oh sorry. I just realized again that this thread is in the political section.

It's not supposed to make sense.

If you're just posing a question, then you're ignoring the answers you're getting.

Let's put it this way, if you saw girl of any age who was dressed provocatively, would you rape her with 18 of your friends? Cause that's the story. Is that the course of action a normally functioning individual takes? Is that the kind of person who should be roaming around to eventually "get mislead" by any other girl who's dressed a certain way?

Really guy, you're talking about preventing forest fires by getting rid of forests. The guy who lit the fire sure thought burning the tree was a good idea, maybe it's the trees' fault for looking so flammable...

More missing the point of what people are saying.

Are you people truly this moronic in real life?

Read the thread over again while not being partial. It is an obvious Troll bait thread mixed with bashing the political party that the OP is opposed to.

If we are going to assume things and imagine things to put in each others mouths, do we really care about this little girl or how to protect others like her? I get the feeling that most of you could honestly care less. you care more for forwarding whatever agenda or bashing those who don't believe as you do.

Some people are putting actual thought into responding and trying to figure out what may have happened and I'm seeing some of the most ignorant 'if somebody jumped off a bridge, would you?' type answers.

HAHA I see where you are comming from CHAZZ don't fret you are not alone. I completely agree with you and understand the way you are looking at that senario. It is hard to explain something or try to further understand something when someone is so blinded by the grotesque nature of the deed. It follows a pattern if you were to add anything to the original story about the girl, the worst part about the story would always be the part everyone picks out to quote. For example

Story #1: A young lady was raped today.
People's reaction: It's never ok to rape someone.

Story #2: A young lady was raped today. She happened to be 11 years old.
People's reaction: I can't believe they raped an 11 year old.

Story #3: A young lady was raped today. She happened to be 11 years old and mentally handicapped.
People's reaction: How disturbing they raped the mentally ill.

Im going to post something controversial here but this is an example, to me, of a NEVER statement not being true.

Everything that is illegal is not WRONG(or even never right) anymore than everything that is legla is right(or even never wrong).

The legal definitions of RAPE include one that is based SOLELY in age and not circumstances. In those cases , it may indeed not have been 'wrong'(by modern standards) ,,,just illegal.

We can say it is wrong to break the laws, absolutely. But I think the detail of what one KNOWS plays a significant part in how 'wrong' it is. IT is illegal to accept stolen goods, and indeed if one KNOWS they are stolen it is also wrong. But that same action DOES take on a different aspect if the person accepting them has no awareness that they were stolen. In the case of 'statuatory' rape, in my opinion, the same thing happens.

Rape is one of those things that is very hard to pinpoint except in cases of extreme force because it requires the 'suspect' to be informed of certain information few are such as; biological age and emotional feelings and consentual capabilities of the other person, such as in cases where the victim doesnt know for days themself if what happened was rape....yet the 'suspect' was supposed to be aware of a violation against her that SHE wasnt even aware of at the time(Kobe Bryant rings to mind).

Rape is a nasty word , kind of like racist, that gets tossed around alot without consideration of the details.

Let me fix those for you.

Story #1: A young lady was raped today.
Chazz's reaction: Well maybe they wouldn't have raped her if she wasn't dressed like a prostitute.

Story #2: A young lady was raped today. She happened to be 11 years old.
Chazz's reaction: Well maybe they wouldn't have raped her if they knew how old she was.

Story #3: A young lady was raped today. She happened to be 11 years old and mentally handicapped.
Chazz's reaction: Well, maybe they wouldn't have done it if they knew she was handicapped.

That's essentially the differentiation that Chazz is making.

Even if the 11 year old girl was dressed like a hooker, is the correct reaction to rape her? Of course not, and I assume you don't think it is either. An 11 year old who doesn't know how to dress their self isn't the real problem, it's the adult who thinks it's okay to rape people.

explain why it is 'rape' if the girl is 14 but not if she is 18, for example

While I agree it is never right to FORCE yourself on someone, that is not the whole and only legal definition of the word RAPE. This article doesnt imply force was used , so why is it so terrible to ask more about the details?

explain what about the ACTION is ANY DIFFERENT to the person accused

when there is NO actual force and NO indication from the victim at the time that they were disinterested in the sex?

how do we get to a point to actually consider that with the same contempt as FORCEFUL rapes or rapes of victims where they are KNOWN to be underaged?

The common sense thing here would be no one ever has the right to put their hands ..or any part of their body on, around or near anyone else unless asked to.

Our world is a reflection of us....

I got lost... did the poor girl get raped because she SUPPORTED the bill, or because she was OPPOSING it?

