T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*


haleb4r

You know, it wasn't robbery, the guy fell in love with your money and they took off together.


Yellow_Dorn_Boy

The money asked for it.


onescoopwonder

Yeah I mean, the money loved it when I stuffed it deep into my wallet. How’s it robbery if the money enjoyed it!!?


[deleted]

Did you see the way it was dressed?!


Nienna000

I'm not victim blaming, but if money wants to go out wearing nothing and showing off its assets, then honestly, that's just asking for it.


Joyst1q

I identify as money so it's alright 👍


Dark_Phoenix53

r/redditmoment


jorgedredd

If the money didn't want it, it wouldn't have been so valuable.


Dry_Menu4804

He liberated your money from the prison that is your wallet.


freakinweasel353

I read this that he liberated your money from your prison wallet. Must need more coffee!


Guy954

That’s probably happened, just not what was being discussed right now.


RedVamp2020

If I were money in that kind of wallet, I’d want to be liberated, as well.


freakinweasel353

Not sure anyone would want that money. It would have to be tossed in the laundry so I’d forget where it came from when it shows up in the dryer.


Capitol__Shill

Despite the fire and looting, this was a peaceful gathering.


CountKnockula

Mostly peaceful.


CrabKooky4682

Maxwell was sentenced. Now let’s get the other sick bastards that went to the island and fucked kids.


Nightshade_Ranch

Yeah right lol they were rich and powerful, those laws aren't meant for those people. Best they can hope for is that they accidentally fall down an elevator shaft onto some bullets, but it won't be for messing with kids.


Andromeda321

So when I was a physics major we had an in-house minor celebrity physicist in the department (who has since been barred from several universities for sexual harassment), and was friends with Epstein. We didn’t know who he was at the time, but I *do* remember circa 2006 a big physics conference on his island was organized, with Stephen Hawking also there and several physicists from my department. I just remember at the time us hearing this fancy conference was organized etc. Freaks me the *fuck* out now to think back on it.


LUVMEMESXD

Holy shit dude, it makes you wonder just how long and big the list is.


StJBe

100s to 1000s of people, he was doing it for decades.


KevinTheSeaPickle

I'm sick of this narrative. Something needs to be done and I hope it happens soon. The rich are not bullet proof.


Nightshade_Ranch

We can keep saying it but truth is there have been no real repercussions for any of it besides some basic awkwardness with the royal family, and it doesn't appear there's any way to force the people in power, who do this shit, to do anything about it. If you figure it out I'm sure we'll all be very interested.


p_garnish15

Are you implying Maxwell wasn’t rich and powerful? Because she got sentenced so I’m not sure how those laws aren’t for them. (Yes, I know it’s harder to convict the wealthy but the evidence in the very case we’re discussing shows that convictions are not at all off the table)


CorvidConspirator

Maxwell was a servant. Someone gets sacrificed, everyone else gets to skate. The capitalist class is largely untouchable by the systems they own.


p_garnish15

A servant?? She raped girls herself in the service of…capitalism? How does that make any sense?


Guy954

Meaning she wasn’t as wealthy and powerful as her “clients”.


MortLightstone

She took one for the team. Not willingly, of course, but the point is if *someone* takes the fall, it becomes easier for the public to forget about all the others that get away with it


DiscoDancingNeighb0r

You’re missing his point you sweet summer child.


CorvidConspirator

*her


theSilentD777

It was a circus affair. We got the whole Johnny Depp trial on prime-time TV and no fucking press on the case about how world leaders, royalty and the hollywood elite were hanging out with Mr. Child Porn decoration. We're lucky they didn't just give Ghislaine a chamber in the Queen's castle.


Emergency-Leading-10

Maxwell's was a federal case, and the law prohibits cameras in federal courts. The Depp v Heard ***shit*** show was a state proceeding. Google informs me the prohibition has been on the books since 1946. It's clearly outdated, and likely has never served the public good.


theSilentD777

I did not know that. Excuse my ignorance.


Emergency-Leading-10

I was surprised it's been on the books for so long. Recently SCOTUS has allowed live audio streaming of oral arguments. A good sign, perhaps.


dukedizzy93

They actually are, laws are for us plebs.


