Poll of the Day > Alanis Morissette makes Staturory Rape Allegations...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zangulus posted...

I mean, how badly did I bruise your ego that you're on 10 post trampleathon trying to come up with some way just to insult me and being so bad at it?

"If i just pretend it isn't true everyone MUST believe it!!"

and telling the truth isn't an insult. i don't need to make a fool out of you, you do that enough yourself, barney.

---

---

lmao, kimbo was so desperate to try and change the conversation from him thinking child rape is ok he brought up completely unrelated stuff about a different poster

---

helIy posted...

lmao, kimbo was so desperate to try and change the conversation from him thinking child rape is ok he brought up completely unrelated stuff about a different poster

After having his morality questioned....

---

helIy posted...

lmao, kimbo was so desperate to try and change the conversation from him thinking child rape is ok he brought up completely unrelated stuff about a different poster

Again, please show me where i said child rape is okay.

And you think me bringing up "unrelated stuff" when i'm being accused of supporting having sex with children by a guy who literally got arrested for driving drunk, and didn't give a shit about people who he could have hurt, and you think thats unrelated huh?

---

Kimbos_Egg posted...

she wasn't Statutory raped

---

Do you understand what that term means?

Here let me help you.

"Statutory rape is a crime that involves sexual contact with a person who is under an age specified by law, commonly referred to as the "age of consent."

The law of consent at the time was 14 in canada. There for he did not commit a crime at that time as she was 15, a year older than the limit.

So again, me pointing out reality = i support it? Is that right? Or do you really just not understand such complicated words such as "crime" and "law"?

Okay, well let me make it abundantly clear for you. I do not think the age of consent should be so low. I think 16 for people around the age, 18 for everyone else like in the uk. I do not think having sex with children is an okay thing for an adult to do.

Are you satisfied now you've been educated?

---

OhhhJa posted...

Why is zangulus always so angry? Lol

probably drunk
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Imagine thinking it's ok for grown men to have sex with 15-year-olds if it's legal. Fucking sickos.

if it's legal, then it wouldn't be statutory rape
---

Zangulus posted...

I think the best part about these "It wasn't illegal" hot takes is that the law was written by people so they could fuck children. And here it's being defended...

Hmm, like minds?

Got a source for that?
---

Kimbos_Egg posted...

No. she wasn't forced. She admitted she wasn't. And by the law at the time she "consented".

Do you believe that multiple older men are having "consensual" sex with a 15 year old in good faith?

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if it's legal, then it wouldn't be statutory rape

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it is statutory rape. Statutory rape is a legal term. Rape is an action. (Some) people are saying she was raped.

Crime or not, a 15 year old is a child, and any adult fucking a child is a creep who deserves to be castrated and exiled to a leper colony

---

Zangulus posted...

What an interesting hot take from someone that groomed their underage wife...

They have similar shit takes in that other topic about the 60 year old marrying the 20 year old she met when he was 15

Go figure

Amazing the amount of people who defend this shit on this board

---

Confirmation bias at work, Zang

---

Clench281 posted...

"it was legal back then so that means it's okay"

Yes because the law always determines what is and is not deemed socially acceptable, and certainly not the other way around, right?

It does tend to have some degree of influence on what's considered socially acceptable at the time, but that doesn't mean we can't look back at this and say "dude banged a 15-year-old what a creep."

---

Zangulus posted...

Want to show me where in history it was common for teenagers to make laws regarding who can fuck them? I guarantee you won't be able to find it. While yes, I am extrapolating their intentions... you really can't argue that it wasn't so. There's literally no other reason for the rulers to make it so 14 year olds could be fucked.

So an opinion. Got it.
---

VioletMassacre posted...

I find it interesting that the article makes it sound like she was basically convinced in therapy that shes a victim. Its not specified why she went there in the first place.

With that said, even though she wasnt actually raped its obvious that she was at least taken advantage of. I presume all these men were in a position of power over her so its clearly wrong even if it wasnt illegal age wise. Its more a grooming problem.

Im all for exposing powerful men taking advantage of young folk, shes just going at it the wrong way calling things they arent.

you don't consider grooming, or people using their power to have sex with people, including children, "actually rape"?

Fam_Fam posted...

you don't consider grooming, or people using their power to have sex with people, including children, "actually rape"?

no because he literally did that with his current wife

---

"It's not rape if you gradually manipulate them into saying 'yes'!"

---

what's the difference between "gradually manipulating" and "gradually convincing them to go out with you?" tv shows love doing that.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

what's the difference between "gradually manipulating" and "gradually convincing them to go out with you?" tv shows love doing that.

In this case (and most other examples of grooming), the most salient difference is the age/power dynamic. Even if the culprit isn't outright banging somebody that would be illegal to bang, being in a position of authority allows them to build trust in a way that isn't really consensual and ultimately manipulate the victim into sex/relationships.

That said, as much as TV shows love doing the "convince them to go out with you" thing, there isn't actually that much difference. If you're trying to convince somebody, you're not taking no for an answer, and that's not a healthy way to approach consent. It's not completely black and white and there are countless examples of people changing their minds and ending up in perfectly healthy relationships (I actually friendzoned my now-girlfriend ~3 weeks before I changed my mind and realized I did in fact want to date her, and we've been happily together for 4.5 years now), but TV and movies have a tendency to romanticize persistence in a way that encourages some unhealthy attitudes toward consent and rejection.

