News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Can't help thinking that if this were a man, the penalty would be higher.
"Her conviction came months after her brother, Brandon Lee Roberts, was sentenced to prison in a separate child sex abuse case" (from another article)
You mean being elected to the highest office in the country?
Only if the man isn't Republican. Usually it's more leniency the younger the child too. For example if you're, say hypothetically, the President of the United States it's completely acceptable to rape 12 year olds or even younger!
Are you sure? Male politicians are infamous for not facing consequence. This woman fucked a minor and got nine months, my country's president fucked countless minors and an airport took his name after he died
Was one of those minors Mubarak's niece?
Thought you were talking about the U.S. still until you said "after he died".
A brief whisper of irrational hope that I somehow missed the most wondrous news.
If she was a man she would get a position in the white house and a pardon if convicted.
Depends if the man was a member of the Epstein class or not.
It would be either higher or, as a politician, she wouldn't ever get prosecuted
Totally. As recently seen male politicians raping children are prosecuted to the full extent of the law in the US.
what rock have you been living under. the worst offender of the rape of children is sitting on his throne as ~~president~~ king of America.
I realize sarcasm is often hard to spot in text form, but I am not sure how you managed to miss it this time :3
probably because you were too lazy to even bother with a /s
sarcasm cant be communicated through text. but there is a very easy system that only stupid people can fuck up. /gen
It was obviously sarcasm.
You're just illiterate.
Well, everyone else seems to have understood, I am not worried about a straggler :)
If she were a man it probably wouldn't have gotten past the "high five, knowing smile" phase with the town's police force and officials.
You really have the whole thing backwards don't you. There was a whole South Park episode about how impossible it is for society to take the rape of young boys by reasonably attractive women seriously.
In general for rape seriousness it goes:
Again I'm not supporting this revolting hierarchy, but you can't exactly deny it.
You missed the one about the minor aged boy being responsible for child support if the rapist woman gets pregnant and has the baby.
This is true regardless of the genders involved. Male rapists petition the court for visitation and child support as well.
The word "rape" has lost all meaning in Western society lol. Sure this was wrong (because one of the parties was underage), but it wasn't "rape" because it was consensual.
A 16 year old cannot consent to sexual acts with sokeone in that Situation - especially given power dynamics and alcohol being involved
Bruh I've been 16. At that age, we still voluntarily flirt with adults. I'll agree that adults have a responsibility to not hook up with minors, but they're completely aware of what they're doing.
That’s the “statutory” part of statutory rape. We as society recognize that power imbalance and grooming are potential scenarios, and can have a less powerful/younger person consenting to something they otherwise would not.
For example, if a cop has someone in handcuffs. We as society recognize that there is an inherent power imbalance, and that the person in handcuffs may be pressured into agreeing to things that they otherwise would not.
Or as another example, if a child is groomed by an adult. We recognize that children are easier to manipulate, and can be groomed to agree to things that they would not have done without being manipulated.
And so society writes criminal laws (statutes) that define these various scenarios, and courts then interpret these statutes and apply them to individual cases as rulings. And if the courts find that a person has violated these laws, the person is guilty of rape by statute. Statutory rape.
For example, maybe a state has a law saying that an adult having sex with a child is considered rape, unless that adult is within 3 years of age with the child. So an 18 year old high school senior won’t get in trouble for banging a 16 year old high school junior. But a 35 year old would be guilty of statutory rape.
Backwards? This world absolutely thrives on men raping young girls.
Is the rape of boys by women taken seriously when it comes to light? No. Is it the opposite taken seriously when it comes to light? Well, the media would make it seem so, but the lack of arrests and prosecutions speak otherwise.
More ugly incel pedo men get bad publicity than ugly incel pedo women. That's it. Otherwise, for every boy raped by a woman who is not taken seriously, there are a thousand girls shamed into silence, or ignored.
Call me when boys are being forced to marry grannies by the million. Try to educate me when just fucking one, just fucking one single young boy is stoned to death by his friends and family because he got raped by a 40 year old woman. Just one, in the history of the human race.
Until then, no, you've got the whole thing backwards.
Girls having it worse doesnt Make the rape of boys irrelevant
Never said it did. Someone tried to refute what I said. Which is the idea that men in power who rape girls high five each other and, for the most part, don't get prosecuted. Which is a weird thing to refute in a world where we just had the US government release massive amounts of evidence showing that this is actually happening everywhere all the time.
I think we can all agree that rape and pedophilia is a heinous crime that isn't taken nearly as seriously as it should, especially like all crimes when the perpetrator is rich.
But let's not place one gender as the oppressor and the other as the victim. That's not what the patriarchy is and that's not what pedophilia and rape victim statistics say. The patriarchy is the dominant social structure and it is helmed by a small group of men of extreme privilege. Below them is a mix of men and women varying in gender mix and privilege until you get to the bottom which is filled in large part by homeless men because the hierarchy punishes men who don't accept it particularly harshly. The poorest women generally "need to be protected" because paternalistic protection of women is a core (and sexist) value of the patriarchy.
The point is not to say one gender has it better or worse, there is no doubt that on the whole the patriarchy favours men. The point is that the while the issue of rape a pedophilia is a GENDERED issue, it's not a men vs women thing. Men aren't high-fiving rapists for raping girls. I can't go to a single one of my friends or any stranger and get anything but a call to the police if I said "I raped a 16y old girl". Women aren't always the victims, sometimes the victims are boys, sometimes the perpetrators are women. Women aren't 100% treated worse in every case, it's a known fact, such as in this prosecution that women are treated more leniently by the courts. The average prosecution for statutory is ~40 months, she got 3.
Rape and pedophilia are horrible problems and we aren't even close to a society that creates justice for victims, but the attitude you have on the topic just muddles the problem further instead of helping towards a solution. If you can get past your ideology and accept all the facts of the situation you'll be a much more effective advocate for victims.
And all that 40 month 3 month shit pales in comparison to the sheer number of men who simply never get prosecuted. I never said "ignore the women! Get the men!" I just said that men get off for raping girls far far far more than women do. It's a cold fact, and nothing in all those paragraphs you put forth, changes that.
We can acknowledge that and move on, but everyone seems to prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and scream instead, because they would prefer to punish women more than they want to punish men. And if you really want to dive into patriarchy, you'd see that mindset, instilled by patriarchy, playing out all over this thread.
Nah man. It’s a woman so she’s getting a higher sentence than a man would, on average.
I hope this is satire.
The average rapist doesn’t see any jail time at all.
Yeah, but on average (corrected for everything else) sentences for men are much harsher.
Not if you include the men who don’t serve any time at all even though they committed the crime.
There’s way more perpetrators that haven’t done any time at all than perpetrators who have served time for rape.
Perpetrators who have been found guilty in a court of law do no time at all? Im not sure ive heard of a modern instance of that. You'd think it would be major news.
I know you're trying to lead me down the path of crying for men accused of rape, but I don't care.
Keep defending rapists that thrive in the dark.