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
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.
SWs need protection too, there is legal precedent
https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.co...w-south-wales/
Engaging in sexual activity with a sex worker without their consent could give rise to charges of sexual assault, sexual touching or unlawful sexual acts.
Unique dynamics could give rise to a lack of consent associated with sex work.
For example, in the ACT Supreme Court case of R v Livas, the offender (who pled guilty) pretended to pay a sex worker $850 in what turned out to be an envelope containing folded up paper. The sex work discovered this fraud only after having sexual intercourse with the offender.
In sentencing the offender to a period of imprisonment for 25 months, Justice Penfold noted that “no one should doubt that fraudulently achieving sexual intercourse by this kind of activity constitutes rape”.
Sounds like you're against any type of rape law because women are vindictive bitches who will go through police interrogation and a trial just to somehow magically dissolve their regret.Quote:
Originally Posted by qtron