---

VioletMassacre posted...

No, because rape literally means that you're forcing them to have sex, or do it with someone who's unconscious or sleeping. I don't understand why this is such a controversial take.

Do you feel that grooming results in consensual sex?

---

OMG you guys you realize statutory rape doesn't mean they were actually forced to have sex it's just a legal term in which it means it's technically rape because the younger party cannot actually consent to the sexual act.

However because the age of consent placed her within the bounds of legality, it was not in fact statutory rape.

Also I like that in the article it says it took her years of therapy to convince her that she actually was a victim and that they were actually all pedophiles, what even is this horse shit?

Also what's that rule about trying to apply modern day laws to people in the past?

---

VioletMassacre posted...

No, because rape literally means that you're forcing them to have sex, or do it with someone who's unconscious or sleeping. I don't understand why this is such a controversial take.

there are some kinks where they agree beforehand to do that
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

there are some kinks where they agree beforehand to do that

Weird porn isn't real life.
---

deoxxys posted...

OMG you guys you realize statutory rape doesn't mean they were actually forced to have sex it's just a legal term in which it means it's technically rape because the younger party cannot actually consent to the sexual act.

However because the age of consent placed her within the bounds of legality, it was not in fact statutory rape.

Also I like that in the article it says it took her years of therapy to convince her that she actually was a victim and that they were actually all pedophiles, what even is this horse shit?

Also what's that rule about trying to apply modern day laws to people in the past?

Plus, even if the AoC was high enough that the act in a vacuum would not be statutory, the legal situation could have still made it statutory

---

If your kink is rape or rape-like (id est - an adult raping a 15 year old child, or raping an unconscious person) you're a fucking creep who should be sterilized and shipped to a leper colony

As Clench pointed out:

Clench281 posted...

Yes because the law always determines what is and is not deemed socially acceptable, and certainly not the other way around, right?

If someone proposed I "pretend rape" them by entering their room in the middle of the night and having my way with them while they slept, I'd nope right the fuck out of there because I'm not a lunatic who indulges in rape fantasy. Same reason I don't lust after teenaged girls. It's that simple.


---

I'm so glad most of you don't have contact with females. This is troubling.

---

VioletMassacre posted...

Well, yes, but no? I still wouldn't consider it rape if the person has just been persuaded to do it. I'm not sure what other word to use, but here we make a distinction by calling it, literally translated, "taking advantage of sexually" which isn't as loaded as the word "rape".

"Rape" simply means sex that isn't consensual. There are varying degrees of severity of that, but ultimately, the fact that it's a loaded term really isn't a bad thing because non-consensual sex is always a bad thing. If you're hesitating to call grooming "rape" because it's something you didn't think was all that bad, that should give you cause to take a step back and reevaluate that position. That's not something anyone should ever be doing, and trying to excuse it by saying "at least it's not forcible rape" fails to hold them accountable for that.

---

If it helps, that's what describing rape as "statutory" effectively does: Identifies that it's not exactly the same, but warrants a similar legal penalty because it's also bad for pretty much all of the same reasons.

---

In my mind, "statutory rape" means "it's not technically rape the way we normally define it, but it needs to be illegal for the same reasons, so we made it illegal." The word "statutory" basically just means "against the rules," so you can interpret the term as "it counts as rape because the rules said so." That's not exactly a logically robust justification on its own, but you can start asking the question of whether or not the rules should say so, and it's generally pretty easy to arrive at an affirmative answer for that.

---

Blah, I hate getting serious, but whatever.

Look we need to stop calling non-rape things, rape. It's WRONG to have sex with someone who is still developing as a person and is much younger than you. If you don't force that person to have sex though, it shouldn't be called rape. There is a huge difference between having sex with a willing 16 year old, and raping her.

AoC also confuses everything because it varies. It's illegal in some places to have sex with a 16 year old when your 30, and legal other places. In my opinion it's wrong to do so anywhere (and makes you a creep).

That being said there are tons of girls under 18 who are very sexually active and I know of quite a few cases where girls that young tried to pretend to be older (and sometimes succeded) in order to sleep with a friend of mine who was in a band along time ago.

As far as grooming, especially if your in a parental or teaching roll, that is even more wrong (obviously). If your goal is to prepare a young person under the age of consent to have sex with you after they reach it (or before it) and you are significantly older and/or in a position of power over them, I plain out consider you a monster. That is seriously screwed up. You are taking advantage of someone who looks up to you, possibly depends on you, and could have a large impact on their future relationships/sex life etc.

Most places with a lower AoC still say it's illegal for teachers or other people in positions of power/authority etc to sleep with people under 18 etc (and often over 18 if a student etc even).

Just because something is legal though, doesn't make it morally right. If you think sleeping with children is ok (and no, i'm not talking about pedophilia or children who have not reached puberty), there is something wrong with you. If a child (someone under 18) looks older then 18 and fools you, then it's on them, but if your actively trying to sleep with people under 18 and your over 21, you are sick.

---