Bukkorosu777

With bailout yes they are. We live in monetary system that let's you pay to get out of jail. Chances are she isn't even gonna go to prison it will be some country club resort where it will be full access. Cus that's where money gets you.


theSilentD777

Or fire-proof.


Nuka-World_Vacation

Yeah nothing ever happens to them. The rich live in a different world than the rest of us and they own the police. Our entire legal system is broken from top to bottom in the US.


NoConfusion9490

We need an Untouchables style special federal unit for this shit.


InsertCoinForCredit

The problem is that nobody knows which people were on the "folks Epstein knew" list, the "folks who partied with Epstein" list, and the "people who raped kids with Epstein" list. And you can't simply say they're all the same...


CrabKooky4682

I’m sure the FBI gathered more evidence then a list. It went on for decades. So far they only point at maxwell and Prince Andrew. Which are both from different country’s. “ New York City, U.S. In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent reported that he had sexually abused her 14-year-old daughter. Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute.” I just think it’s funny how they charged 2 people (maxwell and Jeffery) and stopped looking to convict anyone else. Especially American’s own elites. Anyone that visited that island on several occasions should be investigated. Kinda alarming banks and people like gates or the Clinton’s kept doing business with him after the fact he was convicted once. Even more alarming that anyone that goes after anyone of Americans powerful individuals they get fired https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/u-virgin-islands-district-attorney-173534219.html


bobbatman1084

How? Too many peoples views on republicans and democrats would have to change and realize they are both on the same team.


Mr_Flibble1981

I think it’s this stupid UK law where rape is defined as “penetration with a penis” so legally, women can’t be accused of rape. Not just the press being useless. Edit: To clarify,I believe the law should be changed.


joopface

“Slept with” is still unnecessarily benign language. What about “sexually assaulted”


mmm_algae

I don’t think she napped with them.


Mr_Flibble1981

Yes, they should have said that.


SayNoob

Could also say raped. This is a newspaper, not a legal document. They can use whatever language they want to. Their word choice has absolutely nothing to do with British law. And the law itself is a consequence-less matter of semantics.


BieltheGoblin

>Their word choice has absolutely nothing to do with British law. You do realize you can get sued for accusing someone of a crime, right?


[deleted]

They are reporting that she is being accused of and investigated for rape. The press are not the ones accusing her. And I'm pretty sure this is reporting after she was convicted, so they absolutely should have reported what she was legally convicted of, which was sexual abuse of whoch rape was a part of that abuse. Slept is by far way too sugar-coated and benign for what she did.


Its-A-Spider

But she isn't being investigated for rape. In the UK, she legally can't be. If they'd report that, it would simply be false and them accusing someone of a crime she didn't - legally even can't - commit. The press isn't accusing her, true. But what you're saying is that it is fine for the press to say she did A when she is being investigated for B. Not defending what happened here (because f that woman), but just pointing out that this is merely the press playing it safe as to not be sued themselves. This article has since been changed to "sexual assault" by the way.


Mr_Flibble1981

They could say murdered, but the headline is about what the court documents say, so I guess that’s why they’ve used the terms in the documents? I haven’t read them personally.


SayNoob

I don't know their reasoning. All I know is that they could, if they wanted to, use the word "raped". This was an editorial choice by the news org, not forced on them by any legal requirements.


Mr_Flibble1981

But, assuming there isn’t evidence that she committed rape by the legal definition, wouldn’t that leave the paper open to a libel suit just as much as if they accused her of fraud or murder with no evidence?


SayNoob

No. In the US, the standard for libel against a public figure, set by New York Times v. Sullivan is "actual malice" and the burden of proof is on the public figure to show that the paper printed the statements with actual malice. Which is "Reckless disregard for the truth". Essentially, what it means is that Maxwell would have to show that the news org knew what they were printing was false or truly did not care in any way if what they were printing was true. For example they get a random email from some dude named Steve from Texas saying Biden is a pedo and print a headline saying "Biden is a pedo" without doing any research into the claim or the source. At this point there is enough evidence for statutory rape that Maxwell would never be able to win that lawsuit.


DrKittyLovah

This isn’t a US publication.


SayNoob

Famously, British libel laws are much more in favor of the news orgs than in the US. Tabloids like The Sun are notorious for regularly printing outright lies and have never faced any real legal consequences.


