That high schooler was a former sex slave not a slut.

[Des-Bal]

Depends on how you define mentally disabled, but frankly the fact that these victims are impacted to such a degree does give us reason to presume any consequences associated with being a former sex slave do apply here, until any definite conclusions can be made.

For any further legal actions, further proof would be needed but the facts outlined in my source do offer additional credence to her inability to consent without that proof being necessary. The weight of those facts in respect to this case will of course be determined by this proof, once acquired.

For debating purposes, in this preliminary phase, it's entirely logical to assume she couldn't consent.

In this context the standard of mental disability would be that she didn't understand what she was doing was sexual.

She couldn't consent because she was 15. It's not at all logical to assume that she couldn't consent based on her past experiences, there is nothing to inform the jump from "this could happen" to "this has happened."

[Tekania]

Her mental ability to consent based upon her history is legally moot in this situation. There are no rape charges on the table... what is being looked into is child porn production/distribution because of some of the videos taken/posted. Even if it were of question, as she is 15 it falls under statutory rape under FL law, and so her mental state to consent owing to her past would still be immaterial because she is not capable of consenting by her age alone.... the only way it would come to play would be as a defensive motion against her own rape charges, as under FL law she too would be guilty of statutory rape as some of the boys she has sex with were 13. This is all just a legal night mare that no prosecutor wants to open that can of worms as no one involved is claiming rape occurred in this case, and the child porn charges are much clearer and easier to deal with in the context of the law and those involved.

[Esternial]

Depends on how you define mentally disabled, but frankly the fact that these victims are impacted to such a degree does give us reason to presume any consequences associated with being a former sex slave do apply here, until any definite conclusions can be made.

For any further legal actions, further proof would be needed but the facts outlined in my source do offer additional credence to her inability to consent without that proof being necessary. The weight of those facts in respect to this case will of course be determined by this proof, once acquired.

For debating purposes, in this preliminary phase, it's entirely logical to assume she couldn't consent.

In this context the standard of mental disability would be that she didn't understand what she was doing was sexual.

She couldn't consent because she was 15. It's not at all logical to assume that she couldn't consent based on her past experiences, there is nothing to inform the jump from "this could happen" to "this has happened."

The article does state that these victims "were so full of self-blame and shame from the original assault that they felt unable to act on their own behalf during the later sexual assault".

Also I never made that jump. I've been consistently clear in my posts about that so far.

but we can assume the most likely scenario until things are cleared up, while still considering that this scenario is certainly not falsifiable.

I've never said this preliminary assumption is undeniable, but it is the most likely as it stands.

Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, and admittedly that may not be something most NSG'ers tend to do which may have somehow led you to believe I'm convinced this has to be the case.

[Des-Bal]

Her mental ability to consent based upon her history is legally moot in this situation. There are no rape charges on the table... what is being looked into is child porn production/distribution because of some of the videos taken/posted. Even if it were of question, as she is 15 it falls under statutory rape under FL law, and so her mental state to consent owing to her past would still be immaterial because she is not capable of consenting by her age alone.... the only way it would come to play would be as a defensive motion against her own rape charges, as under FL law she too would be guilty of statutory rape as some of the boys she has sex with were 13. This is all just a legal night mare that no prosecutor wants to open that can of worms as no one involved is claiming rape occurred in this case, and the child porn charges are much clearer and easier to deal with in the context of the law and those involved.

The concern isn't really about prosecution so much as it is about her status. I'm bothered by the assumption that her experiences should imply she's incapable of consent without anything else suggesting that's the case.

[Esternial]

Her mental ability to consent based upon her history is legally moot in this situation. There are no rape charges on the table... what is being looked into is child porn production/distribution because of some of the videos taken/posted. Even if it were of question, as she is 15 it falls under statutory rape under FL law, and so her mental state to consent owing to her past would still be immaterial because she is not capable of consenting by her age alone.... the only way it would come to play would be as a defensive motion against her own rape charges, as under FL law she too would be guilty of statutory rape as some of the boys she has sex with were 13. This is all just a legal night mare that no prosecutor wants to open that can of worms as no one involved is claiming rape occurred in this case, and the child porn charges are much clearer and easier to deal with in the context of the law and those involved.

The concern isn't really about prosecution so much as it is about her status. I'm bothered by the assumption that her experiences should imply she's incapable of consent without anything else suggesting that's the case.

Not should. They do imply that likelihood.

[Des-Bal]

The article does state that these victims "were so full of self-blame and shame from the original assault that they felt unable to act on their own behalf during the later sexual assault".

