When a woman says "no sex" it means "no sex." After that it's rape. It doesn't matter if she initially agreed to sex for money or because she was drunk or just being stupid and changed her mind.

IMO the judge is clueless about the nature of rape.

From Wikipedia:

Rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person’s will. Most experts believe the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment.[1] They consider rape an act of violence rather than principally a sexual encounter.
In other words, the judge's idea that he was simply robbing her of what she initially agreed to is bogus.