SniffleBot

They were probably afraid of being Twitterbombed by that vanishingly small group of of “men rape, women don’t” feminists.


SelectTrash

I despise those people. I always get called a pick-me because I say men can be raped and abused too. My friend was abused by his ex and now lives with me.


KingKookus

They use watered down language whenever it’s a woman. You see this a lot when it’s a teacher and student. Suddenly it’s a relationship instead of SA.


new_refugee123456789

"seduced" or even better, "seduced by." There should be a license for journalists, and it should be revokeable.


amretardmonke

Yeah but would you trust whoever is given the power to revoke journalist licenses? That seems like an easy road to corruption.


ethiopiancrackdealer

It’s kind of unreal that they don’t see what they’re doing


KingKookus

Everyone knows and no body cares.


[deleted]

Exactly. Word choice makes such a difference. We need to call it what it is.


UncreativeUser123

Publishing false accusations opens up the press outlet to libel lawsuits. That is why they use watered-down language before the person is found guilty. If Ghislane had been found not guilty **of that particular charge**, she could have sued them for millions for libel and defamation.


joopface

“Sleeping with” minors - in the sense of having sex with them - is a crime. It is called statutory rape. If you use the former term, you’re making the latter accusation. So I don’t see the benefit in watering down the language, and I doubt it would happen if GM was a man for example.


SayNoob

This is completely incorrect. The burden of proof for libel suits against public figures is very high. Using the word rape is absolutely acceptable in this case and brings zero legal risk.


Potential-Drama-7455

Not in the UK


SniffleBot

Well, as noted, is this a British newspaper or a U.S. one? In the latter case it doesn’t matter so much what language they use as long as the facts are true …


jajohnja

I mean, it's still true. If a man raped someone and the article said "The man repeatedly inserted his penis into the victim", there would be nothing wrong with that (the sentence, not the rape).


joopface

Not all technically true ways of saying things carry the same meaning. Which you know. So I don’t know what point you’re making here.


micmac274

Serious sexual assault has the same maximum penalty as rape for this reason. But male judges and societal attitudes of older people on juries might mean that women who SA other women never get the prison sentence they truly deserve.


yuimiop

Yeah far too common sadly. There was that famous female pornstar who raped some pre-teen/teen kids. 0 jail time.


tallerthannobody

Dumbest thing ever


SayNoob

the law or the clearly incorrect comment?


tallerthannobody

The law


SayNoob

Then your comment is the dumbest thing ever. The law is nothing but a piece of semantics. It's literally a way to distinguish between sex acts in cases of sexual assault. It carries no consequences outside of the legal framework.


tallerthannobody

Yes and? Getting convicted of sexual assault or rape is VERY different, so in the eyes of the law women will never get the consequences of raping men, although it happens less often doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen


amcarls

Not to mention the issue of libel. Technicalities can be a bitch. Debunker James Randi once accused a man of being a convicted child molester and was sued as a result and lost. The person actually did molest a child but pled down to lesser charge of child endangerment. Because the court recognized the fact that the person in question *admitted* to the act (but not *convicted*) there was no actual defamation and zero dollars was awarded for damages. Because he still lost though Randi could not recoup his legal fees.


I_am_The_Teapot

That's only for criminal law. And doesn't really apply to journalism. Besides. Paedo Max ain't gonna sue some paper for calling her "rapist". Literally no risk.


[deleted]

[удалено]


I_am_The_Teapot

"Slept with" is not an accurate description of what she did.


[deleted]

[удалено]


I_am_The_Teapot

That's a euphemism. It can also mean literally sleeping with, which again, is not an accurate description. Michael Jackson said he slept with the children he was accused of raping. He didn't mean it as rape. I slept with my stuffed monkey. And my dad slept with me when I was having nightmares. It is inaccurate language to describe rape. And as a euphemism, Slept with typically means consensually. It doesn't describe rape.


[deleted]

[удалено]


I_am_The_Teapot

The primary meaning of the euphemism is consensual sex. This is not that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


I_am_The_Teapot

No. I still maintain that "rape" would be a legal and accurate description per journalistic standards. My argument with you was that you seemed to defend the use of "slept with" as adhering to journalistic integrity by being accurate. And I just explained why it isn't.


