Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist

[Darat]

I think TomB has it about right, she was never given the support she needed at the time of the rape and hopefully she will now get to see the rapist face the criminal charges he should have faced 16 years ago. The state and by that I mean all the branches seem to have screwed up in a major way from 16 years ago to the present day.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think TomB has it about right, she was never given the support she needed at the time of the rape and hopefully she will now get to see the rapist face the criminal charges he should have faced 16 years ago. The state and by that I mean all the branches seem to have screwed up in a major way from 16 years ago to the present day.

I might go with only 10 years or so as that was when she reported the rape. The reasons why it was unreported and that might also involve policy failures of the state as well but it wasn't until then that she reported the rape.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Darat

We are talking about statutory rape, what happened is legally defined as rape, there is no exception for how old she was, how she acted and so on. And as you quoted it is not up to her to "press charges" or not, the state makes that call. I think you have been led a little astray by the fictional use of "I want to press charges" or "I don't want to press charges" in popular entertainment. I am surprised given the law that her giving birth when she did wasn't notifiable since it had to have been statutory rape. And a further "and" even if she was a hostile witness for the prosecution it wouldn't alter the cast iron case the prosecution has i.e. her birth certificate and his proof of paternity.

The man is a rapist and obviously a rapist of young people that should have been enough to bar him from ever gaining any custody or having a say in the upbringing of the child.

Quibble alert: it isn’t necessarily true that it should have been evident to anyone that she was a victim of rape when she gave birth. I don’t think the age of the father would normally come up during the birthing process unless someone made an effort to discover his age.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I want you to justify you position, becaeu right now, I find that position, shall we say, less that satisfactory.

My position is that it's not outrageous that she's paying child support. Children need to be supported. I'm not going to try to justify that for you. Hopefully you already agree that it's justified.

Quote:

For starters, do you believe that it is right and proper that a rapist has access to a child born as a direct result of the rape he committed?

My only objection was to the focus on child support, instead of on everything else that's obviously wrong with this situation.

The next thing I know, you're asking me if I think child welfare is too socialist. Which is waaay off topic. So right there I'm pretty sure you're not offering me a worthwhile exchange of views. If you're not offering me anything of value, why should continue the exchange?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think TomB has it about right, she was never given the support she needed at the time of the rape and hopefully she will now get to see the rapist face the criminal charges he should have faced 16 years ago. The state and by that I mean all the branches seem to have screwed up in a major way from 16 years ago to the present day.

Also, was she living with her parents at the time? They didn't think that some strange old guy that was dropping off their passed out drunk and disheveled from being recently raped teen daughter in the middle of the night was attention grabbing?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Also, was she living with her parents at the time? They didn't think that some strange old guy that was dropping off their passed out drunk and disheveled from being recently raped teen daughter in the middle of the night was attention grabbing?

Maybe because that never happened?

Of course, at this point that shouldn't stop us from adding it to the story. It sounds suitably dramatic.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Maybe because that never happened?

Of course, at this point that shouldn't stop us from adding it to the story. It sounds suitably dramatic.

Hm? Reporting is that they met at a bar, and did not know each other previously. Is that in dispute?

He was giving her a ride home, but instead went to his place and raped her on his couch, then took her home. Again, disputed?

She claims, as you seem to agree, to be blackout drunk. Disputed?

My question is, where was home and as a minor, who was her guardian?

[Warp12]

So, here's what we've got:


1) At best, a statutory rape conviction for consensual sex that would have been acceptable in 31 states and most of the western world.

2) Violation of a custody agreement, leading to the father getting custody.

3) Support for the notion that even if a guy takes reasonable precaution to verify age, and a 16-year-old admits to going to lengths to misrepresent her age, he should burn in hell as a "rapist".


Obviously, I don't think #1 is just, and hence can't agree with #3. Which leaves #2, which is no fault of the father. Bonus points that all of this is only coming out when the mom is put on the hook for child support.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, here's what we've got:


1) At best, a statutory rape conviction for consensual sex that would have been acceptable in 31 states and most of the western world. ...snip...

Quicker to say

1) He raped her.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Hm? Reporting is that they met at a bar, and did not know each other previously. Is that in dispute?

