Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Nope. We're done here.

Either you are arguing in bad faith, you don't have experience with the world, or you're actually fucked up. Whatever the case, there's nothing more to be said about you trying to justify a college-aged white scion raping his family's teenager black maid and getting away with it.

[Eschar]

Round and round the mulberry bush

[Reelya]

Nope. We're done here.

Either you are arguing in bad faith, you don't have experience with the world, or you're actually fucked up. Whatever the case, there's nothing more to be said about you trying to justify a college-aged white scion raping his family's teenager black maid and getting away with it.

sorry, but you just jumped straight to invoking the holocaust in a debate where it's not relevant by any means, that's not good faith. I gave a legitimate comparison to someone making the same basic argument but with a different set of biases as an example, that is in fact a straight argument. If someone said gay sex was wrong even though it was legal, and then invoked a comparison to the holocaust, how would you react?

As for the factual part of it, the daughter refers to it as an affair, and the dad did pay for her to get educated up to a master's degree. That's not exactly the normal end result of a one-off assault. You know, if FOX News was to report on something with biased language you call them out and demand they give the correct context. But that goes for everyone: as much information as is available should be given, then the reader is free to make up their own mind, because it's too easy for people to paraphrase any event in a way that misleads or biases the reader. So you're free to bring up historical power imbalances between black and white in the south as a factor and other people are free to bring up other facts of the case. But nobody is entitled to just shout "he was a child rapist!" out of context and refuse to discuss any of the specifics that show that those words bias the understanding of what actually happened.

[LordBaal]

Did the girl said it was raped? Or is just a conclusion that is simply logical? Regardles of what the law says, at the time or now, is rape if one person forces another to have sex via violence, physical or otherwise, and/or is not concesual as the other party can give consent, like if the person is unconscius or the like, or cant do it because is mentally impaired or simply too young. How young? Its hard to determinate. A lot of countries say 16 others 18. I know of first hand of girls younger than that sexually active, my mother in law had my wife when she was 14 and my father in law 16.

Sex among teens is hard to weigh on, its easier to claim rape in the case of an adult and a teen because even if is consensual an "adult could embezel a teenager to have sex", and as an adult you really should know better, but again, that issue is something a law cant really cover widely and is in my eyes one of those case by case stuff. One of my grandmothers ran away from home with my granddad and married and were happily so for almost 70 years, she was around 14 and he was like 20 at the moment.

Fuck Im bored without electricity. May as well wake up peter to play with him football or something.

[TD1]

He was an adult, and she was a teenager. Hence it is rape.

That is definitely not the definition of rape.

[Frumple]

Statutory rape at a minimum, td1, if for some reason playing apologetics for a fucking segregationist is really the game you want to be playing. 22 year old screwing a 15-16 year old is criminal in a lot of places, nevermind the rest of the shit involved with this particular situation.

[hector13]

I see Reelya’s side, but the power dynamics of the situation, without knowing anything beyond a teenage girl being employed by her older lover’s family, implies some impropriety, to put it lightly.

[ChairmanPoo]

Statutory rape at a minimum, td1, if for some reason playing apologetics for a fucking segregationist is really the game you want to be playing. 22 year old screwing a 15-16 year old is criminal in a lot of places, nevermind the rest of the shit involved with this particular situation.

Strictly speaking 16 is legal in more places than it is not. 15 seems 50-50

[Naturegirl1999]

I thought rape is sex without consent of both parties. I don’t think age difference determines whether it’s rape or not, consent does.

[Lord Shonus]

The concept is that an age difference or power imbalance (indeed, a significant age difference generally is a power imbalance) makes consent impossible or impractical. Particularly when one party is otherwise not a legal adult. Fundamentally the same concept as getting someone drunk to sleep with them - their consent is not necessarily valid.

[Naturegirl1999]

Ah, ok

[LordBaal]

As a minor is unable to give their consent, the younger the more unable they are.

Obviosly in the real world you have teenagers fucking around all the time, moslty with also teens wich is meh as long is consented and they are wearing protection for the love of the Emprah) or young adults at most which is already creppy. The older the other person, the creppier it gets, and when it also happens to be your boss the worst it is because its assumed the adult is using a leverage over the minor, so while is not rape in the sense of violently forcing the other party, is statutory rape in the sense you are still forcing yourself on other, just not using violence. In the case of an adult I would said you are an adult and can make a choice to say fuck yourself, but in the case of minors its suposed they cant make rigth choices because their minds are still developing so.... its a fucking slipery slope to either side with this issues.

[Rolan7]

Minors can be very intelligent but broadly lack the accumulated life experience to meaningfully consent.  Particularly since the effects of such an event on a developing mind can cascade and be life-long.  That's why the adult is not just taking advantage, but committing rape.  No violence is necessary for it to be rape.  (This applies to adults too, most commonly when there is a power imbalance, chemical, or psychological manipulation.  Anything that bypasses consent).

It was still rape as it happened throughout history.  Regardless of the different legal and cultural standards of "minor" or "bodily autonomy", our modern understanding is that the harm still happened.  Rape doesn't have to be labeled to do damage.  We can take into account whether a perpetrator knew it was wrong, but that doesn't change what happened.

(There's a grey area about minors approaching adulthood together with 1-2 year age gaps.  That's a different matter than a fully-developed 22 year old taking advantage of a mid-teen.)

[Yoink]

Oh my gods, apparently the bourbon I've been drinking was bottled in Laverton.   

[Bumber]

Oh my gods, apparently the bourbon I've been drinking was bottled in Laverton.   

Laverton in a bottle? Laverton?