Tag: statutory rape

Barack Obama Sr., bigamist, pedophile, child rapist?

Barack Obama Jr. was likely conceived when his mother was still 17 years old. [1]

According to federal law this is below the age of consent. A 17 year old *child is unable to consent, which automatically makes any act of sex rape.  "Rape is rape is rape"  (according to Barack Obama’s pal and Vice President  Joe Biden).

Luckily, the age of consent in Hawaii is 16. So if sex occurred in Hawaii, it was not rape.

Of course, in these modern days, Barack Obama Sr. still could be charged with crimes as diverse as grooming a child over the internet, sexting, crossing state lines with intent to have sex with a minor,

Barack Obama Sr. already had shown prior preference for jailbait. Kenyan age of consent for unmarried people is 16. Kezia, born 1940,  was 14 when 18 year old Barack Senior married  her in 1954, in exchange for a dowry of 14 cows. 

In 1954, Obama married Kezia Aoko[22] in a tribal ceremony. Wikipedia

Kezia had her first baby at age 18. Maybe conceived at age 17.

Anyone can do the math if Kezia Obama’s first child was conceived while the mother was still 17?

Had Barack Obama Senior been a US resident, it would have been a felony to fly to Kenya with the intent to have sex with an underage girl under 18.

 

Human-Stupidity Analysis

We think it would behoove the US government to re-consider many age of consent, sexting, child porn laws, that put many men in prison for consensual sex with post pubertal adolescents.

Many men languish in prison for the same acts that the father of President Barack Obama committed: sex with adolescent jail bait.

Consider that Barack Obama, the President of the USA was likely conceived by an unmarried 17 year old woman. The president’s father, Barack Hussein Sr. also had a predilection for underage girls as young as 14, the age he married his first wife Kezia.

The fact that the President’s father was a clear bigamist, married to 2-3 women at the same time would suggest to pursue bigamist US citizens with more leniency.

 

The American Dream Love Story:
Barack Obama’s Mom Was 17 When Barack Sr., A 24-Year-Old Married Man, Knocked Her Up

Let’s ask a question that I haven’t seen before:

How old was Ann Dunham when Barack Obama Sr., an already married 24-year-old, impregnated her?

 

 

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Barack Obama Sr., bigamist, pedophile, child rapist?” »
Barack Obama Sr., bigamist, pedophile, child rapist?
» continues here »

British judge frees child-rapist because he “didn’t know it was wrong”

 

18 year old Muslim immigrant Adil Rashid was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl he met on the internet.

When he went to be sentenced, he told Judge Michael Stokes that he didn’t know it was illegal. He said he attended private Muslim school in Britain and that they had not educated him on British law.

Stokes said that was good enough for him and freed the Rashid with no punishment. TopConservativeNews

Judge Stokes sentenced Rashid to nine months youth custody, suspended for two years, along with a two-year probation supervision order, instead of a more normal 5 year prison term. 2

Back in January, there was a profoundly disturbing case at Nottingham Crown Court. Adil Rashid, who had “raped” an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law;

Even for a normal well informed citizen, being up to date on all underage sex laws is quite difficult.

Would you know the legal ramification of a 6 year old an and 8 year old playing doctor in your state and the nearest 2 adjacent states or countries? Or of two 25 year olds kissing in Abu Dhabi?  Would you know You can have sex with your legal 17 year old wife. But just don’t photograph her! Or else risk 15 years in jail!.

Feminist language abuse has caused such utter confusion like

besides, his education had taught him to believe that “women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground”.

This is a very different issue, though feminists might want to confound it.  We have great respect of women, so much that we think a 13 year old knows what *consent is, knows to say yes and no. Even more so 17 year old "children" know to say yes or no.

If the fresh-faced Rashid had picked up that view in a madrassa in Karachi it would be profoundly depressing, though not surprising. But the school he attended was in Birmingham, for heaven’s sake! Although it cannot be named for “legal reasons”, the school is voluntary-aided – mainly funded by the taxpayer. At this hugely popular Islamic school, where a majority of pupils are from a Pakistani background, boys and girls are taught in separate classes; a segregation policy no normal comprehensive could get away with.

