re: #39 Obdicut

A) I didn’t confess to anything, since I didn’t do anything wrong. I have no idea why you’d phrase it in such a manner— especially while you’re attempting to win a semantic victory.

B) It was definitely non-violent. There was absolutely no violence, whatsoever. It was a non-violent rape. That is the reality of it. I consented— but i was just a child. So my consent was as meaningless as that of a drunken girl, or a mentally handicapped adult.

OK this is something you need to work out. However in my opinion and in the opinion of the law, even if you think you otherwise, the act of forced intercourse on a child is both violent and non-consensual. As I showed you coercion is assumed, and coercion is using force or threats. Both acts are violent (using using force or threats). As it would be on a drunken person or a mentally challenged person of whom the court decided does not have the mental capacity to consent.

My use of the word confession might have been clumsy. I didn’t mean you had done anything wrong, in fact my entire argument is otherwise.