He was giving her a ride home, but instead went to his place and raped her on his couch, then took her home. Again, disputed?

I see no mention of when she arrived home, in the original article. Of course the claims of "forcible rape on the couch" are disputed.

She claims, as you seem to agree, to be blackout drunk. Disputed?

I agree that she claims that she blacked out at some point. Whether she was that intoxicated at the time of intercourse, who knows.

My question is, where was home and as a minor, who was her guardian?

Obviously some issues with parenting if she was out drinking at bars and getting her freak on with older guys.

See above highlights.

[Thermal]

She also claims that she let people believe the baby came from a "boyfriend". That suggests she had one at the time. would she have actually known who the real father was before the paternity test? Might have come as a shock to her when El Rapo noticed this one-night stand of his had a kid, and he did the math and concluded it might be his. So.... he not only remembers her specifically, but the date of their one-nighter, six years later?

Now that I think about it, that's a pretty awesome memory for a old creeper. Sounds like he was keeping tabs closer than we are led to believe.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, here's what we've got:


1) At best, a statutory rape conviction for consensual sex that would have been acceptable in 31 states and most of the western world.

Originally Posted by Darat

Quicker to say

1) He raped her.

Quicker and quite misleading, in the sense of how the label is usually applied.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Sounds like he was keeping tabs closer than we are led to believe.

Or they had more of a relationship than we are led to believe.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

See above highlights.

1. When did she get home, if not in the middle of the night? Are you suggesting this was a daytime nightclub? A dayclub?

And who is disputing the forcible rape claim? Gotta cite, or you mean you alone are disputing it on general principle?

2. Then...what? She spontaneously blacked out when? Are you saying she was roofied or something?

3. Assuming they knew, which is my question. She could plausibly have been living with the implied boyfriend at 16 yo? I dunno.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Quicker and quite misleading, in the sense of how the label is usually applied.

Carrying handguns is acceptable and legal in most States. I dare you to come to Jersey and give it a whirl.

Jurisdiction matters, yo. Especially when a felony crime is on the other side of the line. Would you argue to NJ State police that it is fine in Missouri and many other States to concealed carry? I do think you would understand the foolishness of that argument.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

1. When did she get home, if not in the middle of the night? Are you suggesting this was a daytime nightclub? A dayclub?

And who is disputing the forcible rape claim? Gotta cite, or you mean you alone are disputing it on general principle?

2. Then...what? She spontaneously blacked out when? Are you saying she was roofied or something?

3. Assuming they knew, which is my question. She could plausibly have been living with the implied boyfriend at 16 yo? I dunno.

1) Who is to say whether she came home that night or another day? Who knows what sort of lies she was peddling as far as her excuse for being away from home for the evening? Clearly deceit was not a stranger to her.

2) She could have drank more after the intercourse. Who knows? Just because at some point she claims to have blacked out, that doesn't mean she was "blackout drunk" at the time of the sex.

3) Well, if you are floating the idea that she may have lived with the boyfriend, you can't really defend the idea that she was dumped off at home in the middle of the night, right?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Carrying handguns is acceptable and legal in most States. I dare you to come to Jersey and give it a whirl.

Jurisdiction matters, yo. Especially when a felony crime is on the other side of the line. Would you argue to NJ State police that it is fine in Missouri and many other States to concealed carry? I do think you would understand the foolishness of that argument.

I am not arguing that jurisdiction doesn't matter, in the letter of the law. I am arguing that the law is unjust, regardless. And 31 states, and most of the western world agrees. This isn't a fringe thing. And that isn't even taking into account her misrepresentation of her age.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

1) Who is to say whether she came home that night or another day? Who knows what sort of lies she was peddling as far as her excuse for being away from home for the evening? Clearly deceit was not a stranger to her.

2) She could have drank more after the intercourse. Who knows? Just because at some point she claims to have blacked out, that doesn't mean she was "blackout drunk" at the time of the sex.

3) Well, if you are floating the idea that she may have lived with the boyfriend, you can't really defend the idea that she was dumped off at home in the middle of the night, right?

Look, as many posters here will attest, yours truly is no stranger to questioning a pre-packaged narrative without hearing the other side.

