[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Not arguing anything here (except maybe that Clemens is lying sack of uhm, meal) but is a statutory rape occurs what do you call the person charged with or convicted it of it, if not a rapist?
[/QUOTE]
I call them a statutory rapist, because they are quite literally NOT an unqualified rapist. Their raping is qualified as statutory.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Because “rape” implies force or coercion. Did you not see these words the first time I posted them?
Let’s not call a spade a backhoe. Or a bathtub. Or whatever the hell the literal meaning of “spade” is in that expression taken to a much larger extreme.
[/QUOTE]
Rape implies only non-consent. A minor cannot give consent, ergo, a stautory rapist is a rapist. Just ask a judge.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Rape implies only non-consent. A minor cannot give consent, ergo, a stautory rapist is a rapist. Just ask a judge.
[/QUOTE]
No, rape implies force or coercion. If your argument were true, then there would be no such thing as statutory rape. It would all be called (and treated as) the same thing.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
No, rape implies force or coercion. If your argument were true, then there would be no such thing as statutory rape. It would all be called (and treated as) the same thing.
[/QUOTE]
No, the definition of rape is sex without consent. For instance, having sex with an unconscious persn without consent is legal rape, yet does not involve force or coercion.
All rape is “statutory,” by the way, in that it’s all forbidden by statute. Sex with a minor is not called “statutory rape” in the statutes, it’s just called rape.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No, the definition of rape is sex without consent. For instance, having sex with an unconscious persn without consent is legal rape, yet does not involve force or coercion.
All rape is “statutory,” by the way, in that it’s all forbidden by statute. Sex with a minor is not called “statutory rape” in the statutes, it’s just called rape.
[/QUOTE]
So there is no distinction in how rapes are prosecuted?
As a separate train of thought, most people consider “rape” to be an objective reality. As in, the particulars of the act are the only relevant facts.
Statutory rape, or more specifically consensual sex with somebody underage, may or may not have happened depending on what state you were in at the time. I mean, since the legal age of consent in one state may be higher or lower than another, it’s on a whole different level than the more easily identifiable forcible rape. The very same act may or may not be (statutory) rape depending on where you are.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
All rape is “statutory,” by the way, in that it’s all forbidden by statute. Sex with a minor is not called “statutory rape” in the statutes, it’s just called rape.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it would appear that it isn’t called “rape” at all.
This would seem to torpedo your “he’s a rapist” angle.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
So there is no distinction in how rapes are prosecuted?
[/quote]
The distinctions are in how they’re punished.
Banging 15 year olds is “rape” pretty much anywhere.
I don’t want to keep dragging out this whole semantic hijack. Let’s just agree that it’s sleazy and illegal and move on.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Actually, it would appear that it isn’t called “rape” at all.This would seem to torpedo your “he’s a rapist” angle.
[/QUOTE]
Scroll down on your linked page. You will see that many of the states use the word “rape.”
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Actually, it would appear that it isn’t called “rape” at all.This would seem to torpedo your “he’s a rapist” angle.
[/QUOTE]
To be exact, in Florida it’s called sexual battery and the law doesn’t make any distinction about force, coercion or consent if the victim is under 16.
If it makes you feel better you can call Clemens an “alleged sexual batterer.”
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Scroll down on your linked page. You will see that many of the states use the word “rape.”
[/QUOTE]
Depends on the state, though, which makes calling him a rapist disingenuous based on a technicality.
Agreed on all counts. If he had consensual sex with a 15 year old while being in his mid-20s, he’s a scumbag of the highest order, not to mention a criminal.
Just not a rapist, is all I’m saying.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
If he had consensual sex with a 15 year old while being in his mid-20s, he’s a scumbag of the highest order/QUOTE]
Why? 
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
If he had consensual sex with a 15 year old while being in his mid-20s, he’s a scumbag of the highest order
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalibakthegreat]
Why? 
[/QUOTE]
Because of the vast difference in maturity level.
I think I will need more than one article in the New York Daily News before I brand someone a rapist. Or if he waited a few months till she was 16, a creepy adulterer. Now if it was in the Post I’d be right there with you.
And as for the hijack, many states do not use the word rape in their statutes, even when it’s rape. For instance forcible rape in New Jersey is called aggrevated sexual assault. Which means rape. Does it really matter if the particular state uses the word in the statute?
[QUOTE=Kalibakthegreat]
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
If he had consensual sex with a 15 year old while being in his mid-20s, he’s a scumbag of the highest order/QUOTE]
Why?
[/QUOTE]
Because 1.) it’s a crime and 2.) it’s selfish and exploitive and harms a child.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
[QUOTE=Kalibakthegreat]
Because 1.) it’s a crime and 2.) it’s selfish and exploitive and harms a child.
[/QUOTE]
I hate that people get caught up in whether or not things are a crime. The legality of an action has no bearing on whether or no it’s moral.
I’m not defending Clemens. I agree that it’s wrong, I just don’t think it’s wrong because it’s a crime.
I just think it’s kind of strange that people act so outraged, like he’s some sort of sick monster, when 100 years ago she would have been his first wife and everything would be normal. 15 years is a good 3-5 years into sexual maturity, and just because we’ve come up with laws in the last century doesn’t change millions of years of biology.
“If there’s grass on the field, play ball.”
ESPN is now reporting that Clemens admits to having a relationship with her, but says that it wasn’t sexual.
Yeah, and Clinton didn’t inhale.
McCready confirmed the story in the New York Daily News.
Clemens really is an all-star asshole.
[QUOTE=Kalibakthegreat]
I just think it’s kind of strange that people act so outraged, like he’s some sort of sick monster, when 100 years ago she would have been his first wife and everything would be normal. 15 years is a good 3-5 years into sexual maturity, and just because we’ve come up with laws in the last century doesn’t change millions of years of biology.
[/QUOTE]
I’m all for a return to the moral and ethical standards people applied 100 years ago. That’d be keen.
Unreal- less than 24 hours after Rog’s complete denial, she says everything in the story is true- she didn’t even wait for the subpoena. Why would he comment before she did? Does he not know what this does to his credibility in a slander lawsuit? Having the affair is one thing, but LYING about it is a lot worse. If he’ll lie about the affair, does he not see it stands to reason he would lie about steriods? Assuming Rog and wife don’t have an open realtionship and this revelation bothers his wife, if he allows the mistress to testify, he’s an even bigger tool. I just can’t fathom a guy this stupid, and the shots of him standing there in court, chest out, arm raised swearing to tell the truth is just friggin hilarious.
He obviously subscribes to the Louis Depalma theory of what swearing to tell the truth in court means- “It means they gotta believe you”.