Also I never made that jump. I've been consistently clear in my posts about that so far.

I've never said this preliminary assumption is undeniable, but it is the most likely as it stands.

Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, and admittedly that may not be something most NSG'ers tend to do which may have somehow led you to believe I'm convinced this has to be the case.

And it doesn't state that that happened here.

I don't see why it is.

Then let me be clear and say that I don't see a reason to elevate "she was incapable of consent" to probability.

[Tekania]

Her mental ability to consent based upon her history is legally moot in this situation. There are no rape charges on the table... what is being looked into is child porn production/distribution because of some of the videos taken/posted. Even if it were of question, as she is 15 it falls under statutory rape under FL law, and so her mental state to consent owing to her past would still be immaterial because she is not capable of consenting by her age alone.... the only way it would come to play would be as a defensive motion against her own rape charges, as under FL law she too would be guilty of statutory rape as some of the boys she has sex with were 13. This is all just a legal night mare that no prosecutor wants to open that can of worms as no one involved is claiming rape occurred in this case, and the child porn charges are much clearer and easier to deal with in the context of the law and those involved.

The concern isn't really about prosecution so much as it is about her status. I'm bothered by the assumption that her experiences should imply she's incapable of consent without anything else suggesting that's the case.

Sometimes the best way is to not play the game in the first place. The consent topic is a red-herring, best to simply not chase after it.

[Esternial]

The article does state that these victims "were so full of self-blame and shame from the original assault that they felt unable to act on their own behalf during the later sexual assault".

Also I never made that jump. I've been consistently clear in my posts about that so far.

I've never said this preliminary assumption is undeniable, but it is the most likely as it stands.

Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, and admittedly that may not be something most NSG'ers tend to do which may have somehow led you to believe I'm convinced this has to be the case.

And it doesn't state that that happened here.

I don't see why it is.

Then let me be clear and say that I don't see a reason to elevate "she was incapable of consent" to probability.

Except current evidence regarding sex slave victims do indicate that probability.

Don't see how that's so hard to imagine. I can see why you're so adamant about your "prove consent could not be given" but then we're talking about absolutes (could she or could she not) while, when it comes to probabilities, it most certainly factors into the equation.

[Des-Bal]

Except current evidence regarding sex slave victims do indicate that probability.

Don't see how that's so hard to imagine. I can see why you're so adamant about your "prove consent could not be given" but then we're talking about absolutes (could she or could she not) while, when it comes to probabilities, it most certainly factors into the equation.

No, it really doesn't. If your source said 51% of victims of sex trafficking are not able to consent for three years following their experience then that would be evidence. What it says is decidedly not that.

Sometimes the best way is to not play the game in the first place. The consent topic is a red-herring, best to simply not chase after it.

It's an aspect of how we treat victims and it's certainly not moot in all cases. It has no impact on whether or not a criminal act occurred but to call it a red herring is a bit much.

[Ethel mermania]

You're fundamentally misrepresenting the issue. You have evidence that sex slavery has an impact on those it victimizes; great, that was never in contention. I am not saying that we should assume she was unaffected by her experiences I'm saying that there is no reason to presume this girl or any other victim should be treated as mentally disabled until they can prove they aren't.

Depends on how you define mentally disabled, but frankly the fact that these victims are impacted to such a degree does give us reason to presume any consequences associated with being a former sex slave do apply here, until any definite conclusions can be made.

For any further legal actions, further proof would be needed but the facts outlined in my source do offer additional credence to her inability to consent without that proof being necessary. The weight of those facts in respect to this case will of course be determined by this proof, once acquired.

For debating purposes, in this preliminary phase, it's entirely logical to assume she couldn't consent.

so anyone who knew of her situation and took advantage of it, we could say it was sexual assault, as she did not have capacity to make informed consent?

[Cedoria]

Fifteen is, if I recall correctly, below the age of consent. As to whether fifteen-year-olds, on an average, can provide inform consent, that's another matter entirely.

As for your sex-negative rhetoric and talk of "moral bankrupcy", I don't care for it. This whole situation, in light of this new information, was most unfortunate. I hope that, from now onwards, this girl has a happy, healthy life, despite everything she has been through.

With that said, if you are a truly moral person, I hope you plan to apologise for the horrid comments you made about this girl in your own thread.

I'll apologize for calling her a slut when she stops giving consent to have sex with people she's not married to and consenting to have it viewed like live performance pornography. She behaved like a slut, she acted promiscuously. In light of the current news, she probably was acting slutty and promiscuous because she was abused by a bunch of horrible people. I'm not arguing about allowing adults to have sexual consent.

