Is actor Dough Hutchinson a child rapist?
51 year old Dough Hutchinson married a 16 year old child (yes, by law she is a child) . Do you think, that, before marriage, Dough Hutchinson never touched Courtney Alexis Stodden indecently? Because that would be a heinous crime of child rape and grave victimization of poor Alexis. Or if he chatted with her on the internet, he would be in violation of grooming laws.
She is 16 y, he 51 y (35 years difference)
Age ain’t nothing but a number – just ask 51-year-old actor Doug Hutchison. Hutchison, whose film and TV credits include ‘The Green Mile,’ ‘Lost’ and ’24,’ said ‘I do’ to 16-year-old aspiring country star Courtney Alexis Stodden on May 20 in Las Vegas.
While the couple’s 35-year age difference has already raised many eyebrows, the newlyweds insist they are truly in love.
‘We’re aware that our vast age difference is extremely controversial,’ the couple told E! Online. ‘But we’re very much in love and want to get the message out there that true love can be ageless.’ NY Daily News
The age of consent in California is 18, for sex law purposes she is a child. If Dough Hutchinson ever had sex with Courtney before marriage, this is rape. All rapes are equal. Nowadays, marriage does not remedy such heinous felony.
Courtney Alexis Stodden’s mother claims:
"Courtney was a virgin when she married Doug," said Krista Stoddden. "She is a good Christian girl. NY Daily News
If he just engaged in oral sex or indecent touching, indecent acts with a minor are rape too, at least sexual assault. Even if he never touched her, then he might have sent her seductive emails and thus run afoul of grooming laws. If he crossed state lines with the intent of having as much as oral sex with her in a state where it 16 is the legal age of consent, he would be violating federal law in the USA.
Even if he consumated the sexual acts only in marriage, it still leaves open the significant question:
- why is Courtney unable to *consent to sex, but she can consent to marriage.
- And why, after marriage, can she consent to sex?
We need a criminal investigation. This husband needs to be arrested without bail, the minor child needs to be saved. Obviously she has been brainwashed. Furthermore, it is just disgusting how an old guy like that can be with an innocent child of 16. We need new laws to outlaw such behavior, to protect innocent 16 year old children from such a marriage.
In California, any person, of any age, that has sex with a minor, is a child rapist and felon. Most ( teens have sex before 18 years. 65-70% have sex before they are 18. That means, the average teen gets raped at least once and one person should go to prison. So Millions of Californians need to be locked up in prison. The law is the law, and the law has to be obeyed.
Do you think our proposals are stupid, wrong, immoral? Well, stand up and fight for all these laws to be revoked.
Sexual harassment started with quid pro quo harassment, (="sexual shakedown", extended to all relationships with power imbalance, added peer harassment (which "sets the stage for campus rape" ),, contrapower harassment” and closed the circle with grooming and electronic harassment, Thus Title IX, an anti discrimination law, went full circle to selectively discriminate against males and heterosexuality. MacKinnon: sexual harassment ‘ is done by men to women regardless of’ relative position on the formal hierarchy.". 
The SHI (sexual harassment industry) trains women to become more and more un-empowered, vulnerable and sensitive. So ridiculously weak, that for a "reasonable woman", innuendo, 
Sleights as small as touching a student’s hair or praising (or criticizing) a student’s paper are dramatized as "devastating experience" that "is life changing". Creation of a hostile environment by claiming, in class, that 
Such concepts as "merit, rigor, standards, and excellence" are viewed as code words to promote " discriminatorv self-interest" on the part of the powerful (p. 311). "Academic freedom" is it slogan touted by "white male faculty" but, she gleefully affirms, one now increasingly challenged by "nonacademic" folk. "To many," Hippensteele writes, "academic freedom is currently being used as it license to speak and behave irresponsibly" (p. 311).