Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tommyGunZ

Karl Malone is a "rapist"?

261 posts in this topic

Interested to get Pick's take on this after he's been so outspoken on Kobe the past couple of years. :)

Famous dad a footnote in Bell's life

Published on April 29, 2008

Author: Allen Wilson - NEWS SPORTS REPORTER

© The Buffalo News Inc.

If you're a fan of NBA great Karl Malone, you might change your mind when you start reading this column.

If you never heard of Buffalo Bills rookie offensive tackle Demetrius Bell, you'll be rooting for him when I tell you his story.

Bell was a seventh-round draft pick and two-year starter at Northwestern State, the same Louisiana school that produced cornerback Terrence McGee.

Bell is the son of Malone, but the Mailman had no role in Bell's success except passing along athletic genes.

The two have had very little contact during Bell's life. His mother, Gloria Bell, reportedly was only 13 years old and Malone a college sophomore at Louisiana Tech when Demetrius was born. Malone might have served jail time had her family asked the district attorney to file criminal charges. Bell didn't even know Malone was his father until after graduating from high school. When they finally met, Malone told the 18-year-old Bell it was too late to be his father, and that Bell would have to "earn his money on his own."

In a 1998 story in the Salt Lake (Utah) Tribune, Gloria Bell said, "Demetrius is ashamed that his dad doesn't claim him. But I've told him it is not his fault."

Malone also fathered twins while in high school. One of them is WNBA star Cheryl Ford. It took years to claim the twins, and now he and his wife, Kay, fully accept them as part of their family.

But what about Demetrius? Doesn't he deserve the same measure of love and recognition?

I can certainly relate to Bell's experience. I didn't meet my father until after my 40th birthday. Our separation was under different circumstances, but I can imagine how difficult it must have been for Bell not having a connection with the man partly responsible for his existence. At least my father and I have a relationship now.

As a first-time father, I can't understand how any man could turn his back on his own blood. There's a word for that, and it's appropriate: Deadbeat.

Fortunately for Bell, he's doing just fine without Malone. Bell has clearly moved on with his life.

"All of that's behind me right now," Bell said during a conference call Sunday. "I feel good I made it this far. Nothing against him, but I feel good at this time. If he would've been there, yeah, it would've been good. But if not, it's even better. Everything is a plus right now."

Bell has come a long way as a football player in a short time. His high school didn't have a football team, so he focused on basketball and was good enough to earn a scholarship to Northwestern State. He played in 88 games, with six starts, and was one of four Division I athletes to play basketball and football last season.

Bell didn't play offensive tackle until three weeks before the 2006 season opener at Kansas. That was the first of his 22 consecutive starts over the last two years.

Whether Bell will stick with the Bills remains to be seen. Seventh-round picks are the long shots on a preseason roster. But a player of his athletic ability deserves a good look.

"I've still got room for everything," Bell said. "I think my strongest part is pass blocking. But I'm getting stronger by the moment. That's a plus on my stopping the bull rush. Run-blocking is always getting better when I'm adding bulk and getting stronger. And technique-wise, it's all about the coach teaching me his technique or what technique he wants. I think it's all on the upside."

Here's hoping Bell has a long and prosperous NFL career. He might never be as great in his sport as Malone was in his, but Bell has already surpassed his father as a man.

e-mail: awilson@buffnews.com

Pick, what say you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this makes Kobe any less of a rapist.

And the Padres are ####### horrendous. Change your sig already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

Paying no child support is a total dirtbag move (assuming the kid is actually his, which there isn't a ton of back up for), especially when you're a top 50 all time NBA player.

Karl did finish his career as a Laker. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this makes Kobe any less of a rapist.And the Padres are ####### horrendous. Change your sig already.

I'm in no way a Kobe fan, but I really doubt he raped that maid. Had sex with, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard about this one earlier. Go Bills!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
The reason we classify statutory rape as rape and not "statutory love making" is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist." I'm fine with any distinctions being made in the sentencing guidelines, not the semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.
I don't think i can fit "statutory" in the subtitle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
The reason we classify statutory rape as rape is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist."
No, we don't "acknowledge" that the young person's consent doesn't matter. We create a legal fiction that the young person's consent doesn't matter. And what damage are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.
The sex need not be forced for it to be rape, it needs to be non consensual...Sex with a 13 year old by an 18 year old is non consensual b/c a 13 year old cannot legally consent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.
The sex need not be forced for it to be rape, it needs to be non consensual...Sex with a 13 year old by an 18 year old is non consensual b/c a 13 year old cannot legally consent...
:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we classify statutory rape as rape and not "statutory love making" is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist." I'm fine with any distinctions being made in the sentencing guidelines, not the semantics.

rape1 –noun

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

rap·ist

n. One who commits rape.