Until you are 18 years old, you can't consent to sex in my opinion.

Your personal opinion frankly matters fuck all to this situation to be honest. It was you who started the previous thread in the first place,

In saying that, I did say in the previous thread that if the sex was consensual, it was no problem, since it clearly was not, it is a problem.

As for her being a slut well, are you saying it's HER fault she was a victim of a despicable industry? And it's HER fault she's a victim? That's some warped morals right there, before you go lecturing the rest of us, think about your own behaviour.

[Des-Bal]

Your personal opinion frankly matters fuck all to this situation to be honest. It was you who started the previous thread in the first place,

In saying that, I did say in the previous thread that if the sex was consensual, it was no problem, since it clearly was not, it is a problem.

As for her being a slut well, are you saying it's HER fault she was a victim of a despicable industry? And it's HER fault she's a victim? That's some warped morals right there, before you go lecturing the rest of us, think about your own behaviour.

How was it clearly not consensual? Nobody is arguing she was forced to do anything, saying someone is so mentally disabled that they can't consent to sex is really a big deal and it seems to be happening very flippantly.

[Esternial]

Except current evidence regarding sex slave victims do indicate that probability.

Don't see how that's so hard to imagine. I can see why you're so adamant about your "prove consent could not be given" but then we're talking about absolutes (could she or could she not) while, when it comes to probabilities, it most certainly factors into the equation.

No, it really doesn't. If your source said 51% of victims of sex trafficking are not able to consent for three years following their experience then that would be evidence. What it says is decidedly not that.

I'm not sure if you're doing this intentionally to stick to a - in my opinion - fairly weak argument, but I do hope you realise most articles base their conclusions on other articles, which may be based on other articles, which do base their findings on surveys and such.

Here's one survey where the article I linked got some of their conclusions from:

http://www.wcsap.org/sites/wcsap.org/fi ... _v6_i3.pdf

Here's another article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042031/

Research also suggests that the greater the severity of the sexual abuse, the worse the health outcomes. Thus, more severe sexual abuse (e.g., sexual abuse involving force, more intimate sexual acts, a close relative, or repeated sexual abuse) has been associated with poorer social adjustment, less life satisfaction, and more severe psychological symptoms

I can go on if that's really the route you want to go down, but I think it's kind of silly to reject evidence (or findings, if you prefer that term) because the article itself doesn't cite figures, particularly because it's more of a review that bases its findings on articles that do. This probably isn't the first time you read a review article.

Depends on how you define mentally disabled, but frankly the fact that these victims are impacted to such a degree does give us reason to presume any consequences associated with being a former sex slave do apply here, until any definite conclusions can be made.

For any further legal actions, further proof would be needed but the facts outlined in my source do offer additional credence to her inability to consent without that proof being necessary. The weight of those facts in respect to this case will of course be determined by this proof, once acquired.

For debating purposes, in this preliminary phase, it's entirely logical to assume she couldn't consent.

so anyone who knew of her situation and took advantage of it, we could say it was sexual assault, as she did not have capacity to make informed consent?

Possibly. The only assumption I can draw from it is that it's very likely that she is in no way responsible for what happened, ignoring the factor of age.

Your personal opinion frankly matters fuck all to this situation to be honest. It was you who started the previous thread in the first place,

In saying that, I did say in the previous thread that if the sex was consensual, it was no problem, since it clearly was not, it is a problem.

As for her being a slut well, are you saying it's HER fault she was a victim of a despicable industry? And it's HER fault she's a victim? That's some warped morals right there, before you go lecturing the rest of us, think about your own behaviour.

How was it clearly not consensual? Nobody is arguing she was forced to do anything, saying someone is so mentally disabled that they can't consent to sex is really a big deal and it seems to be happening very flippantly.

Can't speak for everyone else but I'm far from flippant about it.

[Des-Bal]

I'm not sure if you're doing this intentionally to stick to a - in my opinion - fairly weak argument, but I do hope you realise most articles base their conclusions on other articles, which may be based on other articles, which do base their findings on surveys and such.

Here's one survey where the article I linked got some of their conclusions from:

http://www.wcsap.org/sites/wcsap.org/fi ... _v6_i3.pdf

Here's another article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042031/


I can go on if that's really the route you want to go down, but I think it's kind of silly to reject evidence (or findings, if you prefer that term) because the article itself doesn't cite figures, particularly because it's more of a review that bases its findings on articles that do. This probably isn't the first time you read a review article.

Possibly. The only assumption I can draw from it is that it's very likely that she is in no way responsible for what happened, ignoring the factor of age.