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

I don't think any real adult thinks it's okay to rape people, at any age, sex, IQ or religious conviction.

But they do.

Why? I don't know. They are sickos. They know they're going to hurt a soul, and mar her bliss and the potential for her to feel happy and contended for the rest of her life. They know that, they know it's wrong, and they still do it.

I haven't met even just one rapist who thought rape was okay.

It is the next vilemost crime after murder.

But people do it, despite being 100 percent convinced that it is wrong to do that.

It's like don't tell me, please, that no abortion doctor or woman who asks herself to get scraped sometimes don't feel a pang of guilt.

They always feel a pang of guilt.

Maybe they say to themselves "it's okay, it's only the fundamentalist psychos who are so rabidly against my way of making a buck", but still, when they pull out chunks of a human body, of a yet unborn baby, with the parts steaming in the airconditioned cool of the operating theatre, and the flesh jiggling on the razor-edged spoon, and the blood stench fills and stings their souls and their eyes... and their beating hearts, then don't tell me they feel so very cool still.

It's like working at the abattoir or abbatoire; everyone likes steaks, but nobody is willing to be the one who shoots the removable bullet into the cow's brains. Those guys (it's always guys) who do that job crack up in maximum two years, and spend the rest of their lifetime in a closed ward for mentally deranged people, even though they started their lives and would have continued a sproductive, happy, bright people, only if it weren't for the abbattoire job.

Alot of people do things they know are 'wrong'
People hurt others all the time with no regard to how it affects their lives. Self gratification, selfishness and greed will be the
demise of humanity....we all know that, yet it goes on and on and on and on and on....

It may indeed be true that this particular child was inviting men to have sex with her. But it was rape, still, even if consensual.

It was rape, despite no hard feelings, because forty billion other eleven-year-olds would have suffered terribly given the same thing to them.

We make laws to enforce a code of behaviour. Sometimes the code is ill-fitting, so we make provisions in the law. Thus, we may first start out, as an example, that having sex with a woman who is under twenty-nine years of age, and not married, is rape. But it is not rape if she consents, some say and insist, so the law is changed to say that it is not rape, if the woman agrees. Then some say that under a certain age, say 13, the body is not biologically ready to receive a dong, and the mind is not developed to say "no" convincingly if that is what the subject wants to say.

So the law is changed again, to say it's rape if an unmarried woman has sex, but only if she does not want to have sex, unless she's under 13.

But further subdivisication would be futile.

If one 11-year-old girl is okay with having sex with eighteen handsome men, and five hundred million other eleven-year-olds are not, then we either could change the law, or else not change the law and say that we won't change it, because "this is already a gray area, we can't make the law, each law, differentiated for as little as 0.0009 percent of the population. There is no reason to change a law just because there is no damage done to one person out of ten million people, while the rest of the ten million feels damaged or would feel damaged with the same treatment."

So yes, it is conceivable that she was not raped in the sense that she asked for it, literally, that is, she wanted it and said so.

But for the sake of this case alone, because it is so very rare, we can't change the law. If we did, then other girls' rapists could get away, if they could prove (and all they would need is a good lawyer) that the girl was willing and literally asking them to do it to her.

You see, sometimes the law is to benefit everyone; but sometimes laws are made to protect people from lawyers.

I dont think anyone in this thread thinks otherwise.

but the question of being 'raped' doesnt boil down to whether or not someone was 'asked to' and thats the only distinction being made,,,

i don't know msharmony...after reading this thread, I have to say there are some distored views on this. Not so simple as keeping your hands to yourself to some...

it truly isnt, when the 'attraction' runs two ways and the interest in taking it to a physical place does too

but the legal definition of 'rape' does not take that into account unless both are over 18 in many cases, and perhaps it should

I think that is the alternate position being taken in these threads,,

A 11 year old girl was gang raped by 18 thugs. Those who participated in it should have their manhood cut off with a rusty pair of scissors. Thats all that should be said in this thread.

yeah, more violence....that's been working out real goooood for us!

Hey, it's 18 people the world won't miss anyway.

not really, so far the only details are THREE drove her around before going to a mobile home , some allegedly told her she would be beaten for non cooperation by some girls they knew, the owner came home and they FLED (including the girl) to another HOME where things continued with others coming over and joining in. There is no mention of how many were aware of any threat made to her, there is mention that at least two were in middle school and two were in high school. The potential number of 'participants' keeps growing but I imagine a majority of them just were PRESENT because THAT Much activity on someone so young would certainly have caused some noticable physical symptoms prior to the time that she decided to share the details with someone.


there were certainly GUILTY men, but the number who may have actually violated her will probably turn out to be less than initial reports.