The difference is that I will take the same presented facts, and see if they can plausibly be interpreted differently. That's clean pool, IMO.

It's not really clean pool to just summarily dismiss all claims as lies in the interest of creating plausible deniability for an actor out of the clear blue, whose side we have not yet heard.

If we assume that this was statutory rape (and I highly doubt the story would have made it to the journalism stage without that simple math fact-check), this guy is legit on the defensive, and has to speak up. He owes us an explanation, simply to get past the demonstrably criminal act. Only then does he start getting any benefit of the doubt.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If we assume that this was statutory rape (and I highly doubt the story would have made it to the journalism stage without that simple math fact-check), this guy is legit on the defensive, and has to speak up. He owes us an explanation, simply to get past the demonstrably criminal act. Only then does he start getting any benefit of the doubt.

He doesn't owe a defense to the public at-large. He owes a defense if charged in a court of law. He is wise not to be commenting to the media, imo.

We wouldn't want to fall into the trap of assigning guilt by default, right? That seems to happen a lot around here, when claims are made and accepted as fact.

All of this "he raped her on the couch while she was blackout drunk" type stuff fits that category.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am not arguing that jurisdiction doesn't matter, in the letter of the law. I am arguing that the law is unjust, regardless. And 31 states, and most of the western world agrees. This isn't a fringe thing. And that isn't even taking into account her misrepresentation of her age.

Ok. Unjust. She was 16 yrs and four months at the time of the Big Bang in question. Was there anything important about those four months that she was north of 16? Still fine if it was the day after her 16th birthday? What about the day before the 16th birthday? How about four months before?

When does the legal line become important to you? It becomes important to me in the applicable time and place, not random other ones that have no relevance.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

He doesn't owe a defense to the public at-large. He owes a defense if charged in a court of law. He is wise not to be commenting to the media, imo.

We wouldn't want to fall into the trap of assigning guilt by default, right? That seems to happen a lot around here, when claims are made and accepted as fact.

All of this "he raped her on the couch while she was blackout drunk" type stuff fits that category.

If the birthdate and paternity tests are correct, he is a rapist, full stop. From the argumentative standpoint here, he is a full-blown criminal, and for a criminal to be awarded the rights and privileges he has enjoyed is utterly incredible.

Gratuitously dismissing everything as potentially lies is not moving any discussion forward. The counter POV needs a bit more teeth than that.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Ok. Unjust. She was 16 yrs and four months at the time of the Big Bang in question. Was there anything important about those four months that she was north of 16? Still fine if it was the day after her 16th birthday? What about the day before the 16th birthday? How about four months before?

When does the legal line become important to you? It becomes important to me in the applicable time and place, not random other ones that have no relevance.

It becomes important to me when I consider it unjust...not when local law says so. And, as is obviously the case, I am not alone on my opinion on this particular matter of age of consent...in the grand scheme of the western world, including the US. Seems fair to say that my opinion of the matter falls into the large majority, as a matter of fact.

Using "jurisdiction" alone as a justifier for bad law is fairly weak, imo. If a law comes up in Georgia that says it is OK to hang blacks from oak trees, are we going to say it is just? Are we going to say we accept the law as fair because of jurisdiction alone? But if you want to say, "He is considered a rapist by LA law", that could be proven true...in court...don't bother with the consideration of circumstance or whether the law itself is just.

I think for some the underlying issue is that they just don't like the idea of a 30-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old, no matter what the circumstance. Personally, I don't see a problem with it, if consensual.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It becomes important to me when I consider it unjust...not when local law says so.

Yet, ironically, the law doesn't give a **** what Warp12 thinks is unjust. It's the law, don't break it. All of your rapist apologetics won't change that. You don't like the law, we get it, now get to the point where you not liking the law means jack ****. If you don't then why are people wasting their time? Who seriously cares what you do and don't like? You've pulled out every "she asked for it" scenario in the book to apologize for this guy.

Originally Posted by Warp12

And, as is obviously the case, I am not alone on my opinion on this particular matter of age of consent...in the grand scheme of the western world, including the US. Seems fair to say that my opinion of the matter falls into the large majority, as a matter of fact.

