heart-shaped sunglasses

[phamos]

I. Am. HORRIFIED.

Oh, was the 10-year-old wearing a thong? Well, then, yeah, it's TOTALLY fine for those grown men to rape her twice.

What is WRONG with people?!?

Comments

OMG!

[carbonatedbabe.livejournal.com]

Gross. I read this whole article. I can't believe it...

Re: OMG!

[phamos818.livejournal.com]

What's grossing me out even more is that there are people on wtf_inc and stupid_free that don't see anything wrong with this. Apparently the line between libertarian and pervert is slimmer than I had previously realized.

Re: OMG!

[carbonatedbabe.livejournal.com]

I shared this story with my cousin Richard. Richard didn't get it. He said the little girl was "advertising." That's not the point. Where was the mother? Surely the child's mother could have supervised the girl's wardrobe and the girl's comings and goings. Children need guidance.

[muridae.livejournal.com]

Wait, so let me get this straight. Their defense is basically that she looked like she was 16, so it was okay to rape her?

I suppose that makes more sense if you're a psychopath.

[amityonfire.livejournal.com]

wow. i don't even know what to say. the part about compensation being used to buy a sex abuse victim a bicycle to "cheer her up" is a particularly revolting detail.

[murderousclouds.livejournal.com]

This article confuses the hell out me. IIRC, in the UK, there's still two kinds of rape: the type where one person doesn't give consent (rape), and the type where someone is too young to consent regardless of what they say or do (statutory rape).

"Lawyers for the defendants stressed that the sex had been consensual" but there's no comment from the Crown (the prosecution). So, shitty journalism.

Is it still a crime? Yes. Are they serving time for it? Yes. Is it hideously sickening for two men to have sex with a person they thought to be legal age? ... Probably not.

But did they really think she was of legal age? Did she actually look 16? ... Probably not.

If it's any consolation, they'll be marked as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Their lives, as they knew them, are over.

I hope the kid did give her consent, for her sake. But this article doesn't say one way or the other.

[phamos818.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was also confused by the fact that they didn't specify rape or statutory rape. I just feel bad for the poor girl. Regardless of whether she "consented" or not, she's obviously very troubled -- she's apparently been in foster care. I would venture a guess that this was not the first time she's been sexually abused, either. Ugh, the whole thing just makes me so sad.

I was a very mature-looking child. I know a friend of my sister's thought I was 19 when I was 12. So it can definitely be a fine line. But still - 10? REALLY??

[murderousclouds.livejournal.com]

I had pretty much the same thought: If she consented, she has to be a survivor of previous abuse.

I really don't know how someone can confuse 10 for 16. Even if they did, given the day and age, why would anyone even take the chance? It's not like ID is a hard item to come by or check.

[magpiegirl.livejournal.com]

That's a very upsetting story. :-(

Have you read this one (http://www.slate.com/id/2168758/) about how that Nebraska judge banned the word "rape" from being used during a rape trial?

[phamos818.livejournal.com]

For the record, the accuser is refusing to go along with the judge's ban. Because she is AWESOME. Seriously, good for her.

[phamos818.livejournal.com]

I don't quite understand the logic here -- he thinks that using the word "rape" in a rape trial would bias the jury into potentially thinking the woman was raped? Isn't that sort of the whole point of rape trials? Are you not allowed to say "murder" in a murder trial, because murder hasn't yet been proven? Are lawyers now supposed to do their whole closing statements in interpretive dance, or potentially through a very graphic game of Pictionary?