LogFAQs > #972901326

yusiko posted...

it honestly doesnt matter if you wouldnt consider what she did rape
rape by deception is a real thing and so what she did fits the actual definition

she lied to get a man to sleep with her who would never have consented had she not lied
blatant example of rape by deception. he did not give fully informed consent

So I was looking into the legal definition and found this:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape
It's a short read but the relevant part to this topic is

Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with individual state statutes.

So my take on that statement is basically "the minor is never in the wrong" which sounds good on paper but as we see here it is still abusable. Not gonna deep dive into what each state defines as consent but the one in question sounds like it aligns with the FBI's. Not that the judge in this cares about legality, or rape even. He just wanted to flex his viewpoints because he can.