That's absolutely a possibility that he coerced her into the relationship, and I'll have to go back and look at it, but I'm pretty sure from what I recall she was said to have pursued the guy from the start and after she was both reassigned to another store and even after her mom sent her away.
Bolding this because it's important. It's important because it doesn't really constitute anything unless text messages or some other reasonable amount of evidence corroborates it. Pursuing him afterwards WAS corraberated, but again, that doesn't mean he wasn't threatening or coercing her at the start, and her pursuing could have simply been a matter of her still being mentally fuged and manipulated by him. IF what she says is true, he's probably done this to other girls at other places, and got smart enough to not give any evidence of wrongdoing by him. That's how these serial sex offenders usually work. He can say whatever he wants to her when they're alone, since most places don't have security cameras with audio. As long as there's no physical recording of him threatening her, it ends up looking like she's just "playing the victim part"
I don't think it's relevant. In this case, it involved someone in a position of power over her. The other dudes were just dudes. An 18 year old high school senior can bang anyone. Anyone except her teacher. Because of the potential for abuse of authority that's inherent with that type of relationship. There's a reason it's a terminable offense, because coercion in that situation happens A LOT. Which is why I always give the girls the benefit of the doubt in this situation, regardless of their relationship history. I know the explicit text messages don't look good, but that doesn't mean he didn't use his authority to pressure her and she convinced herself she was okay with doing this. It's not that uncommon, sort of like a milder Stockholm Syndrome.
Yeah I mean, he really does just harp on things over and over...
The rspe thing come from a thread from like 6 years ago or something... I made a comment, re the girl who was 16 at the time, she carried on a illicit relationship with a 24 year old guy, they both worked at Starbucks and the guy was her boss. It was statutory rape and the 24 year old man was convicted (rightly so) and sentenced.
In a thread about the girls lawsuit against Starbucks, I made the comment that she was "playing the victim" and in fact she was. She was, 4 years later, suing Starbucks for money because they " hadn't prevented the relationship " even though they moved her to a different store and tried (along with her mom who sent her away) to remove her from the situation, yet she continually sent back (of her own accord) and continued the relationship. I said all along that the 24 year old guy was at fault and he was justifiably punished for his actions as he could of, at anytime, stopped the relationship. He was wrong but she actively pursued him and the relationship yet 4 years later, she was trying yo blame Starbucks for her and this guy's actions.
So somehow this makes me an apologist because I don't see everything as black and white as he does.
I remember this thread. I don't think you're a fat rape lover, however I didn't and don't agree with your line of thinking either.
The girl was 16 at the time, and the relationship only lasted for a few months. She was 20 when she sued. Dudes have a tendency to view sex through their eyes. A 16 year old smootsdaddy would have banged his 24 year old boss and not felt weird about it then or later. Girls are different. Some of it is biological and some of it boils down to ingrained societal gender roles, but women approach sex differently at a young age. She could have honestly thought she knew what she was doing at the time and, as time progressed, realized she had been taken advantage of after the fact.
I'll leave open the possibility that she just wants money out of this. But, if I remember, you didn't leave much wiggle room in your judgement of her and whether she was a victim at the time. You maintained that she was not a victim because of X, Y, and Z, and I think that's what incensed GRP to call you a rape apologist for it.
Starbucks also brought her whole sexual history into it, talking about how she fuged a bunch of other older dudes and didn't take any of them to court so "lol slut lets throw condoms at her" which was fuged as well. I don't know if you condemned them for that, but I'm sure you wouldn't have agreed with it if you read about it. You're a moderate guy after all.