A fat black girl recently literally got away with murder and this was celebrated on Reddit. She was an underaged prostitute who murdered her john while he was sleeping with a knife, and then when she got caught, she cried rape. There was no evidence of rape & she clearly could have left instead of murdered. She was only sentenced to probation. No jail time for murder.
So you agree he was paying a sex trafficker to have sex with a child below the age of consent... but think there's no evidence of rape?
He pays the girl and she pays the pimp. Ever heard "bitch betta hav muh money?" Stop this nonsense of calling pimps "sex traffickers".
Rape is what happens when a man uses force to have sex with a woman against her will. People disagree as to when a girl is old enough to have sex. Some jurisdictions set that age at 13, others up to 18. Having sex with a girl under 18 is not rape even when it is illegal, if the girl consents. And yes, a minor can consent, even if the law makes the act illegal in spite of her consent. This is laughably easy to prove, because I can give you two scenarios: (1) a 16 year old girl had sex with a 20 year old guy because she thinks he is hot and wants to, or (2) a 16 year old girl has sex with a 20 year old guy because he beats the shit out of her, puts a gun to her head, and penetrates her by force while she cries and begs him to stop. If you think 1 is the same crime as 2, you're a retard. Obviously 2 is worse, and it's worse because she consented in 1 (so not rape) whereas 2 was a rape.
In the black community, underage prostitution is common. The girls are old enough to know what they are getting into. These are not innocent little virgins and likely have been having sex from a young age.
She murdered a man in cold blood, then lied about it, knowing she had murdered the only other witness. There is no evidence that he even knew she was underage. If he did not know, then he committed no crime under age of consent laws, just misdemeanor prostitution, which obviously doesn't green light him for the death penalty.
The defining down of what constitutes rape is a libtard feminist thing. I didn't expect to see someone brainwashed on that talking point in this sub.
Just because in popular culture, people think "A minor cannot consent". That is wrong, as I illustrated above. Sometimes people REEEEEE at this because they can't comprehend that it can still be a crime even if the minor consents, it's just a VERY DIFFERENT crime, and it's not rape. Obviously a girl is not "raped" when she is 17 and 364 days and 23 hours and 59 minutes old, and then 1 minute later she is magically fully able to engage in BDSM because she transformed in that 1 minute from a "child" into an "adult". Some women are retards in their 30s, some are very smart in their teens. Society draws an arbitrary line and criminalizes everything below it to varying degrees, but those crimes are not rape, regardless of what the legislators like to call them, because rape is a word with a long standing historic meaning, as "the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will" under the English Common Law.
It is only in very recent history that libtard feminists have tried to define down rape and change its meaning in order to use it as a weapon against men.
The fact that ages of consent laws vary from 13-18 proves that nobody knows what age is old enough, and just because you have been indoctrinated to think it's 18 - which is only the small minority view in the world, which is overwhelmingly 14-16 - doesn't mean you're objectively correct and everyone else is a rapist or pedo.
This is far too close to postmodernist bullshit for my liking.
No, it's not an arbitrary line, though the exact placement of where the line should be is debatable. Country A has an age of consent of 16, Country B has an age of consent of 12. We can all probably agree that age-of-consent arranged marriages in Country B are wrong and can have something approaching a debate on Country A.
Obviously a girl is not "raped" when she is 17 and 364 days and 23 hours and 59 minutes old, and then 1 minute later she is magically able to engage in BDSM
You may not like it, but that's exactly what the law says. With Romeo and Juliet and other exceptions, of course, but that's the law.
Statutory Rape is NOT the equivalent to a violent rape, you're right. That's why states and jurisdictions typically have lighter sentencing with statutory rape -- because you have to take each case on a case-by-case basis. 22 year old with a 15 year old out in bumfuck, nowhere is a little bit less abnormal and gross than a 35 year old with a 14 year old in Boston.
There's also additional charges that make the underlying crime worse. Guy I grew up with had a relationship with a 14 year old when he was somewhere around 20. In the grand scheme of things probably a statutory rape charge and probation if that was it - except for the fact he drugged her and plied her with porn and essentially held her hostage in his house.
It's the extra circumstances that landed him in jail for a decade and on the sex offender list for life.
Statutory rape is a serious charge and can end up with you on a registry, but yeah I think most people can agree it's not always a heinous thing. But it's still a crime, because we agree as a society that individuals are largely incapable of making those sorts of decisions before the age of 18. Or 16. I hope not 14. Certainly not 12.
No, it's not an arbitrary line, though the exact placement of where the line should be is debatable.
The point is that nobody knows or can really agree and the age limit is generally 14 to 16, with a few outliers below 14 and a few setting it up at 18. I happen to live in California, one of the few places in the world where it was set at 18, because back when it was set in the 1920s, California was very socially conservative and banned all oral sex, even from adults and married couples until the 1970s.
You may not like it, but that's exactly what the law says.
The point is that the rationale for the law and effect of the law are absurd. "That's the law" is a circular argument. Not all laws are good, some are nonsense. Instead, the law should be set in a more graduated way, where the crimes and punishments start out low and increase as the age drops.
Statutory Rape is NOT the equivalent to a violent rape, you're right.
My only point here is not do debate whether it SHOULD be a crime, but instead simply that it is not rape. You can call it any number of other names, like assault, or unlawful sex, or whatever, but reserve "rape" for the actual historical meaning of the word, which requires the use of force (or incapacitating drugs).