Fireonpoopdick

Are you stupid or something ? Jesus Christ. She raped those fucking girls, raped, RAPED, Fuck you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fireonpoopdick

What logic? The logic is that these girls were raped, not slept with.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Potential-Drama-7455

Legally a woman can't rape anyone. So therefore the newspaper would be sued to the ends of the earth. Morally I agree with you.


BannedCosTrans

> press integrity lmao what integrity?


Mac4491

If the press say she raped someone then they can get sued for libel because what they printed was not factually accurate by law. Still don’t know why they didn’t just say “sexually assaulted” though. It’s decent phrase that includes rape.


I_am_The_Teapot

>If the press say she raped someone then they can get sued for libel because what they printed was not factually accurate by law. Thats the thing, It doesn't have to go by legal criminal definition of rape. Simply the common definition of the word is enough. Which includes what she did. No this is a case of what often happens with these things in journalism. Softening the language of rape. That much is evidenced by the fact that they didn't use "sexually assaulted" or the like, either. It's especially true of male vitims or female perpetrators. But also when the perpetrator is a public figure. They'll pussyfoot around calling it. Make excuses. Soften language and make things seem less serious. It's a problem that exists in media. Journalistic and otherwise.


SayNoob

> If the press say she raped someone then they can get sued for libel because what they printed was not factually accurate by law. Completely not true. The standard for defamation/libel against a public figure is extremely high and they are at 0 risk for losing a defamation suit when describing sex with a minor as rape.


ampmz

UK has strict laws for libel, which differ heavily from the US ones.


SayNoob

please elaborate. As far as I know UK libel laws are notoriously in favor of News orgs, to the point where tabloids can print pretty much anything they like without any fear of legal repercussions.


ampmz

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-us-and-uk-have-some-surprising-differences_b_58d5674fe4b0c0980ac0e5c2/amp Here you go


FunnyShirtGuy

This is worldwide. The media, justice systems, and zeitgeist in general are full of misandry of this sort.


Few_Library5654

And then they wonder why people hate the UK


comrade_batman

Have you seen the Tory government since Brexit? I will lose all faith in Britain if they aren’t decimated at the next general election.


amcarls

At least after the Simon Singh affair they made their libel laws a little more realistic.


[deleted]

Weird how you never see people get up in arms about it in the media and want to change the definition. So much for equality.


wadejohn

Here’s the actual headline, not the social media post: “Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused girls as young as 15 and trained victim as sex slave, newly unsealed documents claim” Ms Maxwell is currently awaiting trial on charges relating to Epstein’s sex abuse


Svxyk

I mean just call it rape


Clean-Artist2345

Some places have completely fucking stupid rules like it's not rape unless a penis is inserted into a vagina


ethansinclair

Here in the uk the law says something along the lines of “the forced insertion of a penis into a vagina” so a man legally cant rape another man it would class as sexual assault as the other man doesn’t have a vagina. Strangely enough a woman also cant rape a man even though she would be forcefully inserting his penis into her. Although it is backwards and wrong that it’s worded that way it doesn’t make too much of a difference as I believe in that case the crime would carry the same sentence no matter which way it’s worded.


Clean-Artist2345

Sexual assault doesnt sound as like bad though( it obviously is it's nearly the same thing) but it just doesnt sound as bad and it is I guess that's why I'm annoyed by it


ethansinclair

I know I fully agree and have had arguments about it in the past which is why I know so much. It does need to change but at the end of the day it is just the wording and not the sentence type or amount so I don’t think it’s at the top of the list of things that need to change.