Nice to see someone could make a post more wrong than mine. Thanks Mr. Ham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
The reason we classify statutory rape as rape is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist."
No, we don't "acknowledge" that the young person's consent doesn't matter. We create a legal fiction that the young person's consent doesn't matter.

And what damage are you talking about?

Are you serious? Psychological. Sex, especially with adults, introduces emotional realities beyond a child's maturity level. Consent really doesn't matter. It's rape. I'd go as far as to say that most, if not all, children who have sexual encounters with adults carry deep emotional scars that interfere with their abilities to lead productive lives. Look at Mindy McCreedy, Clemens' consensual girlfriend from the age of 13. Pretty typical I'd wager. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290863,00.html

Usually starts with some ######## who thinks it's a legal fiction to call it rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.
The sex need not be forced for it to be rape, it needs to be non consensual...Sex with a 13 year old by an 18 year old is non consensual b/c a 13 year old cannot legally consent...
:popcorn:
Good comeback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we classify statutory rape as rape and not "statutory love making" is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist." I'm fine with any distinctions being made in the sentencing guidelines, not the semantics.

rape1 –noun

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

rap·ist

n. One who commits rape.

Nice to see someone could make a post more wrong than mine. Thanks Mr. Ham.

There are many ways to force sex on someone, not all of them physical. Which is why the law protects children from adults who attempt to influence them in any way, shape or manner to have intercourse. Fortunately, this is classified as rape and those who have sex with children are committing rape. Therefore, rapists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two have had very little contact during Bell's life. His mother, Gloria Bell, reportedly was only 13 years old and Malone a college sophomore at Louisiana Tech when Demetrius was born

So she was possibly as young as 12 years old when Malone had sex with her and people are arguing about the term "rapist?" How about child molester? Is that a fitting term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two have had very little contact during Bell's life. His mother, Gloria Bell, reportedly was only 13 years old and Malone a college sophomore at Louisiana Tech when Demetrius was born

So she was possibly as young as 12 years old when Malone had sex with her and people are arguing about the term "rapist?" How about child molester? Is that a fitting term?
No. You see, it's totally fine as long as she was into it. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we classify statutory rape as rape and not "statutory love making" is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist." I'm fine with any distinctions being made in the sentencing guidelines, not the semantics.

rape1 –noun

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

rap·ist

n. One who commits rape.

Nice to see someone could make a post more wrong than mine. Thanks Mr. Ham.

There are many ways to force sex on someone, not all of them physical. Which is why the law protects children from adults who attempt to influence them in any way, shape or manner to have intercourse. Fortunately, this is classified as rape and those who have sex with children are committing rape. Therefore, rapists.
No this is classified as statutory rape, therefore statutory rapists. There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.
The sex need not be forced for it to be rape, it needs to be non consensual...Sex with a 13 year old by an 18 year old is non consensual b/c a 13 year old cannot legally consent...
:shrug:
Good comeback
Your post deserved nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.
The sex need not be forced for it to be rape, it needs to be non consensual...Sex with a 13 year old by an 18 year old is non consensual b/c a 13 year old cannot legally consent...
:shrug:
Good comeback
Your post deserved nothing more.
Keep on fighting the good fight for college sophomores who want to have sex with 13 year oldsYou're doing the Lord's work Christo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
The reason we classify statutory rape as rape is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist."
No, we don't "acknowledge" that the young person's consent doesn't matter. We create a legal fiction that the young person's consent doesn't matter.

And what damage are you talking about?

Are you serious? Psychological. Sex, especially with adults, introduces emotional realities beyond a child's maturity level. Consent really doesn't matter. It's rape. I'd go as far as to say that most, if not all, children who have sexual encounters with adults carry deep emotional scars that interfere with their abilities to lead productive lives. Look at Mindy McCreedy, Clemens' consensual girlfriend from the age of 13. Pretty typical I'd wager. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290863,00.html

Usually starts with some ######## who thinks it's a legal fiction to call it rape.

I can't help it if you don't have the ability to look at it rationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we classify statutory rape as rape and not "statutory love making" is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist." I'm fine with any distinctions being made in the sentencing guidelines, not the semantics.

rape1 –noun

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

rap·ist

n. One who commits rape.

Nice to see someone could make a post more wrong than mine. Thanks Mr. Ham.

