Discussion
  • Read More
    SqarrLauren Evans
    6/04/16 6:15pm

    Really fucking sick of Jezebel, of all places, calling this bullshit “sex.”

    Come on.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Rando CalrissianSqarr
      6/04/16 6:17pm

      I’m pretty surprised by it. Does no one else read the articles before they hit the front page? Lauren is also the one who did that story on the Peruvians and Bolivians eating frogs to extinction with that tacky shock photo—except the source NYT article said the frogs were being driven to extinction mostly by development projects and human encroachment. So it was just a sensationalist piece based on gawking at what people in other cultures are doing and blaming their cultural practices for something that has a lot more to do with American and Western development. It was a mess.

      Sex is consensual. Sexual contact without consent is rape or assault.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Lauren EvansSqarr
      6/04/16 6:19pm

      See above.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Kit the CatLauren Evans
    6/04/16 6:08pm

    raping, not having sex with

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Caroline ThompsonKit the Cat
      6/04/16 6:13pm

      Looking at the URL, that’s what it originally was. Dunno why they changed it.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Lauren EvansKit the Cat
      6/04/16 6:17pm

      I avoided the term “rape” because neither the Justice Department nor the Washington Post used that terminology, and I was concerned there was some technical reason why each avoided it. I’m still looking into it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MargieBonzLauren Evans
    6/04/16 7:33pm

    Any word on SNS?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PoodletimeMargieBonz
      6/04/16 7:45pm

      I don’t know. It seems odd that it hasn’t appeared...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      I'm Fart and I'm SmunnyPoodletime
      6/04/16 7:47pm

      Lauren has gotten some pretty vicious comments on her articles today. I wouldn’t blame her if she did a hard pass on SNS tonight.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Paranoid Android (sometimes says dumb things)Lauren Evans
    6/04/16 6:16pm

    The nanny offered up her niece when asked about needing a teenage girl? What the holy fuck?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AmyParanoid Android (sometimes says dumb things)
      6/04/16 6:40pm

      That’s what gets me too! Isn’t this evil and awful enough???

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      cynicalmamaParanoid Android (sometimes says dumb things)
      6/04/16 6:53pm

      Right? From the Post article: “...U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady said that the actions of others were irrelevant.”

      Does he mean “irrelevant” regarding the charges and sentencing of Flores alone? Surely he can’t be applying this logic to the entire situation and charges will also be brought against the nanny and mother?

      Obviously the crimes this POS committed are unthinkable and horrifying and deserving of much more conversation; I am not trying to shift blame to the others involved in the events. I just am unclear on how they could possibly not face any consequences whatsoever in this case; surely there’s plenty of blame to go around.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KristyMasters-ChristiansonLauren Evans
    6/04/16 6:04pm

    Pure fucking evil.

    On the one hand I'm thankful he got 25 years because I know our justice system is often a joke when it comes to sex crimes. On the other hand what he really needs is a bullet in his brain. The world would be better off without him.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Flying SquidKristyMasters-Christianson
      6/04/16 6:08pm

      On the other hand what he really needs is a bullet in his brain.

      No. Showing we value human life as little as he does might satisfy bloodlust, but it isn’t a deterrent, it won’t make that poor girl better and we are better than him, so we should act like it.

      State sanctioned murder was the sort of thing that made that girl desperate enough to accept his offer.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      KristyMasters-ChristiansonFlying Squid
      6/04/16 6:11pm

      I strongly disagree. He provides no value to society and is in fact a danger to it. The lengths he went to in order to secure himself a child sex slave show that. He should be dead and everyone would be better off.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    halenawwwLauren Evans
    6/04/16 6:15pm

    Can you please change this to use the appropriate word which is RAPE!?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Sqarrhalenawww
      6/04/16 6:52pm

      It was the original headline.

      I don’t understand the change.

      Seems like maybe some weird editorial thing, since this has happened repeatedly recently.

      Of course, now we’re all arguing about terminology rather than worrying about the girl, who’s suffering from PTSD.

      Christ.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      WaitWhatSqarr
      6/04/16 7:42pm

      I’m glad too that he’ll spend most of his life in prison, unless he gets paroled. But the other part of the story: She i.e., her family, since she’s a minor) are awarded $40,000 some odd. Big fucking deal. This is the family that sold her. I think we can assume she won’t get an iota of help for her trauma.

      That poor child.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Marx and SparksLauren Evans
    6/04/16 7:08pm

    Sex trafficking and months of rape ARE NOT SEX. This headline is a disaster.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      EileenOnSundayNightsAfterAllInTheFamilyOnCBSMarx and Sparks
      6/04/16 7:31pm

      It correctly describes what the man was convicted of: sex trafficking.

      Not “rape trafficking”.

      Now, we all know it was rape. But the headline is speaking directly to what he was convicted of.

      I really really think we’re all getting too hung up on the wording here when not one single person besides myself has wondered, “Hey, what about the aunt and mother who pimped the child out? What happens to the child now? Does she have stay with her family of pimps who happily are selling her?”

      Don’t get me wrong, wording is important, as so many mainstream outlets do tend to use the term “sex” in place of “rape” when describing crimes against children and others.

      But every other comment on the thread is saying the exact same thing at this point about that wording. Which the commenters are of course welcome to do. But, I feel like there’s nothing else being discussed as a result.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      I'm Fart and I'm SmunnyEileenOnSundayNightsAfterAllInTheFamilyOnCBS
      6/04/16 7:35pm

      This is actually a great explanation. I just assumed that since it originally said rape and then was changed there was probably a reason for changing it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    teagurlLauren Evans
    6/04/16 6:15pm

    Man Gets 25 Years for Repeatedly Having Sex With Raping 14-Year-old Salvadoran Girl

    You don’t get to use the phrase “forced himself upon” and describe extortion, and then say “he had sex with her.” He extorted and raped an arguably prostituted girl.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      I'm Fart and I'm Smunnyteagurl
      6/04/16 7:27pm

      That was the original headline but it was edited for some reason.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Memorykid-9Lauren Evans
    6/04/16 6:08pm

    Any second now, my mother is going to use her jaws to carry me out of here by the scruff of my neck.

    Excuse me while I barf. Have a great evening, folks. I think I’m done for the day.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      bitcholaporvidaLauren Evans
      6/04/16 8:21pm

      I don’t understand how the mother’s involvement is considered “irrelevant.” This is not the last time she’ll allow her daughter to be abused, trust.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Colored Franciebitcholaporvida
        6/05/16 12:33am

        I thought this comment from recidivicious gave a plausible explanation for that:

        “Irrelevant in terms of their impact on the actions of the accused. The defense was trying to use the actions of the girl’s family as a mitigating circumstance on behalf of his client, and the judge wasn’t having it.”

        http://jezebel.com/man-gets-25-ye...

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        jilliebellebitcholaporvida
        6/05/16 12:53am

        People above were clarifying that the judge meant it was irrelevant insofar as it related to sentencing the man. Sounds like he was trying to make an argument that because her family offered her up, he should receive a lighter sentence.

        Reply
        <