OK, it's statutory rape, but it's not rape. Again, they're not the same thing, they have different definitions.

No because I'm not wrong there is an age of consent for a reason.

You don’t speak for everyone that lived in the seventies, next you will be saying there was no groupies.

So not going to take your experiences as life in the seventies.

Statutory rape definition: Sex with a minor. Exactly what I said.

Rape definition is different, adults can be raped.

i don't speak for everyone, i speak for the law being the same then as it is now, no if's, no but's

Being willing and happy to have sex at 15 is very different from being forced to have sex at 15.

And a sentence will take the facts into account.

Burglary comes with a very different sentence to burglary with force.

I know !

I said that ages ago ... I’m saying that in those cases the parents should have been with them ..

Are you being deliberately obtuse ?


Would you leave your 13 yr old / 15 yr daughters alone with ANY stranger let alone a bladdy rock stars with reputations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The law was the same but people’s mindsets were different.

Even words that were acceptable then are considered as someone being racist now.

The law calls it statutory rape.

It's rape.

Like I said upthread, I think there are blurred lines in this case. I'd concede that there's an argument to be made for making a term for statutory rape in cases where it wasn't grooming or forced, but it should still be punished.

No it isn't, it's statutory rape. That's two words, rape is one word. And it has a different definition.

So? What point is it you’re actually trying to make here?

That this wasn't rape.

I don't get why you're getting so hung up on it though? You said you think its disgusting etc so why spend the whole thread arguing about the semantics? She was underage, it was illegal. This is why people think you are defending it....it feels like you are trying to make it more palatable

I'm not hung up, I'm just replying to posters who are trying to tell me I'm wrong. I'm absolutely cool as a cucumber.

Dia please check the first post
Rae now older stated these words

[As she rises to leave she says:

'This is my story. I can only tell it as I see it.
This is my truth. Yes, I was only 15.
But it was my body, my choice, my decision.']

If it was all statutory rape , you would not get people be charged with, sex with some one under the age of consent.

It happens a lot on here, when a member of the opposition sex to the the person in the thread title gives there opinion on the case that is not the same as everyone else, they get grief from others on here claiming they are defending the person responsible for a crime.

Same as if a man gives his opinion on sexism, he must be sexist because he is a man.

Or its because they're arguing about the semantics of peadophilia :shrug:

Mick Jagger ****ed someone who was under age, it doesn't matter if the girl was willing, she was underage and could not give consent. I'd argue the same if it was a female teacher who'd done the same with a teenage boy.

You can white wash it I’m afraid it’s a crime but it falls into a different category.

Having sex with someone who is under age is wrong but even in the eyes of the law it’s falls into different categories depending on the circumstances of each case.

Its statutory rape. Why are people so adamant it isnt....

You can kill someone and it’s not always classed as murder.

You're comment read that the parents were partly to blame.

I stand by my opinion. They arent. The victim isnt either.

Its 2 different crimes so that's a pretty poor comparison

Because it’s not, people are charged with, having sex with someone under the age of consent or cohersing a minor into having sex.

Both of those are statutory rape.