- Joined
- Feb 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,897
Oh wow. Just because she says she was “happy” doesn’t mean she wasn’t being groomed/abused/manipulated. And she probably is “fine” now and why would she want to confide in you these 15 years later?
She probably did actually love this man because he told her all the beautiful things and probably bought her stuff and hopefully didn’t also beat her.
Not knowing what a loving mature relationship is - because you’re under the age of consent - if this guy seemingly “cared about” her and whatever probably did cause her to fall in love with him.
That does not mean she was not victimized or further that she was not “raped”.
The term Statutory means just that, “by statute”. E.g., no matter all the other causes, (i love him, we consented, I was enthusiastic...), if you are under the age of consent, you CANNOT consent. Therefore, you were unconsentually victimized by someone over the age of consent.
What about the parents who have sex with their children. The children ”love” their parent. Think this is normal love. Don’t think they are “unhappy”. It’s still wrong. And illegal. For a reason.
If a “child” can not he held liable for things like the Columbia records offers in the 70s/80s (“for a penny, get 10 records (but then buy 12 more at regular price over two years)”) because they are under the age of consent (i.e, entering into a legal contract), EVEN IF they loved the music, “consented” to the terms, enthusiastically received and played the records. Why should it be any different when it’s a relationship?
Minors cannot enter into contracts, or give consent. That’s why it is “Statutory” rape. You don’t need a reason other than one party is over the age of consent and the other is not.
She probably did actually love this man because he told her all the beautiful things and probably bought her stuff and hopefully didn’t also beat her.
Not knowing what a loving mature relationship is - because you’re under the age of consent - if this guy seemingly “cared about” her and whatever probably did cause her to fall in love with him.
That does not mean she was not victimized or further that she was not “raped”.
The term Statutory means just that, “by statute”. E.g., no matter all the other causes, (i love him, we consented, I was enthusiastic...), if you are under the age of consent, you CANNOT consent. Therefore, you were unconsentually victimized by someone over the age of consent.
What about the parents who have sex with their children. The children ”love” their parent. Think this is normal love. Don’t think they are “unhappy”. It’s still wrong. And illegal. For a reason.
If a “child” can not he held liable for things like the Columbia records offers in the 70s/80s (“for a penny, get 10 records (but then buy 12 more at regular price over two years)”) because they are under the age of consent (i.e, entering into a legal contract), EVEN IF they loved the music, “consented” to the terms, enthusiastically received and played the records. Why should it be any different when it’s a relationship?
Minors cannot enter into contracts, or give consent. That’s why it is “Statutory” rape. You don’t need a reason other than one party is over the age of consent and the other is not.
300x240.png)