"A man who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Austria has had his conviction overturned after judges found he may have believed the child consented."

[strangerintheday]

link here

Please someone explain to me the logic of this because I am completely and utterly lost for words.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am not reserving a special corner for anything. You are the one who is determined that the crime must be called rape. I don't care what it is called as long as it is a serious criminal offence and is punished appropriately. It seem really strange that the label apparently matters so much to you.

You say that failing to call it rape is a shocking injustice. I disagree. Failing to regard it as a serious criminal offence is a shocking injustice. Failing to punish offenders appropriately is a shocking injustice. But, as long as it is a serious criminal offence and is punished appropriately, why does it matter what it is called?

I am happy that we call it rape in the UK when the victim is under 13.

Most countries don't call it rape but most of them still class it as a serious crime which, in many cases, carries the same sentence as rape. I would like to see all countries give the crime the same sentence as rape. That is far more important to me than what they call the crime.

It seem really strange that the label apparently matters so much to you.

And I think it's strange that a willingness to describe child abuse and rape in terms that suggest there is such a thing as 'consensual sex' between an adult and a child doesn't matter so much to you, or strike you as abhorrent. Instead, you have to find other atrocities that classify as 'abhorrent' while this particular outrage is 'not quite as bad'. Why would you minimise it by pointing out that other things are worse? It's quite bad enough to be called abhorrent and there is no need for comparison. No other sex crimes were being discussed and in fact no others (such as child marriage) are relevant to the OP.

And I think you will find that it matters very, very deeply to many women who have suffered rape that it was rape and is agreed to be rape by the justice system. Why don't you start a thread on the feminist board inquiring if there could be different terms for 'non-consensual sex' that for some reason doesn't quite classify as rape?

No, I thought you wouldn't.

Actually I'm not sure that I like the terminology of rape for child sexual abuse anyway. Rape is all about absence of consent - it's baked into the concept. But if you're prosecuting sexual assault on a ten year old then consent shouldn't even come into the equation. It's pretty grim to be asking "did the child consent to this assault?" in court. It looks like the prosecution in this case screwed up by not going into the question, but a legal system that forces them to do so needs review IMO.

I can see the point you're making changed and I'm not sure that any term implying 'sexual relations' between adult and children is appropriate when talking about child abuse.

However, if you're going to use terms like that, let us be clear that there is no way for an adult (or, for that matter, another child) to penetrate a child consensually, which is what punishing for 'non-consensual sex' implies.

If we are going to talk about sex in this context, it's imperative that it is called rape because there is no other possibility. To suggest there is another possibility (by using a term like 'non-consensual sex which suggests that the perpetrator is being punished for the 'non-consensual' part rather than the 'sex') is akin to the kind of softening-the-edges of rape that sees rapists not being convicted because the clear boundaries around what constitutes rape have been allowed to slip.

And I think it's strange that a willingness to describe child abuse and rape in terms that suggest there is such a thing as 'consensual sex' between an adult and a child doesn't matter so much to you

No idea where you get that from. I have explained the Austrian legal system which does suggest that there is such a thing as consensual sex between an adult and a child. I thought I was clear that I do not agree with that. The problem with the Austrian system is that child abuse (which they seem to refer to as serious sexual assault) is not punished as severely as rape, hence the reason the perpetrator in this case was accused of both. This is also why the prosecution had to prove that the perpetrator knew the child did not consent - again, I disagree with the Austrian system on this. There should be no question of that when dealing with a ten year old.

My point hasn't changed at all. Perhaps you thought ChangedDaily was me?

I certainly wouldn't be happy with a term such as "non-consensual sex" which might imply that the child could consent. I'm not entirely comfortable with the Austrian's calling it serious sexual assault but I don't know if anything is lost in the translation. There are a variety of terms used in Europe such as sexual acts with a person under the age of consent, sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent, sexual abuse of a child, etc. I don't see how any of these implies that the child is capable of consent.

The problem may also be that The Austrian legal system has had to deal with relatively few people before who have come from a legal framework/culture where it is implied that a child is capable of consenting to the act that took place. It is taken for granted that most people brought up in Europe know that children are not legally seen as being able to consent to these acts, especially when a large degree of violence has taken place within the assault. Therefore it seems that the Austrian legal system needs to remove this loophole and make it clear that under these conditions a child will not be believed to have consented at any point therefore any belief that the perp may have had on the issue of consent is null and void.

I suppose rape is a more hard hitting term but PRH is right it is the sentence and penalties which ultimately matter.

Everyone - This is a trumped up "technicality". The rapist knew that the boy did not consent. As regards middle-aged men marrying young girls, those men know the girl does not want the marriage but in that culture it is immaterial.

This is Merkel's doing. Last year she asked Zuckerberg to find and delete FB messages on FB Germany that were critical of her decision to allow 1 million migrants in, which he agreed to do. This trial is an attempt to minimise what happened to the victim, and make us believe that the rapist simply did not know European culture. The EU are desperately trying to trivialise rapes and molestations of children and adult women in favour of the newcomers.

The EU are sacrificing their own people and culture and trying to hide away what is REALLY going on. In Sweden it is now unlawful to criticise immigrants or immigration policy.

In some parts of the world, men having sex with young boys is commonplace. No risk of pregnancy and therefore no shame on the family. It can be a member of the family or a stranger. I could give you a list of the countries, but I think MN may be sensitive about that.