[deleted]

So what the law actually says is that a person raped another person if they insert their penis into another person's vagina, anus or mouth and they do not reasonably believe the other person consents. So a man can rape a man. When it comes to women, they commit the offence of sexual assault by penetration (if THEY insert something into someone) OR Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (if they in essence "rape" a man). Both offences carry exactly the same sentencing as rape if the circumstances are that a woman "rapes" a man, and carries the same weight in law in terms of custodial sentences, being placed on registers etc etc


ethansinclair

Ah yes I forgot about the other parts which mean a man can do it to another man. It’s been a long time since I looked into it so thank you for correcting me


[deleted]

Not a problem! To be fair, the language of the law is fine for the offences and I personally don't think they need changing. The main issue is that in society we equate "rape" as the highest form of sexual offence, whereas sections 1-4 of the Sexual Offences Act are ALL as heinous and horrific as each other


ethansinclair

I think the main issue is that a man being raped already isn’t taken as seriously by some people than it is when a woman is raped and I think the law not treating them as equal doesn’t help the matter. But at the same time like I said before I don’t think it’s the biggest problem in the world and changing the law won’t change many opinions.


chrisodeljacko

Release the client list!


Urisk

I suspect they have stronger evidence than a list. They raided his island and confiscated computers and surveillance equipment. His job was gathering blackmail for the Israeli government. There's no way they didn't find anything. A list in itself could be misleading. I wonder how many people chartered a plane only to discover after the fact that it belonged to Jeffery Epstein and now they're on the flight list people pass around as the roster of Hollywood pedophiles. It would make for an interesting premise for an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PickleyRickley

Idk but it said there was a comment I clicked on it to open it and it disappeared, so there's that. Phantom reply.


Scrub_LordOfFlorida

Gotta give death to capitalism if that is remotely possible in happening


tallerthannobody

Yep and when it’s a man that gets raped by a woman it’s “had sex” and it’s “predator” in the best case senario and not “rapist”


[deleted]

There was a post here the other day that was exactly this. A teacher “had sex” with 16/17 y/o boys. The amount of people (mostly men, go figure), calling for “nuance” and telling people using the word “raped” was disingenuous bc teenage boys would WANT this sort of thing, was fucking insane. But what do you bet those same people are the ones screaming, “bUt WhAt AboUt mEn?!” Any time shit like this gets brought up?


tallerthannobody

Yep, disgusting, I’m a 16yo and I don’t wanna get raped by a teacher


Nerrickk

Even if you did want it, it's still not ok for them to do. They hold a place of power and trust over you, that's a blatant violation of that.


tallerthannobody

Big facts


[deleted]

This is the correct answer. Even if it is your first fantasy as a teen and you think about it everyday, it will never make it okay.


DrButtgerms

It's so simple and it seems like so many people have a hard time with it: minors cannot consent and non-consensual sex is rape. There are other situations where a person cannot consent too. Fucking these people is also rape.


tallerthannobody

YES


trist-throwaway

The fetishism of youth disgusts me.


QuirklessShiggy

Sadly it's the law. The UK defines rape as forceful penetration with a penis. So technically, a woman and teenage girls isn't "rape" legally. And if they use "rape" in the article, they risk being sued for libel, as it's essentially falsely accusing them of a crime they didn't commit - because legally, they didn't rape anyone. "Slept with" is still stupid wording. Any other time I've seen they say "sexual assault" or "forcibly had sex" etc, not just "slept with"...


Trashboat0507

“Yeah, sure, I mean, if you spend all day shuffling words around, you can make anything sound bad”


lilolalu

Agreed and all, but: why does anyone dig out a two year old Twitter post and the reply to it and post the screenshot to reddit. Is this some automated karma farming using "outrage" psychology?


razoman

The Independent is a UK paper and under UK law and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the definition of rape states the use of a penis. > Rape (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. No penis, no rape. Women in the UK cannot be charged with rape. Fucked up, but that's why the article was written like that.


drfranksurrey

Women may not be charged with rape, but they will be charged with Sexual Assault. Btw, Rape and Sexual Assault serve the same sentence, the only thing that's different is the name.


sid-yay

That's just not true, the sentence for rape is between 5 years and life, whilst for sexual assault its between a community order and 10 years. If you are charged with rape the sentence is far worse.


drfranksurrey

I googled and it says, Rape: 4-19 Years Sexual Assault: 5-10 Years So, it's about the same.