The problem is your conclusions don't say what you want them to. You have evidence that that there are negative mental health outcomes for victims of sexual abuse, that's not in contention. What you are saying is that it is more likely than not that a victim of sexual abuse is incapable of consent two years after the fact. None of your evidence points to this as a reasonable conclusion.

[Esternial]

I'm not sure if you're doing this intentionally to stick to a - in my opinion - fairly weak argument, but I do hope you realise most articles base their conclusions on other articles, which may be based on other articles, which do base their findings on surveys and such.

Here's one survey where the article I linked got some of their conclusions from:

http://www.wcsap.org/sites/wcsap.org/fi ... _v6_i3.pdf

Here's another article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042031/


I can go on if that's really the route you want to go down, but I think it's kind of silly to reject evidence (or findings, if you prefer that term) because the article itself doesn't cite figures, particularly because it's more of a review that bases its findings on articles that do. This probably isn't the first time you read a review article.

Possibly. The only assumption I can draw from it is that it's very likely that she is in no way responsible for what happened, ignoring the factor of age.

The problem is your conclusions don't say what you want them to. You have evidence that that there are negative mental health outcomes for victims of sexual abuse, that's not in contention. What you are saying is that it is more likely than not that a victim of sexual abuse is incapable of consent two years after the fact. None of your evidence points to this as a reasonable conclusion.

So you're assuming this person would overcome their trauma in two years time?

[Des-Bal]

So you're assuming this person would overcome their trauma in two years time?

No I'm saying that in the absence of evidence I will not assume by default that this person is so afflicted by trauma as to become mentally disabled for at least two years.

[Esternial]

So you're assuming this person would overcome their trauma in two years time?

No I'm saying that in the absence of evidence I will not assume by default that this person is so afflicted by trauma as to become mentally disabled for at least two years.

That's a rather flippant assumption. Two years is not that long.

[Des-Bal]

That's a rather flippant assumption. Two years is not that long.

See you can't really turn my words around because I'm not assuming anything, I'm declining to make assumptions in the absence of specific information. I don't think you understand the difference between trauma, psychological problems, and consent invalidating mental disability.

[Esternial]

Found a review that may be insightful, but it's gotten late. I'll read through it tomorrow but if you want you can browse through it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 349290011F

Personally, I'm fairly certain that childhood abuse of such scope and severity would have a strong impact that would last longer than two years. In the same way you see people considering this woman as mentally disabled "flippant", I would find your (apparent) severe underestimation of the severity of childhood sexual abuse under these conditions (sex slavery), the impact of it on a child's psyche and the nature/duration of the resulting trauma equally - if not more - flippant.

That's a rather flippant assumption. Two years is not that long.

See you can't really turn my words around because I'm not assuming anything, I'm declining to make assumptions in the absence of specific information. I don't think you understand the difference between trauma, psychological problems, and consent invalidating mental disability.

The fact you don't see these circumstances as a possible contributing factor is in itself an assumption. You assume it's not a contributing factor so long as further information is not presented.

[Des-Bal]

Found a review that may be insightful, but it's gotten late. I'll read through it tomorrow but if you want you can browse through it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 349290011F

Personally, I'm fairly certain that childhood abuse of such scope and severity would have a strong impact that would last longer than two years. In the same way you see people considering this woman as mentally disabled "flippant", I would find your (apparent) severe underestimation of the severity of childhood sexual abuse under these conditions (sex slavery), the impact of it on a child's psyche and the nature/duration of the resulting trauma equally - if not more - flippant.

You're talking about the scope and severity of abuse you have no information on. The only information in the OP is that she was trafficked in the sex trade at 13. Further you are not delineating between an experience "hav[ing] a strong impact" and having such an impact that it renders the person incapable of offering meaningful consent. My problem is that you are entering this with assumptions that invalidate a person's choices and place their status as victim as the defining aspect of who they are.

The fact you don't see these circumstances as a possible contributing factor is in itself an assumption. You assume it's not a contributing factor so long as further information is not presented.

1. What you are describing is skepticism.
2. I am not saying those circumstances are not a possible contributing factor. I am saying that I will not assume she is mentally disabled until proof is presented otherwise.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

As I've stated before, given the complexities of the incident, I don't think the young men ought to be punished criminally. Nor should the girl, obviously. They ought to be educated - about the inappropriateness of their choices in the context they were made, for one thing. The school bathroom? Not ok. And then educated about having respect for one another as human beings - about things like peer pressure, consequences, reduced capacity for making informed choices such as this girl had to deal with, considering the story stated, they were intrigued by the potential for some 'fun' due to 'word having gotten around' about her background', and about how actions like this can be definitely taking advantage of a person, regardless of gender. I believe there are a plethora of things that could be rationally, reasonably discussed without further compromising the girl, or needlessly ruining the lives of these kids to the degree of 'sexual predators' and what not.