No, it's a red herring because how you feel means exactly **** all to this guys guilt or innocence. I didn't like the law around my felony either, turns out my opinion was worth about as much as yours. I did the time either way. He knew the age of consent, or he was ignorant of it. The key word is "he" not "her".

Originally Posted by Warp12

Using "jurisdiction" alone as a justifier for bad law is fairly weak, imo.

That's how the US works, don't like it? Toodles. Find somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Warp12

If a law comes up in Georgia that says it is OK to hang blacks from oak trees, are we going to say it is just? Are we going to say we accept the law as fair because of jurisdiction alone? But if you want to say, "He is considered a rapist by LA law", that could be proven true...in court...don't bother with the consideration of circumstance or whether the law itself is just.

You're not seriously equating a man raping a woman with hanging black people from trees, are you? I hate to be this guy, but even if she was legal in her age, you still have absolutely no evidence she consented. You've just defaulted to that, and assumed she did. If a woman woke up with semen in her after being black out drunk, and found out who did it, she would still have a very decent case for rape. Being passed out isn't consent.

Originally Posted by Warp12

I think for some the underlying issue is that they just don't like the idea of a 30-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old, no matter what the circumstance. Personally, I don't see a problem with it, if consensual.

And again, no one gives a **** what you like or don't like, or what you see as a problem. The law is the law, hate it all you want, bitch about it in this thread, get other people to focus on your red herring, it still doesn't change the fact that you not liking it doesn't change a mother ******* thing.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It becomes important to me when I consider it unjust...not when local law says so. And, as is obviously the case, I am not alone on my opinion on this particular matter...in the grand scheme of the western world, including the US. Seems fair to say that my opinion of the matter falls into the large majority, as a matter of fact.

Using "jurisdiction" alone as a justifier for bad law is fairly weak, imo. If a law comes up in Georgia that says it is OK to hang blacks from oak trees, are we going to say it is just? Are we going to say we accept the law as fair because of jurisdiction alone? But if you want to say, "He is considered a rapist by LA law", that could be proven true...in court...don't bother with the consideration of circumstance or whether the law itself is just.

Ok, fair point. Although I would be arguing it in the other direction: over 21 under no circumstances touches a minor. Close-in-age is fine when you yourself are close-in-age to the legal line, and of course sexual experimentation among peers is natural and fine. It is uber creepy though for full-blown adults to want to get in a child's pants when the kid is just floundering their way into their newfound sexuality.

Even at the time in question in Louisiana, Romeo and Juliet laws were in effect to account for partners as young as 14, if the other was close in age. Sex among those near the line is accepted, agreed. It's the adults that need a pinch of sexual self-respect.

Quote:

I think for some the underlying issue is that they just don't like the idea of a 30-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old, no matter what the circumstance. Personally, I don't see a problem with it, if consensual.

Well... it's a creepshow. When I was younger, we actively sought out 18-21's because they knew what they were doing. Why would you specifically want an inexperienced child? Yuk, man.

[theprestige]

I'm outraged by rapes of coercion or deception. I'm outraged by rapes of children.

I'm not so much outraged by statutory rapes of willing teens who are of an age widely accepted as being mature enough for consensual sex with other adults, though not in the jurisdiction of that particular statute.

None of our UKian members would bat an eye if a 16 year old had consenual sex with a 30 year old, in the UK. The age difference wouldn't outrage them. The youth of the one participant wouldn't outrage them. The only thing outrageous here is the statute in that jurisdiction saying it's not allowed. That, and she's claiming it was nonconsensual, years after the fact. If her claim is true, that is indeed outrageous.

But statutory rape, between consenting participants, both of which are old enough in many jurisdictions, should not spark a lot of outrage from people in those other jurisdictions, who believe that 16 is plenty old enough to consent to sex with other adults.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm outraged by rapes of coercion or deception. I'm outraged by rapes of children.

I'm not so much outraged by statutory rapes of willing teens who are of an age widely accepted as being mature enough for consensual sex with other adults, though not in the jurisdiction of that particular statute.

None of our UKian members would bat an eye if a 16 year old had consenual sex with a 30 year old, in the UK. The age difference wouldn't outrage them. The youth of the one participant wouldn't outrage them. The only thing outrageous here is the statute in that jurisdiction saying it's not allowed. That, and she's claiming it was nonconsensual, years after the fact. If her claim is true, that is indeed outrageous.

