A lowlife:
- Ex-soldier, Dixon, charged with rape
- He faked a receipt for a prostitute
He received the maximum sentence for his crimes which equated to 16 months in prison.
but this isn't convincing:
She required 'more than 500 hours of counselling' to overcome the feelings of 'anxiety, stress, (and) fear of future violations of consent' as a result, the court heard.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dier-rape.html
How many sex workers steal punter deposits then ghost 🥹
It’s hardly the same thing dude. One involves rape, the other doesn’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlippinJimmy
I don't agree that it's rape. It's deception, or a con. If I rent a Ferrari for the today with my last $1,000 and I sleep with 5 women due to them being impressed by my Ferrari and the associated connotations of me being rich, is it rape? I'm not rich, I've tricked them.
If I sleep with a trans woman (former man) and the person does not disclose that they were born a biological man - is it rape? Assume I connected with them on Tinder and had my search function set to find 'females'.
To call this rape is to insult victims of actual violent rapes.
It is actually labelled in the laws in Australia as obtaining sex through fraud which falls into the sexual assault category (which is what rape is legally referred to as).Quote:
Originally Posted by Markmark
So yes, women can give conditional consent, as all sex workers do, to perform certain acts for an agreed upon price and if you go outside of that without consent then it is sexual assault (or rape if you prefer).
So he didn’t “traditionally” rape her? It’s considered rape because he fraudulently obtained sex. So there was no signs of rape untill she realised there was no payment then it becomes rape.
A regular of mine, a sweet girl who always does her best, was scammed in a not too dissimilar manner with some kind of boomerang electronic payment. The customer pressured her for FS but she refused, then negotiated extras which she did. After he left the money vanished from her account. To add insult to injury the shops money and tip money was all "paid" in one hit the same way, so she now "owed" the shop for the booking as well.
Speaking to her later she was pretty upset, so I'd imagine if FS had been involved that would have only increase her anguish, especially considering her lack of enthusiasm for it.
Guys, don't be a cunt. If you can't or don't want to pay, don't go. Girls, take cash only unless you have the dudes contact details or he is a long term regular.
Take it up with the Director of Public Prosecutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markmark
Not sure why it bothers you so much though.
Isn't this fraud rather than rape? I know it's not the same thing but if I go to a nightclub and pay 1000 dollars for bottle service with a fake cheque, this would be classed as fraud.
Doesn’t bother me much. Just find it interesting when people parrot or make a claim because something is a law, without questioning it or actually thinking about it
That is a very strange comparison and speaks to your view of women and your concept of consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerram
Don't expect the dumbed down drones of today to ever question something or think for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markmark
He didn’t physically rape the chick but but under the new consent laws his actions are still considered as a 'technical' (for lack of a better term) rape.
They had engaged in sexual activity twice before, both times as paid encounters. On the third occasion he didn’t pay, so she reported him. Regardless of whether she had consented to sex c/w rawdog, anal, dfk, daty, rimming etc it was only on the condition that she was compensated for her services. Even if she enjoyed the sex and had 4 squirting orgasms the lack of payment meant her original consent was now deemed invalid (ie new laws) and therefore a rape charge against the cunt. Regardless of whether the rape charge is right, wrong, excessive, ludicrous etc the law is the law and there ain't nothin you can do about it.
And like everything in life, if you throw enough money at lawyers you can escape any charge and bend any law.
A cautionary reminder for those:
- who aren't familiar or aware of the new consent laws
- green and new to the punting scene
- blokes originating from countries renown for being cheapskates and scammers
- Immigrants from 3rd world countries where women are oppressed 3rd class citizens, and treated like meat/shit
??? What are you talking about? The problem is he didn't pay, he defrauded her. If his payment wasn't false then there wouldnt have been a problem. How has this anything to do with consent?Quote:
Originally Posted by HiredGoon
What claim? Knowing what the law is doesn’t mean you don’t question it or just “parrot”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markmark
Well you’re just proving my point now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerram
I rest my case.
No, it's not the same. This case and the judgement are expressly about sex workers and the fact that the sex worker did not get paid for providing the service. The judge was merely enforcing what was written into law in 2023 or around that time. This law specifically said that, in the event that a sex worker provided the "work" (sexual service) but did not get paid for it, that constitutes rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markmark
In your example, there is no law that protects women who are falsely impressed leading to consensual sex on a false pretense. So they can't get you for doing that and call it rape, as dirty as it is. They might be able to get you for something else though.
It does bring into question how one would conduct a proper relationship with any sex worker. What's going to stop her from leveraging this law on an ex-bf in the event of a breakup? Yet another good reason not to hookup with them, I guess.
Have you questioned it?
If the guy paid for a 3 way and pulled the same scam it would've been a gang rape I suppose.
Just another example of the law being stupid and "protecting" women. Just like how if a woman fucks a guy then the next day regrets it, she can claim rape. You know who to blame for this kind of shit
So you'd rather have it so women aren't protected from this kind of thing? Why is that? Please go into as much detail as you'd likeQuote:
Originally Posted by qtron
I just read the article in detail and can see where it's coming from, from a legal perspective...
The issue is one of sexual consent, and in this case consent provided on the proviso that payment is provided. The article also mentions under the law prior to 2022 he couldn't have been charged with fraud for this behaviour.
Now understanding what is being said, I agree with the spirit of the law, sex workers should have some protection and as the article says this provides a deterrent from lowlifes. Being charged with rape puts you on the register, that's a way to really fuck up your life.
I personally love the charge, thats exactly what it is. Well done justice system, rare good job.
Like some have mentioned in this thread, it should be a matter of fraud or theft. The sex was consensual upon the proviso that he paid for it. He basically scammed her. He should be punished as such. This isn't a case of rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by dewayne
It's a case of the law over reaching when it comes to matters like this. Hence the example of women regretting having sex later and then claiming rape. Classic example is the mattress girl who got accolades and praise, even after she was found out to have lied.