Again, another issue. Muslim "culture" that does not integrate at all with British culture but remain a parallel culture.

This leads to more serious problems, if Muslim boys that despise inferior women use real non-consensual *rape-rape on young British girls.

Oxford grooming gang: We will regret ignoring Asian thugs who target white girls

What a god-awful mess this country has got itself into over multiculturalism, and once again our fear of racism will lead to the betrayal of hundreds of young girls

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “British judge frees child-rapist because he “didn’t know it was wrong”” »
British judge frees child-rapist because he “didn’t kn…
» continues here »

Teenagers who aggressively seek sex are always rape victims

No matter how actively a minor desires a sexual relationship, s/he is always a victim of *statutory *rape".  This feminist language abuse must never be challenged, or else.

 

A legal professional who uses any common sense faces serious problems. We are surprised that these cases have even happened and are worried about the backlash.

Barrister criticized for calling child abuse victim ‘predatory’

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has criticized a barrister acting on its behalf for describing a 13-year-old sex abuse victim in court as "predatory".

Robert Colover also called the girl "sexually experienced". The CPS said his language had been "inappropriate".

 

Speaking about Mr Colover’s remarks, a CPS spokesman said: "The language used by prosecution counsel was inappropriate.

"The transgressor in this case was the defendant and he bears responsibility for his criminal acts."

Alan Wardle, from the NSPCC, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: "The age of consent in this country is 16, before that a child cannot consent. As a society we have drawn a line in the sand on that.

"In this case, the child was 13 and the man was 41 – it’s pretty clear who the predator was."

Of course. A sexually mature post-pubertal minor who shows sexual interest is always a victim. The older person is always a predator. A consequence of this grotesque logic 

Yes means No! Forcibly raping a 17 year old is the same rape as consensual love making

"Yes" means "No" You have a girl friend under the local age of consent, and you (unwisely) want to have sex with her. Don’t bother to ask for her consent to sex.  Just ravish her violently, no matter how much she resists. It makes no difference if she consents or not. Her "yes" means "no", her consent is invalid.…

 

The Blame Game: Lawyers say 14-year-old consented to rape; shares blame

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Teenagers who aggressively seek sex are always rape victims” »
Teenagers who aggressively seek sex are always rape victims
» continues here »

Age of Consent and the Demonization of Normal Male Sexuality

Which brings me to a larger issue. What the fuck is up with statutory rape? It’s a joke law made up by joke legislators without a scintilla of real world experience with women. Am I supposed to request age identification from every full-bodied young woman who comes onto me? There are 13 year olds out there who look like grown women. At the borderline of 16 to 18 years old, many women could easily pass for mid to late 20s. It is well known by neuroscientists and psychologists studying these things that women mature faster than men. Women’s brains gel into adult-shaped contours sooner. A full breasted and wide-hipped 17 year old hottie who flirts with me knows exactly what she is doing and what she wants. She is no child to be coddled. And yet, I could be thrown in jail if I slept with her assuming she was an older girl, even if it was something we both consensually desired.

This is abject bullshit. The law makes it a necessity to demand age identification with every young woman a man might want to fuck who could conceivably pass for a teenager. This means background checks on women in their 20s. And what about women who lie? They exist, lots of them. Is a statutory rape charge for the man the just response — the *fair* response — to a lying woman who wanted the sex as much as he?

It’s time to end the charade of statutory rape. If the “underage” woman is physically developed, and she consents to the sex, there is no rape charge, period. For chrissakes, there are 14 year olds in parts of the world getting married off and pumping out children of their own.

– Roissy, http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/hank-moody-chump/

This is the first in a series of link lists by Ultra-Conservative-MRA.  Human-Stupidity does not always fully agree with the often provocative content, but considers it food for thought, to shake up conventional thinking. See our 80 posts on Teenage Sexuality 

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Age of Consent and the Demonization of Normal Male Sexuality” »
Age of Consent and the Demonization of Normal Male Sexuality
» continues here »

Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!” »
Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By…
» continues here »