But statutory rape, between consenting participants, both of which are old enough in many jurisdictions, should not spark a lot of outrage from people in those other jurisdictions, who believe that 16 is plenty old enough to consent to sex with other adults.

I probably wouldn't be as bothered by it if it were consensual either. It doesn't appear it was.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If the birthdate and paternity tests are correct, he is a rapist, full stop. From the argumentative standpoint here, he is a full-blown criminal, and for a criminal to be awarded the rights and privileges he has enjoyed is utterly incredible.

It would depend where it happened as well, wouldn't it? But beyond that, for all we know, she has some very significant problems as well. Shouldn't our initial assumption be that there was some set of reasons that led to this court decision? If it makes no sense, given her story, maybe her story isn't entirely true?

In many ways, this is a lot like the original Amber Heard article. The woman in this case is working with an advocacy group. The lawyer works for another advocacy group.

The last paragraph of that article is:

Quote:

If you would like to help Crysta Abelseth with her mounting legal expenses, you can do that by clicking here.

We are reading an advertisement for fundraising. Is there anybody quoted in that article who doesn't in some way benefit from trying to jin up emotion to fundraise off? The weird thing is that when you click on the link, it seems to be a non-specific way to donate to the advocacy group.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Gratuitously dismissing everything as potentially lies is not moving any discussion forward. The counter POV needs a bit more teeth than that.

There is no discussion that can be had when all we have is the unsupported claim of an advocacy group seeking funding.

Supposedly there is a court case next month where they will challenge the custody.

The only other source of evidence is she also seems to have sold her story to the Mail. From that:

Quote:

Abelseth is said to have lost custody after giving her daughter a phone, which Barnes said the teenager was using to 'sext' her boyfriend and post sexually explicit TikToks.

So, maybe information is being concealed from us here?

It also makes clear that she had accused him recently of abusing the daughter, drugging her and having sex with her. The court found that she was lying about that.

This is feeling to me like a complicated situation where we shouldn't be taking people's word for anything. For all we know, she is less believable on the stand than Amber Heard.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by plague311

I probably wouldn't be as bothered by it if it were consensual either. It doesn't appear it was.

It doesn't appear that we can ever know beyond reasonable doubt, or even preponderance of evidence, one way or the other. Once again we are stuck on the central "he said/she said" conundrum of rape allegations. We have no practical recourse here, other than to remain agnostic.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It doesn't appear that we can ever know beyond reasonable doubt, or even preponderance of evidence, one way or the other. Once again we are stuck on the central "he said/she said" conundrum of rape allegations. We have no practical recourse here, other than to remain agnostic.

Why would somebody lie, during a custody battle with thousands of dollars on the line?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm outraged by rapes of coercion or deception. I'm outraged by rapes of children.

I'm not so much outraged by statutory rapes of willing teens who are of an age widely accepted as being mature enough for consensual sex with other adults, though not in the jurisdiction of that particular statute.

None of our UKian members would bat an eye if a 16 year old had consenual sex with a 30 year old, in the UK. The age difference wouldn't outrage them. The youth of the one participant wouldn't outrage them. The only thing outrageous here is the statute in that jurisdiction saying it's not allowed. That, and she's claiming it was nonconsensual, years after the fact. If her claim is true, that is indeed outrageous.

But statutory rape, between consenting participants, both of which are old enough in many jurisdictions, should not spark a lot of outrage from people in those other jurisdictions, who believe that 16 is plenty old enough to consent to sex with other adults.

I think our UK contingent would be quite outraged by someone walking down their street with an AR-15. Jurisdiction and legal context matter, to those who value and respect the law, no matter what their local laws and customs allow.

Do we get outraged over child brides in the Middle East? Perfectly legal and customary and all, right?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It would depend where it happened as well, wouldn't it? But beyond that, for all we know, she has some very significant problems as well. Shouldn't our initial assumption be that there was some set of reasons that led to this court decision? If it makes no sense, given her story, maybe her story isn't entirely true?

In many ways, this is a lot like the original Amber Heard article. The woman in this case is working with an advocacy group. The lawyer works for another advocacy group.

