Overall the problem comes from the fact that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, no matter the age. And yes there is the question of at what age can a person truely consent, but technically the word still applies for descriptive purposes.
So, for people above the legal age, rape is generally non-consenual sex. But below a magic age that isn’t consistent across the world, rape includes consenual sex. That causes there to be a gap in that there aren’t useful words to differentiate between consensual, and non-consensual sex with a minor. Some word argue there is no difference, but technically there certainly is.
You also have no easy way to describe sex with a very young kid vs a 17.9 year old. Yet they are certainly very different also.
Since the world can’t agree on a static age for consent, and really everyone is different, so it just isn’t that simple, you can be sure that these differtiations matter to some people.
In short, all rape is bad, but some is certainly even worse. But terminology doesn’t support differentiation. So news people make up thier own.
Edit: I know it may have been hard to parse, but my intent here is to advocate for removing the ambiguity of what people have done. At this point “rape” means so many things that people no longer universally consider it bad. I can’t change those people’s opinions, but better terminology would help ensure those people aren’t discounting how bad a thing a person did was, just because we don’t have good terminology to communicate it.
Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows in my opinion. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old girlfriend, then the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges to be lenient because “it would ruin his life”…
Yeah, but even statutory rape doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges to be lenient when they shouldn’t be.
The only thing I defended was the news people making up thier own terminology in the absence of terminology with enough nuance to capture the details…
Take statutory rape. It doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows I say. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
Why are you trying to inject a terminology discussion into this? Everybody here is clear on what was going on. These were children who were trafficked as sex slaves. It isn’t a debate. You’re either part of a troll farm, or just a willfully dense individual with no actual social skills.
The post litterally contained “why is the press inventing the term…” I mean it is right there inviting a terminology discussion.
But also, the lack of proper termonology has given defenders of rape an argument to distract from the crime. I want that taken away, and I want it clear what they did so people don’t just wave their hands and say… “but was it really”…
No, the post is very clear. The press is minimizing what happened. It doesn’t at all invite a terminology discussion. You’re being downvoted to all hell bcz you’ve doubled down on your stance no matter who you are talking too.
The problem is that technically child rape covers consenual act between teens if one is just over 18. I am saying we need better accepted terminology.
Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
This applies to the Epstein files, how, exactly? Do you think there were a lot of those gray areas in those cases? A lot of consensual sex between people with less than a year’s age difference?
The person was complaining specifically about the words used in the article and that the reporter made up thier own. I was saying it is understandable that the reporter do that since we don’t have naunced enough terminology for the crime. And I argued we really need to work on that to prevent people from not taking the crimes as seriously as they should. When rape includes a 17.9 year old and an 18.1 year old having consenual sex, then when people hear rape, they don’t automatically consider it vile and disturbing. So the word no longer carries the weight it should when it describes other types of rape. But since it could refer to so many things, a new reporter doesn’t want to use it at all so they can avoid being sued for defamation.
Yes, you keep repeating that, and you keep missing the point. Read what I’m saying properly this time:
Do you think that the problem with reporting about the Epstein cases is a matter of not having the proper word to describe the crimes that happened and the victims?
Like, do you think that “underage women” is a reasonable way to describe the victims in the Epstein cases? Not generally, like you keep waffling about, but in the Epstein cases?
Do you think that in the Epstein cases, not generally speaking, it’s likely that there was consensual sex between a 17,9 year old and a 18,1 year old or whatever the fuck fantasy scenario you keep concocting? Do you think that in the Epstein cases it’s justifiable to keep using “sex with a child” or “sex with underage women” instead of “rape” because there might have been consensual sex between two people barely a few months apart in age? I’ll repeat, everybody here except you is talking about the verified cases of grown men raping under-18 children documented in the Epstein files.
I added helpful bolding to the relevant parts to try and keep you on topic, which is rape of children by Epstein and people associated with him.
Man, you are a true idiot. Technically it is statutory rape. I am saying it needs it’s own name so we can single those people out and punish them more severely. But you can’t read can you. So you are arguing AGAINST harsher penalties for a sexual act with a 5 year old. You probably would sign a petition to end womens suffrage too. Learn to read. Help your own cause.
The rules are not written for those who develop earlier that might be able to consent, they are written for those who don’t develop early and who shouldn’t be considered mature enough. But also, the attraction seems to be an age during which a consent is not possible anyways. They’re just fucking gross.
Also… I would argue many 18 year olds aren’t mature enough for a lot of decisions. Yet magically, convincing one to have sex is no longer a crime. The brain doesn’t finish developing until the early 20’s. I a, not saying the age of consent should be 21, just that it’s a nuance our terminology and laws don’t cover well.
True, but better terminology would still help ensure proper punishments.
Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
I disagree.
Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
I don’t think you got what I meant, not going into detail myself on the whole actuality of physically abusing a “child”. My Point was that though, they physically engaged in the sexual abuse of underaged/children. As for the second half of what you said "different states/territories have thier own distinct rules and regulations of age difference between / statutory statues.
Overall the problem comes from the fact that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, no matter the age. And yes there is the question of at what age can a person truely consent, but technically the word still applies for descriptive purposes.
