is the intended point here that it is okay to sexually abuse 16 year olds, so everything is fine—but 15 year olds are right out? or... what?

▲

Larrikin 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The intended point is to troll various forums with bots or shills to make the Epstein files seem less bad by saying it is ok for adults to have sex with children.

▲

dyauspitr 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. It’s the law.

▲

mmooss 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine.

That's not obvious to me. For example, would it be fine for a rich, powerful 40 year old to sleep with a 16 year old? Given the power inbalance, is consent really possible?

> It’s the law.

Lots of very not 'fine' things are legal.

	▲	stavros 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Would it be fine for a poor, weak 40 year old to sleep with a rich 16 year old? Asking for a friend.
	▲	dyauspitr 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

mh2266 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

ok, but it wasn't consensual?

▲

dyauspitr 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Then he should be in jail. Unless they mean it is statutory even though she gave consent (since she was 15 and underage). Then it would be consensual if she was 16.

▲

mh2266 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't understand the purpose of writing multiple comments about the age of consent on a thread that is unambiguously about sexual assault. It wouldn't matter if she was 40 years old!

	▲	dyauspitr 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The point I’m trying to make is it’s called sexual assault automatically if the person is underage. Even if it was consensual. If it was a 40 year old it would just be called consensual sex.

▲

hacker161 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are a pedophile