it but man surely a common sense approach around consent cannot be obtained by false information should take precedent here. Yes support the law change and don't buy the Judge's comment around it being some kind of "quantum leap" for us if Australia is already doing it. Also cash is king.
In some way yes, am sure they would've considsered aggravating factors such as premeditation, grooming and manipulation over a sustained period and not once but 3 time where the act occured etc. We are not talking about an one off drunken teenager's mistake here.
It feels like assault when you haven't gotten paid. You feel used, ashamed, disgusted, violated. This isn't like any product you steal of the shelf. This is someone's body. It's a horrible feeling I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies. Something you would need to experience to truly understand. That's why SWers need to be extra careful with such things but sometimes we give the benefit of the doubt and get burned for it.
Anyway.. just pay for what you ask for.
- 40
- 48
- 18
.
Last edited:
Ironmonger
Elite
- 403
- 937
- 93
Legal arguments aside, to me it is rape.
If the basis of consent is payment to fuck and no payment is received - then the reason for consent was removed.
This means sex without consent, which is, by definition....
It's not just taking an item or getting a job done without payment. This is violating a women in an intimate way, not to mention the damage to her trust and mental wellbeing.
It would take a special kind of asshole to do this.
Yeah, i'm 100% in favour of cash. I love it!
If the basis of consent is payment to fuck and no payment is received - then the reason for consent was removed.
This means sex without consent, which is, by definition....
It's not just taking an item or getting a job done without payment. This is violating a women in an intimate way, not to mention the damage to her trust and mental wellbeing.
It would take a special kind of asshole to do this.
Yeah, i'm 100% in favour of cash. I love it!
I'm not sure but I think the Crimes Amendment Act 2005 is the latest legislation relevant to this discussion. Section 128A (Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances) has the following clauses:
(7) A person does not consent to an act of sexual activity if he or she allows the act because he or she is mistaken about its nature and quality.
(8) This section does not limit the circumstances in which a person does not consent to sexual activity.
The judge in the case reported in the Stuff article might consider it to be a "quantum leap" in NZ law to allow fraud to cancel consent. However, the clauses above do provide room for for such an argument. In SW, payment is clearly a defining condition upon which consent is given, so it follows logically that failure/refusal to pay could and should be treated as negating that consent.
Regarding stealthing, the following article is worth a read. It's also worth then rereading it while mentally switching "stealthing" and "condom removal" with "failure/refusal to pay" and considering whether you think the reasoning in the article holds up the same:
(7) A person does not consent to an act of sexual activity if he or she allows the act because he or she is mistaken about its nature and quality.
(8) This section does not limit the circumstances in which a person does not consent to sexual activity.
The judge in the case reported in the Stuff article might consider it to be a "quantum leap" in NZ law to allow fraud to cancel consent. However, the clauses above do provide room for for such an argument. In SW, payment is clearly a defining condition upon which consent is given, so it follows logically that failure/refusal to pay could and should be treated as negating that consent.
Regarding stealthing, the following article is worth a read. It's also worth then rereading it while mentally switching "stealthing" and "condom removal" with "failure/refusal to pay" and considering whether you think the reasoning in the article holds up the same:
You are failing to distinguish between breach of contract - that is non-payment of the contracted fee - when the sex itself was consensual, and stealthing - an activity for which consent was not given.
Like the dude said above, money can (essentially) rectify the first situation, but nothing (and no amount of money) can rectify the second.
The amendments to the crimes act, you have referred to, are not relevant to the circumstances of this case.
Not to argue with the law, I'm sure the judge is best placed to interpret, but does this mean that because he could (in principle) settle up at some future date, that the sex was consensual? Obviously this is bananas. Consent was conditional on being paid, not entry in to a contract where the provider *might* be paid.
- 600
- 1,019
- 93
Think about it. If the judge had determined that the sex wasn’t consensual, then the guy would have been convicted of rape/sexual assault.