The last paragraph of that article is:

We are reading an advertisement for fundraising. Is there anybody quoted in that article who doesn't in some way benefit from trying to jin up emotion to fundraise off? The weird thing is that when you click on the link, it seems to be a non-specific way to donate to the advocacy group.


There is no discussion that can be had when all we have is the unsupported claim of an advocacy group seeking funding.

Holup, man. The advocacy group is helping Abseleth, as she doesn't appear to be well-off, and without the resources for a years-long custody battle. They are tossed at the end of the news media reporting, as is customary lately. They are by no means the focus.

The journalists did some level of diligence, reaching out to El Rapo and the Parish Popo. It's a legit story, unless a media conspiracy?

Quote:

Supposedly there is a court case next month where they will challenge the custody.

Exactly. She needs funds, like right now. Desperate times and all that.

Quote:

The only other source of evidence is she also seems to have sold her story to the Mail. From that:


So, maybe information is being concealed from us here?

It also makes clear that she had accused him recently of abusing the daughter, drugging her and having sex with her. The court found that she was lying about that.

This is feeling to me like a complicated situation where we shouldn't be taking people's word for anything. For all we know, she is less believable on the stand than Amber Heard.

Agreed that there is a bunch of missing info that needs to come out to have an informed opinion. And that needs to start with why he has any rights whatsoever if the rape date is accurate. The whole story hinges on that.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It doesn't appear that we can ever know beyond reasonable doubt, or even preponderance of evidence, one way or the other. Once again we are stuck on the central "he said/she said" conundrum of rape allegations. We have no practical recourse here, other than to remain agnostic.

If that's the way you feel, then I'm not here to tell you different. I believe her because I see no reason not to believe her. You don't. Is this the part where I get told I'm No True Skeptic?

I don't believe him, and have no reason to. We're at odds here, which is normal. It seems there are plenty who agree with you in that she shouldn't be believed because of the reasons you guys have.

Sweet.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Why would somebody lie, during a custody battle with thousands of dollars on the line?

Right, and that's where you are. You can't believe her because she's in a custody battle, has little means to fight that battle and so she's asking for help from an advocacy, which also asks for donations to continue to help people like her.

Yeah, she's a real piece of **** that one. Get 'er guys!

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It doesn't appear that we can ever know beyond reasonable doubt, or even preponderance of evidence, one way or the other. Once again we are stuck on the central "he said/she said" conundrum of rape allegations. We have no practical recourse here, other than to remain agnostic.

There was this dude who said somewhere that if you are not on the side of fixing the problem and remain neutral, you are on the side of the problem. You seem not to agree with those inspired words.

[ponderingturtle]

Let he who has never picked up a drunk high school kid 14 years his junior and taken them home to bang, cast the first stone. It just wouldn't do to portray this as anything other than normal upstanding behavior after all.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Quicker and quite misleading, in the sense of how the label is usually applied.

What is misleading? He raped her - its literally in black and white. That's a fact that doesn't seem to be in dispute - apart from you not wanting us to label the rapist as a rapist for some reason.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

He doesn't owe a defense to the public at-large. He owes a defense if charged in a court of law. He is wise not to be commenting to the media, imo.

We wouldn't want to fall into the trap of assigning guilt by default, right? That seems to happen a lot around here, when claims are made and accepted as fact.

All of this "he raped her on the couch while she was blackout drunk" type stuff fits that category.

Have you any evidence at all that she wasn't 16 when he raped her?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Quicker and quite misleading, in the sense of how the label is usually applied.

Not misleading at all. Statutory rape is still rape.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am not arguing that jurisdiction doesn't matter, in the letter of the law. I am arguing that the law is unjust, regardless. And 31 states, and most of the western world agrees. This isn't a fringe thing. And that isn't even taking into account her misrepresentation of her age.

It doesn't matter if you think the law is unjust.

It's still the law and the law says he raped her.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Let he who has never picked up a drunk high school kid 14 years his junior and taken them home to bang, cast the first stone. It just wouldn't do to portray this as anything other than normal upstanding behavior after all.

I like how it's laws that say adult men can't **** 16 year-old girls that are unjust, as opposed to the laws that say they can.

The creep quotient in this thread is disturbingly high.