So, for people above the legal age, rape is generally non-consenual sex. But below a magic age that isn’t consistent across the world, rape includes consenual sex. That causes there to be a gap in that there aren’t useful words to differentiate between consensual, and non-consensual sex with a minor. Some word argue there is no difference, but technically there certainly is.
You also have no easy way to describe sex with a very young kid vs a 17.9 year old. Yet they are certainly very different also. Since the world can’t agree on a static age for consent, and really everyone is different, so it just isn’t that simple, you can be sure that these differtiations matter to some people. In short, all rape is bad, but some is certainly even worse. But terminology doesn’t support differentiation. So news people make up thier own.
Edit: I know it may have been hard to parse, but my intent here is to advocate for removing the ambiguity of what people have done. At this point “rape” means so many things that people no longer universally consider it bad. I can’t change those people’s opinions, but better terminology would help ensure those people aren’t discounting how bad a thing a person did was, just because we don’t have good terminology to communicate it.
Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows in my opinion. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old girlfriend, then the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges to be lenient because “it would ruin his life”…
It’s called statutory rape.
Also, jesus fucking christ, man.
Yeah, but even statutory rape doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges to be lenient when they shouldn’t be.
deleted by creator
This made me felt icky just reading it. The fact that you think there’s even a modicum of defense of this amazes me.
The only thing I defended was the news people making up thier own terminology in the absence of terminology with enough nuance to capture the details… Take statutory rape. It doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows I say. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
Why are you trying to inject a terminology discussion into this? Everybody here is clear on what was going on. These were children who were trafficked as sex slaves. It isn’t a debate. You’re either part of a troll farm, or just a willfully dense individual with no actual social skills.
The post litterally contained “why is the press inventing the term…” I mean it is right there inviting a terminology discussion. But also, the lack of proper termonology has given defenders of rape an argument to distract from the crime. I want that taken away, and I want it clear what they did so people don’t just wave their hands and say… “but was it really”…
No, the post is very clear. The press is minimizing what happened. It doesn’t at all invite a terminology discussion. You’re being downvoted to all hell bcz you’ve doubled down on your stance no matter who you are talking too.
You do realise that you’re talking about literal child rape slaves here? In which possibe scenario could what happened to them have been consensual?
Edit: inb4 semantic wankery about what constitutes a “rape slave”
The problem is that technically child rape covers consenual act between teens if one is just over 18. I am saying we need better accepted terminology.
Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
This applies to the Epstein files, how, exactly? Do you think there were a lot of those gray areas in those cases? A lot of consensual sex between people with less than a year’s age difference?
The person was complaining specifically about the words used in the article and that the reporter made up thier own. I was saying it is understandable that the reporter do that since we don’t have naunced enough terminology for the crime. And I argued we really need to work on that to prevent people from not taking the crimes as seriously as they should. When rape includes a 17.9 year old and an 18.1 year old having consenual sex, then when people hear rape, they don’t automatically consider it vile and disturbing. So the word no longer carries the weight it should when it describes other types of rape. But since it could refer to so many things, a new reporter doesn’t want to use it at all so they can avoid being sued for defamation.
Yes, you keep repeating that, and you keep missing the point. Read what I’m saying properly this time:
Do you think that the problem with reporting about the Epstein cases is a matter of not having the proper word to describe the crimes that happened and the victims?
Like, do you think that “underage women” is a reasonable way to describe the victims in the Epstein cases? Not generally, like you keep waffling about, but in the Epstein cases?
Do you think that in the Epstein cases, not generally speaking, it’s likely that there was consensual sex between a 17,9 year old and a 18,1 year old or whatever the fuck fantasy scenario you keep concocting? Do you think that in the Epstein cases it’s justifiable to keep using “sex with a child” or “sex with underage women” instead of “rape” because there might have been consensual sex between two people barely a few months apart in age? I’ll repeat, everybody here except you is talking about the verified cases of grown men raping under-18 children documented in the Epstein files.
I added helpful bolding to the relevant parts to try and keep you on topic, which is rape of children by Epstein and people associated with him.
No, you fucking creep. ANY sexual act with a 5 year old is blatant rape. No statutory about it, you pedo creep.
Man, you are a true idiot. Technically it is statutory rape. I am saying it needs it’s own name so we can single those people out and punish them more severely. But you can’t read can you. So you are arguing AGAINST harsher penalties for a sexual act with a 5 year old. You probably would sign a petition to end womens suffrage too. Learn to read. Help your own cause.
Go fuck yourself and die you stupid shitty creep.
The rules are not written for those who develop earlier that might be able to consent, they are written for those who don’t develop early and who shouldn’t be considered mature enough. But also, the attraction seems to be an age during which a consent is not possible anyways. They’re just fucking gross.
Also… I would argue many 18 year olds aren’t mature enough for a lot of decisions. Yet magically, convincing one to have sex is no longer a crime. The brain doesn’t finish developing until the early 20’s. I a, not saying the age of consent should be 21, just that it’s a nuance our terminology and laws don’t cover well.
True, but better terminology would still help ensure proper punishments. Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
Not much of a difference “They touched kids”
I disagree. Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
I don’t think you got what I meant, not going into detail myself on the whole actuality of physically abusing a “child”. My Point was that though, they physically engaged in the sexual abuse of underaged/children. As for the second half of what you said "different states/territories have thier own distinct rules and regulations of age difference between / statutory statues.