There are many ways to force sex on someone, not all of them physical. Which is why the law protects children from adults who attempt to influence them in any way, shape or manner to have intercourse. Fortunately, this is classified as rape and those who have sex with children are committing rape. Therefore, rapists.
No this is classified as statutory rape, therefore statutory rapists. There is a difference.
Would you draw the distinction between a "batterer" and a "sexual batterer" or would you be okay with calling someone just a "batterer?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.
The sex need not be forced for it to be rape, it needs to be non consensual...Sex with a 13 year old by an 18 year old is non consensual b/c a 13 year old cannot legally consent...
:shrug:
Good comeback
Your post deserved nothing more.
Keep on fighting the good fight for college sophomores who want to have sex with 13 year oldsYou're doing the Lord's work Christo
WTF are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
The reason we classify statutory rape as rape is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist."
No, we don't "acknowledge" that the young person's consent doesn't matter. We create a legal fiction that the young person's consent doesn't matter.

And what damage are you talking about?

Are you serious? Psychological. Sex, especially with adults, introduces emotional realities beyond a child's maturity level. Consent really doesn't matter. It's rape. I'd go as far as to say that most, if not all, children who have sexual encounters with adults carry deep emotional scars that interfere with their abilities to lead productive lives. Look at Mindy McCreedy, Clemens' consensual girlfriend from the age of 13. Pretty typical I'd wager. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290863,00.html

Usually starts with some ######## who thinks it's a legal fiction to call it rape.

I can't help it if you don't have the ability to look at it rationally.
Rationally, if you're having sex with anyone under 17, you should consider yourself a rapist. Otherwise, you can expect to pay the price. Circumstances don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we classify statutory rape as rape and not "statutory love making" is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist." I'm fine with any distinctions being made in the sentencing guidelines, not the semantics.

rape1 –noun

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

rap·ist

n. One who commits rape.

Nice to see someone could make a post more wrong than mine. Thanks Mr. Ham.

There are many ways to force sex on someone, not all of them physical. Which is why the law protects children from adults who attempt to influence them in any way, shape or manner to have intercourse. Fortunately, this is classified as rape and those who have sex with children are committing rape. Therefore, rapists.
No this is classified as statutory rape, therefore statutory rapists. There is a difference.
Would you draw the distinction between a "batterer" and a "sexual batterer" or would you be okay with calling someone just a "batterer?"
What is a sexual batterer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
The reason we classify statutory rape as rape is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist."
No, we don't "acknowledge" that the young person's consent doesn't matter. We create a legal fiction that the young person's consent doesn't matter.

And what damage are you talking about?

Are you serious? Psychological. Sex, especially with adults, introduces emotional realities beyond a child's maturity level. Consent really doesn't matter. It's rape. I'd go as far as to say that most, if not all, children who have sexual encounters with adults carry deep emotional scars that interfere with their abilities to lead productive lives. Look at Mindy McCreedy, Clemens' consensual girlfriend from the age of 13. Pretty typical I'd wager. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290863,00.html

Usually starts with some ######## who thinks it's a legal fiction to call it rape.

I can't help it if you don't have the ability to look at it rationally.
Rationally, if you're having sex with anyone under 17, you should consider yourself a rapist. Otherwise, you can expect to pay the price. Circumstances don't matter.
What does this mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this makes Kobe any less of a rapist.And the Padres are ####### horrendous. Change your sig already.

:shrug: WTF kind of logic is "my man crush, is less of a rapist than your's".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's statutory rape

Then that's what the title should say.
Why?
Because there is a fundamental difference between rape and statutory rape. You cry rape and people think the sex was forced. That is not what statutory rape is.
The sex need not be forced for it to be rape, it needs to be non consensual...Sex with a 13 year old by an 18 year old is non consensual b/c a 13 year old cannot legally consent...
:shrug:
Good comeback
Your post deserved nothing more.
Keep on fighting the good fight for college sophomores who want to have sex with 13 year oldsYou're doing the Lord's work Christo
WTF are you talking about?
It's hard not to read your posts here as condoning at worst and sympathetic at best with regard to the conduct in question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God, someone change the title of this thread. Talk about a fishing trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGunz - change the thread title text. There's no mention of rape in the article, only that she was 13 and the parents could have pressed charges for sex with a minor (I'd figure), which they didn't even do.

That's statutory rape
Then that's what the title should say.
The reason we classify statutory rape as rape is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist."
No, we don't "acknowledge" that the young person's consent doesn't matter. We create a legal fiction that the young person's consent doesn't matter.

And what damage are you talking about?