This is not your everyday situation. It is not a clear-cut rape case. There are a number of things that need to be taken into account. And I don't think that reasonable people would feel that a criminal prosecution were necessary, given all of this. Was it 'right'? No, I don't think so, and that's leaving any morality argument out of it. Could the boys be reasonably charged with rape? Not when they were encouraged by the 'yes, I'll do it' that apparently went on. The girl - she's already been through enough, given her past. Counseling to understand what happened, and what she may have done then, and in this last incident, are not what defines her as a person should definitely be in order, so long as there is no shaming or overly-moralistic overtones to it.

Sure it's shocking. But when you step back from the base emotions surrounding it, there's the facts to deal with, and those are what any judgement ought to be based off of.

**It took place at school - entirely inappropriate.
**The girl consented - this may be against the law where she's at, but our laws are currently inappropriate in how they deal with our youth, and need to be addressed.
**The girl's ability to consent may have been compromised due to her previous experiences - that is something none of us are equipped to pass full judgement on, but can form opinions based off our own knowledge of similar situations. Folks do have a right to opine. My opinion is that the young men could not at their ages understand the ramifications of that, and thus should not be wholly held accountable, but instead, educated so they can learn to understand what a compromised consent can mean.

Most everything else is mere supposition until more evidence is brought to light - if it is, given the ages - and regardless of what we argue here, it won't' make much of a difference there. What could make a difference is petitioning our state and local governments to re-examine the law when it concerns teenagers, and stop the atmosphere of shame that's associated with reporting rape, stop jailing or criminally listing kids who do what kids do (like it or not), and try to get programs started to better educate kids about respect, risks, consequences, and complexities surrounding sex, rape, picture sharing, sexting, what have you. Granted, I'd suggest its the parent's jobs to initially try to talk to kids about all of that, but I think we all know that a) not all parents will, and b) not all kids listen to their parents. If their peers are encouraging better behavior as well, if there is more a push to treat one another and one another's bodies with more respect, and a having a healthy approach to sex, rather than shame and secretiveness that can lead to hiding and an atmosphere that encourages this sort of thing.

Is anyone really going to discount the added thrill of doing something you know you're not supposed to do - so far as the adults told you at least - or on top of that, the risk of getting caught? Throw that in with teenage sex, and you have a recipe for adrenaline-addled disaster. Thus we see, neh?

[The East Marches]

Sex ed alone won't solve anything. You need to teach people how to be in proper relationships too. Too many don't realize when they are taken advantage of. Whether it be the stereotype for MRAs of the boyfriend in a one way open relationship or the Feminist stereotype of the abusive boyfriend who fools around with other women. I know I wasn't taught a thing about that and had to learn the hard way what was good versus what was bad. A girl trying to stab you isn't a sign of love, its a sign of a problem. The same for this situation. Abnormal behavior comes because of lack of education on what is healthy.

Pray tell, do you have sources for this?

What kind of sources do you need? Dushan made an excellent post below yours explaining things. Let me know if there is any other gaps I can fill and I'd be willing to do so.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Pray tell, do you have sources for this?

What kind of sources do you need? Dushan made an excellent post below yours explaining things. Let me know if there is any other gaps I can fill and I'd be willing to do so.

Just an fyi, almost all comprehensive sex ed courses that are proposed by educators who are passionate about their jobs do include courses on recognizing abuse verses healthy relationships.

[The East Marches]

What kind of sources do you need? Dushan made an excellent post below yours explaining things. Let me know if there is any other gaps I can fill and I'd be willing to do so.

Just an fyi, almost all comprehensive sex ed courses that are proposed by educators who are passionate about their jobs do include courses on recognizing abuse verses healthy relationships.

Mine was totally lacking in that category and I went to a "good" high school by American standards. Perhaps it is different in other parts of the country. Thats part of the problem with a disjointed educational system.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Just an fyi, almost all comprehensive sex ed courses that are proposed by educators who are passionate about their jobs do include courses on recognizing abuse verses healthy relationships.

Mine was totally lacking in that category and I went to a "good" high school by American standards. Perhaps it is different in other parts of the country. Thats part of the problem with a disjointed educational system.

Yeah because few high schools are allowed to go by the proposed curriculum... They can only do 1% of what students should learn.