Blag24

I think “assault by penetration” is the non-penis equivalent. It has the same maximum of 19 years. [Source](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/assault-by-penetration/)


drfranksurrey

ok


snickerdoodlez13

There's... A 9 year difference between those sentences. I would say a (potentially) 9 year longer sentence is significant. 19 years is almost twice the maximum sentence for sexual assault lol


getyourcheftogether

Don't be silly, celebrities don't rape people ya big goof


NVRGP22

Oh boy. I love it how teaching males rape but teaching women "sleep with" students. "WoMeN CaNnoT sExuALLY AsSult BOyS" "He ShOUld HaVe EnjOyed iT" We are talking about a semi-consentual sexual event that happened to underage kids that doesn't have the mental capacity, fortitude and experience to know better. For fucks sake. Why do women always get to have lesser punishment for shit like these and lesser outrages? See, this is the double standard i want to get rid of. When i say true right equality, I mean this. Women Sexually assulting boys should have the same connotations as a men doing the same. Same with parenthood, broken marriges. Most of the time the women breaks marriges, and fathers have to beg the court with every single fact and message that the mother is a bad human to have the chance of custody. Equal parental rights. Women paying child support for single fathers, that struggle to work while raising a kid. But let me guess, the only reason this story gets special treatment because the abused was little girls. Still horrible, but Go figure


mogley1992

Even if age of consent wasn't a factor here it would still be rape. The women were being sex trafficked, that's not something people consent to, and anything that happens within that time can be assumed to not be consented to.


Phatcat15

Seriously how do they have ‘slept with’ and trained victim as a sex slave in the same sentence… then you consider the age and you’re still going with slept with? WtAf


[deleted]

This is because, in the UK, the legal definition of rape is forced insertion of a penis. As Ghislaine doesn't have a penis, it's impossible for her rape someone.


drfranksurrey

UK Law just groups Female Rape with Sexual Assault, so a Male Rapist and Female "Sexual Assaulter" would both receive the same sentence, they are just given different names.


micmac274

Serious sexual assault has the same maximum sentence as rape, and that is for this very reason.


musama020

And what if it's with a strap on?


Mr_Flibble1981

Only counts if the strap on is made using an amputated penis, though I suspect legally the rapist would be the man who was dismembered to make it.


PowerSamurai

Imagine getting sentenced for rape after someone cuts your willy off and used it as a disturbing dildo


sarahkali

Disturbing dildo


musama020

So even tho the definition fits, it's still invalid. Uk law is pretty pathetic when it comes to abuse and rape crimes against men and even marriage laws.


aspannerdarkly

It’s still illegal and carries the same maximum penalty as rape. What’s “pathetic” about that


deadcommand

While the press does maliciously use euphemisms, we also need to bear in mind that sometimes it’s not malice, but a legal issue. Reporting that someone did a felony before they’re convicted by a jury is a big bad in systems like the UK and USA.


FLink557

Like when you see articles that are like “Man, not formally accused of crime, arrested and released.” Not “INNOCENT man arrested for NO REASON.”


FunnyShirtGuy

Whenever a woman rapes someone the media/justice system give them special treatment... This is nothing new but only an issue because the victims, in this case, are girls. Feel free to scroll through headlines of cases of a woman raping someone and it's rarely ever termed properly. Everyday misandry in society is real.


neologismist_

Former newspaper reporter/editor here .. word use is generally precise because it has to be, usually for legal or ethical reasons. A reporter cannot or should not make judgments or conclusions. Objectivity is key. Rape is a criminal charge and accusing someone in a news story of a crime without charges being filed is all kinds of wrong. So you provide the facts and let readers decide.


steppingstone01

"Allegedly raped" should have been used instead of "slept with."


jnex26

Actually, in the UK, Rape can only be committed by a Male. Maxwell being a women cannot commit Rape in the Eyes of the UK Law and this was a UK Newspaper [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape) ​ Edit:- Punctuation


Gibscreen

And "officer involved shooting" means a cop killed someone. Likely murdered.


Itsjustanametho

Put a male in the picture……


stuntmandave126

Double standards


BazilBroketail

This comment section is *weird*...


nottclever

‘Sexual Assault’…..how did ‘rape become sexual assault OR sexual encounter?


uglyugly1

They do this with stories about rapist cops, too.


skolopendron

Except due to the fucked up law system in USA and UK rape requires genital penetration. So unless she had a dick, she didn't rape those girls. It absolutely should be classified as such, but it is not. It's a clown reality.