Are you serious? Psychological. Sex, especially with adults, introduces emotional realities beyond a child's maturity level. Consent really doesn't matter. It's rape. I'd go as far as to say that most, if not all, children who have sexual encounters with adults carry deep emotional scars that interfere with their abilities to lead productive lives. Look at Mindy McCreedy, Clemens' consensual girlfriend from the age of 13. Pretty typical I'd wager. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290863,00.html

Usually starts with some ######## who thinks it's a legal fiction to call it rape.

I can't help it if you don't have the ability to look at it rationally.
Rationally, if you're having sex with anyone under 17, you should consider yourself a rapist. Otherwise, you can expect to pay the price. Circumstances don't matter.
What does this mean?
Dump her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have sex with a ten year old, is it statutory rape or another crime (like child molesting)? Does statutory rape cover all cases of sex between legal adults and children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christo and Groovus = dead wrong on this issue. Would you call someone who raped a 2 year old "only" a "statutory" rapist? No (or if you do, you're wrong). Legally, and in the eyes of most people, a 12 year old can not make a rational decision on that. The term rapist applies.

ETA quotes to clarify, hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep on fighting the good fight for college sophomores who want to have sex with 13 year oldsYou're doing the Lord's work Christo

WTF are you talking about?
It's hard not to read your posts here as condoning at worst and sympathetic at best with regard to the conduct in question
Then you should go back and reread them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we classify statutory rape as rape and not "statutory love making" is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist." I'm fine with any distinctions being made in the sentencing guidelines, not the semantics.

rape1 –noun

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

rap·ist

n. One who commits rape.

Nice to see someone could make a post more wrong than mine. Thanks Mr. Ham.

There are many ways to force sex on someone, not all of them physical. Which is why the law protects children from adults who attempt to influence them in any way, shape or manner to have intercourse. Fortunately, this is classified as rape and those who have sex with children are committing rape. Therefore, rapists.
No this is classified as statutory rape, therefore statutory rapists. There is a difference.
Would you draw the distinction between a "batterer" and a "sexual batterer" or would you be okay with calling someone just a "batterer?"
I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

Statutory rape is, well, statutory. It's an arbitrary, legal fiat, saying even if the people involved consent it doesn't matter because one of them doesn't meet some magic age number, which can be different from state to state. I'm not against protecting those who aren't mature enough against becoming sexually active when they aren't ready for it. But I'm also not on board making blanket judgments that someone can't consent solely based on their age, and that someone who has sex with such a consenting person should be held in the same regard as someone who forces someone into having sex with them, regardless of their age. That's lazy thinking and lazy legalese often resulting in unjust penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we agree that if Malone and Nutella were in jail together, we know how that would go? Guy has no street cred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we classify statutory rape as rape and not "statutory love making" is because we acknowledge that young peoples' consent doesn't matter. She could have asked for it. He's still a rapist. The damage is there whether he forced himself on her or not. I'm perfectly fine with the term "rapist." I'm fine with any distinctions being made in the sentencing guidelines, not the semantics.

rape1 –noun

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

rap·ist

n. One who commits rape.

Nice to see someone could make a post more wrong than mine. Thanks Mr. Ham.

There are many ways to force sex on someone, not all of them physical. Which is why the law protects children from adults who attempt to influence them in any way, shape or manner to have intercourse. Fortunately, this is classified as rape and those who have sex with children are committing rape. Therefore, rapists.
No this is classified as statutory rape, therefore statutory rapists. There is a difference.
Would you draw the distinction between a "batterer" and a "sexual batterer" or would you be okay with calling someone just a "batterer?"
I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

Statutory rape is, well, statutory. It's an arbitrary, legal fiat, saying even if the people involved consent it doesn't matter because one of them doesn't meet some magic age number, which can be different from state to state. I'm not against protecting those who aren't mature enough against becoming sexually active when they aren't ready for it. But I'm not also on board making blanket judgments that someone can't consent solely based on their age, and that someone who has sex with such a consenting person should be held in the same regard as someone who forces someone into having sex with them, regardless of their age. That's lazy thinking and lazy legalese often resulting in unjust penalties.

The statute is an assumption. If you have sex with someone underage, due to lack of maturity it is assumed that the sex was forced. Are there execeptions, say a guy who is 18 and his girlfriend who turns 18 tomorrow? Sure, but I personally like the assumption that it is forced sex as a rule. The burden should rightly be on the offender to prove that the sex was not forced, not the other way around. Circumstances and age do tend to play in these cases. If I had a 12 yo daughter and a 19 year old had sex with her, I'd insist that regardless of my daughter's consent it was rape. And that's precisely what I'd consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.