A fat black girl recently literally got away with murder and this was celebrated on Reddit. She was an underaged prostitute who murdered her john while he was sleeping with a knife, and then when she got caught, she cried rape. There was no evidence of rape & she clearly could have left instead of murdered. She was only sentenced to probation. No jail time for murder.
https://apnews.com/article/iowa-des-moines-human-trafficking-0b11cb8f4f0ff46d90ae17ece6bc7d15
So you agree he was paying a sex trafficker to have sex with a child below the age of consent... but think there's no evidence of rape?
He pays the girl and she pays the pimp. Ever heard "bitch betta hav muh money?" Stop this nonsense of calling pimps "sex traffickers".
Rape is what happens when a man uses force to have sex with a woman against her will. People disagree as to when a girl is old enough to have sex. Some jurisdictions set that age at 13, others up to 18. Having sex with a girl under 18 is not rape even when it is illegal, if the girl consents. And yes, a minor can consent, even if the law makes the act illegal in spite of her consent. This is laughably easy to prove, because I can give you two scenarios: (1) a 16 year old girl had sex with a 20 year old guy because she thinks he is hot and wants to, or (2) a 16 year old girl has sex with a 20 year old guy because he beats the shit out of her, puts a gun to her head, and penetrates her by force while she cries and begs him to stop. If you think 1 is the same crime as 2, you're a retard. Obviously 2 is worse, and it's worse because she consented in 1 (so not rape) whereas 2 was a rape.
In the black community, underage prostitution is common. The girls are old enough to know what they are getting into. These are not innocent little virgins and likely have been having sex from a young age.
She murdered a man in cold blood, then lied about it, knowing she had murdered the only other witness. There is no evidence that he even knew she was underage. If he did not know, then he committed no crime under age of consent laws, just misdemeanor prostitution, which obviously doesn't green light him for the death penalty.
The defining down of what constitutes rape is a libtard feminist thing. I didn't expect to see someone brainwashed on that talking point in this sub.
Just because in popular culture, people think "A minor cannot consent". That is wrong, as I illustrated above. Sometimes people REEEEEE at this because they can't comprehend that it can still be a crime even if the minor consents, it's just a VERY DIFFERENT crime, and it's not rape. Obviously a girl is not "raped" when she is 17 and 364 days and 23 hours and 59 minutes old, and then 1 minute later she is magically fully able to engage in BDSM because she transformed in that 1 minute from a "child" into an "adult". Some women are retards in their 30s, some are very smart in their teens. Society draws an arbitrary line and criminalizes everything below it to varying degrees, but those crimes are not rape, regardless of what the legislators like to call them, because rape is a word with a long standing historic meaning, as "the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will" under the English Common Law.
It is only in very recent history that libtard feminists have tried to define down rape and change its meaning in order to use it as a weapon against men.
The fact that ages of consent laws vary from 13-18 proves that nobody knows what age is old enough, and just because you have been indoctrinated to think it's 18 - which is only the small minority view in the world, which is overwhelmingly 14-16 - doesn't mean you're objectively correct and everyone else is a rapist or pedo.
This is far too close to postmodernist bullshit for my liking.
No, it's not an arbitrary line, though the exact placement of where the line should be is debatable. Country A has an age of consent of 16, Country B has an age of consent of 12. We can all probably agree that age-of-consent arranged marriages in Country B are wrong and can have something approaching a debate on Country A.
You may not like it, but that's exactly what the law says. With Romeo and Juliet and other exceptions, of course, but that's the law.
Statutory Rape is NOT the equivalent to a violent rape, you're right. That's why states and jurisdictions typically have lighter sentencing with statutory rape -- because you have to take each case on a case-by-case basis. 22 year old with a 15 year old out in bumfuck, nowhere is a little bit less abnormal and gross than a 35 year old with a 14 year old in Boston.
There's also additional charges that make the underlying crime worse. Guy I grew up with had a relationship with a 14 year old when he was somewhere around 20. In the grand scheme of things probably a statutory rape charge and probation if that was it - except for the fact he drugged her and plied her with porn and essentially held her hostage in his house.
It's the extra circumstances that landed him in jail for a decade and on the sex offender list for life.
Statutory rape is a serious charge and can end up with you on a registry, but yeah I think most people can agree it's not always a heinous thing. But it's still a crime, because we agree as a society that individuals are largely incapable of making those sorts of decisions before the age of 18. Or 16. I hope not 14. Certainly not 12.
The line may be fuzzy, but it certainly exists.
The point is that nobody knows or can really agree and the age limit is generally 14 to 16, with a few outliers below 14 and a few setting it up at 18. I happen to live in California, one of the few places in the world where it was set at 18, because back when it was set in the 1920s, California was very socially conservative and banned all oral sex, even from adults and married couples until the 1970s.
The point is that the rationale for the law and effect of the law are absurd. "That's the law" is a circular argument. Not all laws are good, some are nonsense. Instead, the law should be set in a more graduated way, where the crimes and punishments start out low and increase as the age drops.
"statutory rape" isn't rape, it's a legal fiction. That's why California, for example, doesn't call it "statutory rape", it calls the crime "unlawful sex" which is more accurate.
My only point here is not do debate whether it SHOULD be a crime, but instead simply that it is not rape. You can call it any number of other names, like assault, or unlawful sex, or whatever, but reserve "rape" for the actual historical meaning of the word, which requires the use of force (or incapacitating drugs).