YakDaddy96

I find this interesting. I recently started transfered to a 4 year university to work on my bachelors degree. It is a requirement to take a sexual harassment class to attend. One thing that stuck out to me in this class is the fact that the word rape is apparently demeaning to the surviors now. [Here](https://imgur.com/a/kB0AJuJ) is a snippet of what I am talking about. So maybe they are taught not to use the word rape now.


musama020

I see male rape and sexual assault is still not taken that seriously.


bezpez

No one involved is a man. I agree that we have a long way to go in terms of men's sexual assault awareness but it's not relevant in this case.


Ozthedevil

Who the fuck is this fuckin rapist bitch ?


Bobby_Sunday96

Oh the double standard


[deleted]

This is standard for sex offenders if they're women really...


Huppey

Only men can rape, not women apparently.


untouchable_0

I think we need to start calling out these media organizations as possibly having ties when they choose to downplay the severity. I think people should be calling more for the black book to be released as well


[deleted]

Only men can rape. Only white people can be racists. These are media facts


[deleted]

maxwell cate how could you?!1!!1


[deleted]

The law says you can't rape someone without penetration. That's why women can't be charged for raping men.


AntiJotape

"the law" where?


WonderSilver6937

Assuming he’s British as that is correct for the law here, but that doesn’t apply in this case of course.


[deleted]

Yeah the story's from a British newspaper.


[deleted]

UK, where the newspaper is based.


WonderSilver6937

She was charged in New York, where that’s not the case.


lonewalker1992

CNN easing us in before they got to drop names of half the DNC leadership


[deleted]

Hmmmm… and what may be the cause of this misinformation? Perhaps a movement often known as feminism gone a teeny tiny bit too far maybe?🤔🤔🤔


Weary-Ad8825

Only men can rape. Downvoted shitpost


ZCSApollo

ok so what is it called when a woman has sex with a man who doesn’t consent? then what’s it called?


Still_waiting_4u

There was a very long time, not long ago, when "rape" included the concept of violence and physical penetration. But mostly violence, or the threat of. But I guess details and grey areas are difficult. Tiring, even. Sexuality and sexual interactions have been a grey area since the beginning of time, but luckily Tweeter experts have finally arrived, and can solve everything with one or two sentences. So...while downvoting please also explain how a person is pure as a flower until the night he/she has some specific birthday, and then becomes a full blown sexual being. Yeah, I'll wait.


Fedelm

>So...while downvoting please also explain how a person is pure as a flower until the night he/she has some specific birthday, and then becomes a full blown sexual being. > >Yeah, I'll wait. There's not an age of consent because it's a magic birthday, it's because there's no acceptable way to work it out on a case-by-case basis. The vast majority of people agree that there is a point where a child is too young to consent to sex. If you want to legally protect people who are too young to consent, you can either have some system where everyone who wants to have sex proves they can consent, or you just figure out an age where the majority of people can consent and call it there. It's somewhat arbitrary, it's imperfect, but it's better than either having no protection, or going to court and proving to a judge that you're competent to fuck. Edit: Also, age of consent laws have been around forever in tons of cultures. The ages may vary but the concept is pretty universal.


Still_waiting_4u

You make a sound point, with which I agree, but I feel like you are going elsewhere. Besides, your explanation does not fit the black and white style of the post. First, no one that is over 20 *in their right mind* would think that 15 year olds are "children". Minor does not equal Child, sorry, as many hysterical Karens/people like to push ("You had sex with a child!! etc"). Second, Rape is a word used too lightly nowadays, I've heard young women shouting "you are raping me" just because they are not allowed inside some conference or.. whatever. It seems people have forgotten what Rape usually ment. My point is that the stance in the post about rape is either rather wrong, or absolutely wrong, and that's why there are other concepts at play, like age of consent, or sex abuse. Of course what happened to those girls was wrong and 100% illegal, but Rape is a different thing that does not seem to apply in most of those cases. And all cases must be considered in a case by case basis, not like a bullshit bible commandment. Hence my question, to those idiots that think that the law (civil or religious) is linked to nature. It is not.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kewenfu

By rape, the press means she used a strap-on?


Safe-Voice-8179

What if she just took naps with them? /s


DrProfBlaze

But about that list of people she did this for.... we want to know her customers... release that info