In which case the sex workers remedy would be at contract law for breach of contract. The reason I tended to fraud was because the man never had any intention of paying. But if we focus on the commercial nature of the exchange, then it's hard not to conclude that it is not a rape. The woman consented to sex, which was her consideration for the bargain. The man did not pay, thus breaching the contract.(Original post by anarchism101)
I'd say the difference between the two situations is that in the sex worker case is much more contractual and the consent is based on a specific demand for something concrete.You can't withdraw consent to sex after the fact. Either it's given or it is not. He has not misled her as to the nature or purpose of the act, or as to his identity. He has simply failed to live up to his side o the bargainIf you were a hardcore US-style libertarian, you might frame it as being an implied term to the exchange (i.e. money was directly exchanged for consent, therefore if the money was not actually given, neither was consent).Yes, as you clearly know already, impersonation of a specific person to obtain consent to sex most certainly is rape, and that makes sense. But pretending to be a billionaire? I would class them differently (as, it would seem, do you)I would say there's something of a consent issue with regard to identity if you are impersonating a specific different person that the person would consent to sex with, most obviously a spouseYour opinion and the law are at one, at present. I also agree with this positionBut that's just my opinion, not the law.
... and the ones that won't