3 ms·
is the intended point here that it is okay to sexually abuse 16 year olds, so everything is fine—but 15 year olds are right out? or... what?
by mh2266 7mo ago
is the intended point here that it is okay to sexually abuse 16 year olds, so everything is fine—but 15 year olds are right out? or... what?
- dyauspitr 7mo agoIf it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. It’s the law.
- mh2266 7mo agook, but it wasn't consensual?
- dyauspitr 7mo agoThen he should be in jail. Unless they mean it is statutory even though she gave consent (since she was 15 and underage). Then it would be consensual if she was 16.
- mh2266 7mo agoI don't understand the purpose of writing multiple comments about the age of consent on a thread that is unambiguously about sexual assault. It wouldn't matter if she was 40 years old!
- dyauspitr 7mo agoThe point I’m trying to make is it’s called sexual assault automatically if the person is underage. Even if it was consensual. If it was a 40 year old it would just be called consensual sex.
- mmooss 7mo ago> If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. That's not obvious to me. For example, would it be fine for a rich, powerful 40 year old to sleep with a 16 year old? Given the power inbalance, is consent really possible? > It’s the law. Lots of very not 'fine' things are legal.
- hacker161 7mo ago[flagged]
- Larrikin 7mo agoThe intended point is to troll various forums with bots or shills to make the Epstein files seem less bad by saying it is ok for adults to have sex with children.