Didn’t we already go through this?
post
Sex with minors isn’t a thing. It’s called rape.
It’s only rape if the rapist is poor. If they are rich, it’s called Thursday.
Since this effect lacks a proper name outside of the date, why don't we invent a new one. I propose Trumpstein.
It was dark humor about the frequency of the offense making it less horrifying.
It’s only rape if the rapist is poor. If they are rich, it’s called Republican.
Ftfy
it might even qualify you for president
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.
Were you a minor at the time?
My comment was removed.
Edit: The reason for removal was "pedophile."
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.
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.
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.
Tone and framing change how people react to an idea.
I think doubling down on "everyone on this site is unreasonable" will not help on the tone front.
"Nobody here can see past a number, therefore I will not reconsider my approach because it is impossible I was wrong."
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.
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.
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.
That would be crazy otherwise.
John (17 years and 11 months) and Mary (17 years and 5 months) are in an intimate relationship since 6 months and are sexually active.
John hits his birthday and now they can't have sex for 6 months (otherwise it would be rape).
Law depends on jurisdiction, some have lower ages of consent and some give allowances when the ages are within a couple years of each other.
Like in the coal mines?
Hope you find your way to a healthier place stranger. Get well soon.
It is vulgar to bring whataboutery into a discussion about child rape.
Maybe make another post to do that? You can ask all kinds of things that way to satiate your curiosity.
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.
you need to put the line somewhere
You could also use 2 lines for age gap that keep adjusting based on current age, at least for the lower values.
I guess if you are 30 and want to have sex with an 80 year old, you both know what you're doing at that point.
yeah, we're all horrible, you should move along somewhere else where your views are respected. byes
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.
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.
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.
Why wasn't this guy arrested years ago?
Didn't trump pardon him? Or ask Romania to transfer him to US.
Ircc he was, then released on house arrest, no clue what happened to that cause you know he famously got arrested in Florida recently, and last I checked that ain't Romania. He's probably lining someone's pockets.
I still don't understand why he came to America. He's got to know we have extradition treaties.
I don't know, but he sounds like some people I've met. When I was in Dublin, in a pub, this one Romanian guy proceeded to try and tell a joke... ugh the punchline was "it was womans" and it was good my buddy was there and bought him a pint to shut him up since I was already 10-12 pints deep. If you question that part; there may have been some "smelling salts" and plenty of cigarettes involved. Sorry for the rant it just grinds my gears.
It's well known that a $1,000,000 'donation' to Trump gets the donor a Presidential pardon for anything.
If only there was some way to know!
Both Tates were arrested in Romania in 2022.
There is an arrest warrant out for them in the United Kingdom since 2024.
They were arrested in the United States in 2026 under the extradition request of the UK.
Well Tate has now acquired everything he needs to run for president…
Fucking loser needs to traffick minors to get laid. So "alpha"
I thought "alpha" just meant full of bugs and not fit for production.
I sure hope the Trump administration doesn't try to save these fuckers.
Pedo, grifter, egoistical, bad at money laundering, constantly talks about masculinity and shit while acting like a giant crybaby, entire personality revolves about being perceived as the manliest manly man while looking like an absolute goblin (with expensive tacky clothes on top). Has an IQ lower than his anal temperature in normal units °C.
If you still have no idea whether it's about Tate or Trump... well, that's why I think the Trump administration will definitely try to save these fuckers
Don't give them ideas, a lot of "people" in that administration apparently love to fuck children
If the rumours are true, Andrew Tate is to Baron Trump as Jeffrey Epstein was to Donald Trump.
So maybe Tate's extradition warrant disappears. Or maybe he "hangs himself" in a prison cell. Or maybe he does get extradited because the rumours aren't true or because Trump doesn't give a shit about his children enough to intervene.
Turns out most dudes's cheering on of macho dickheads that take advantage of woman, ends with their own daughters. Who knew? /s
Fuck this guy. First tough guy I've known trying to be hyper masculine that wears woman's blouses, felt I had to add that.
I've worked with a fair share of people that have well, killed lots of people. They looked out for me. This guy is ... I don't know looks and sounds weak? Like he would hide under the blouse at the sound of a shot.
I hear kid molesters have a lot of fun in jail... couldn't happen to a better guy
his anus will be alpha-ed to bloody pulp
I get it and he should totally reap what he sowed.
I think we as a society should not normalize this whole casual talk of prison rape.
I’m not calling you out personally. Please don’t take it that way.
My comment is that incarceration should be about rehabilitation. Our system is not - it’s geared towards punishment. And the whole prison rape talk reinforces that. Not to mention rape in any context is dehumanizing. These shit-ass Tate brothers are evil as fuck but they are human and should be treated as such. IMO a society should be measured by how they treat the most vulnerable - this includes the unhoused, victims, and the incarcerated.
I don’t mean to soapbox here, but I think it’s worth trying to change the conversation when it comes up.
Murder is bad, too.
But I can't say I was upset when Charlie Kirk was killed.
It's absolutely a point that needs reinforcing, but crimes like rape, human trafficking, and slavery are not crimes commited out of necessity. If someone steals food or a small amount of money because they go hungry otherwise, that is absolutely a case where they need help. Those are crimes commited out of a necessity. I think even murder can be a crime of necessity or desperation under the right circumstances. Those people need helped, and do not deserve to be treated the way they do by the justice system in many nations.
But rape, human trafficking, slavery etc. are crimes that are committed out of malice, and malice alone. And those people committing them deserve to experience everything that they did to others. Anything less is insufficient. The only counterargument against it (admittedly a very strong one) is that innocent people also end up behind the same bars.
If someone steals food or a small amount of money because they go hungry otherwise, that is absolutely a case where they need help.
But those people are already victims, and don't need rehab targeting their behavior, neither are they dangerous, just pushed into it by circumstances.
If you have to steal food, you don't belong in prison for that in the first place.
The only counterarguments
I'll add another I think you might agree with.
If someone gets raped in prison, there, necessarily, has to be someone who rapes them. This will likely just be a physically stronger rapist, who on the other hand is even getting some enjoyment from prison. And what's going to happen when that person is released?
I agree on your distinction. However, I don't think that revenge-raping a rapist does any good to anyone or redeem any of the wrong doing. It only creates another rapist.
Punishment should be something that benefits the victims or society.
I can actually see him being accepted by a gang/group or become protected quite easily ngl. Might alread know people inside. Hope he gets shanked a couple times 👌
Something tells me a guy like Tate would have a bad time in a Romanian prison.
"Our clients continue to reject the allegations against them. They have the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to properly examine the evidence relied upon against them and the right to mount an effective defense."
(...Prosecution plays video of Tate openly and repeatedly admitting to every single charge, in detail...)
Rates lawyers: "Oh. Umm. Yeah, that. We can explain."


top 100 comments