the worst comment i saw was someone arguing that it was totally acceptable for a 17 year old to groom and abuse a 13 year old back in the late 80s, as statutory rape is a "woke" term and people wouldn't have had an issue with it "back then", because teens grew up far more quickly etc etc,
and when someone highlighted that statutory rape very much WAS a crime in the UK in 1989 and that the overwhelming majority of society would NOT have condoned kids being sexually abused, the reply was "do you know what rape is?", and then claiming that the crime of statutory rape takes away the meaning of TRUE rape, as it would mean there are thousands of rapists out in society. well yeah, because there ARE?! just because someone hasn't been accused of rape, held accountable for their crime or prosecuted etc doesn't magically mean they aren't a rapist! what in the Radford-loving logic is this?! how is rape involving a child victim not "TRUE" rape, ffs?! the lengths these idiots will go to defend the Radford predator is beyond belief - not to mention the disgusting amount of victim blaming because "it takes two to make a baby" - she was THIRTEEN!
View attachment 2708755 qView attachment 2708756 q