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.

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".

Correct. 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.

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?

Correct. 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.