Andrew Tate has been indicted by Romanian prosecutors for various crimes, including trafficking minors, money laundering, and sex with a minor, according to reports.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 268 points 2 months ago (54 children)

Sex with minors isn’t a thing. It’s called rape.

  • source
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 112 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    It’s only rape if the rapist is poor. If they are rich, it’s called Thursday.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Since this effect lacks a proper name outside of the date, why don't we invent a new one. I propose Trumpstein.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    it might even qualify you for president

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 months ago

    While I agree, the way the article is worded makes me suspect that is the name of the crime they’re accused of.

    Sort of like how Trump was found liable for “sexual abuse”, because the jurisdiction it occurred in strictly defines rape as penis-in-vagina sex. And since he “only” (ugh) used his fingers, it wasn’t technically rape as far as the law was concerned. But the judge who oversaw the case later had to clarify that it would colloquially be referred to as rape, even though that wasn’t the technical term that the lawsuit used. Because Trump was trying to use the “well I wasn’t found liable for rape, so she can’t say I raped her” argument in his defamation lawsuit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 55 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    It is vulgar to bring whataboutery into a discussion about child rape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -39 points 2 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago* (10 children)

    Maybe make another post to do that? You can ask all kinds of things that way to satiate your curiosity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 2 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

    Kinda a weird hill to die on. But I'll answer this for you.

    Yeah, you need to put the line somewhere. Is it ok to send a 15 year old to war or let them smoke?

    They are children is the reason, not the age gap. The fact that's not obvious to you is disturbing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Yes it's rape, a child is not old enough to make clear decisions and is underage. The law sees anyone under 18 as a child.

    Rape
    Simple Definition
    unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception

    Did you expect other pedophiles to unite here in your defense? You got a lot you need to work out, please talk to a therapist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Well ACTUALLY, different jurisdictions have different ages of consent. The laws are pretty clearly detailed. Just like child marriage is legal in many places even in the U.S. (with parental permission), and just like it's legal for billionaires to not pay taxes. Of course that doesn't mean it's morally correct. An 18yo with a 50yo is morally dicey although legal. A 17yo with 19yo is legal or not depending on where you are. What's morally correct? It depends a lot more on the situation than the local.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Ah, yes, you're just curious about that independent of the thread topic and what the person you replied to said...
    This is on the same level as a thread about Trumps ICE militia kidnapping an disappearing people and you replying with "ah, but what about that one time Obama wore a tan suit? How do you feel about that?"
    All you managed to do with your comment is show that you're ok with child rape because the age difference might be less, which is real fucking bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -11 points 2 months ago (24 children)
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Were you a minor at the time?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Then how is that relevant? This is about an adult having sex with minors, which is rape. All you did with your comment was show that you are trying to defend him. This whole "sex with a minor" thing has been a very talked about deal for over a decade now with all the well known pedophiles in places of power and the media not calling them what they are (rapists).
    Other than defending him and the others (Epstein, Trump etc.) I seriously don't see any reason to make the comment you did.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    I mean, I lost my virginity at 17 to a 19-year-old, and it definitely wasn't rape.

    Obviously there's not a lot of nuance when you're talking about a full grown man taking advantage of a minor, but I also think it's kind of ridiculous to suggest two 16-year-olds having sex, or two teenagers barely on either side of 18, can't be consensual.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I got my relatively prude vanilla ass handed to me for attempting to draw a distinction between rock stars given social consent and then proceeding to break a law and 70 year old power brokers making false promises to get young women in positions where they cannot say no. I believe that conflating even those two by not acknowledging that they have different terms, is disingenuous to the victims who gave all of zero consent and were not interested in the action, but we're subject to violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 2 months ago* (7 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Tone and framing change how people react to an idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I think doubling down on "everyone on this site is unreasonable" will not help on the tone front.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    It is very hard, without writing a mini essay, to convey all the relavent context, tone and meaning via a text based comment.

    Often what people write will end up being interpreted differently by people reading it and different to your intentions.

    Also the, for lack of a better term, "dog pile" effect really matters. If the first few people down vote you, that changes how successive people will interpret your message. "Maybe it seems harmless but it's -3, so I might have missed some context and it's more nefarious than I realised" etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    Yes, but what the law says and what is going on in practice are often (or usually) two different things.

    In your own example, a forensic psychiatrist might have interrogated you when you were 17 and concluded that you were of sound mind and had the requisite emotional and logical faculty to "consent" in every reasonable definition of the term.

    However, the law says that your consent in this case has no legal baring. This is not to undermine your own agency as a 17 year old, but to protect those 17 year olds who were not as well developed as you, or who might be manipulated some how, and so on.

    The trade-off is that there usually has to be a complainant. In your own example you or your parents would (in most jurisdictions), need to ask the police to press charges.

    Of course, the age of consent varies between jurisdictions. Here I think it's 16. I went to school with someone who got married when she was 16 because she had become pregnant when she was 15. I didn't realise at the time how messed up that was.

    I'm reminded of the fascinating and macabre history of Pitcairn Island. The abridged version is that in the 1700's (?) a sailing ship named the Bounty visited Tahiti for several months where many of the crew became involved with Tahitian ladies. Rather than return to their lives they mutinied, and absconded to an uninhabited island with their brides. Much violence and depravity, and later fanatical religious stuff ensued, but ultimately a tiny community of several dozen people survived to the 1990's. At that time it emerged that underage sex / rape was a common and even celebrated practice. It's a truly incredible story for a variety of reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    However, the law says that your consent in this case has no legal baring.

    Many places have a sliding scale, usually a window of a few years. 19 and 17 was legal under that scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments