World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Sex with minors isn’t a thing. It’s called rape.
It’s only rape if the rapist is poor. If they are rich, it’s called Thursday.
Since this effect lacks a proper name outside of the date, why don't we invent a new one. I propose Trumpstein.
It was dark humor about the frequency of the offense making it less horrifying.
I'm used to Trumpsteinsday at this point.
Yes.
it might even qualify you for president
Some would say the greatest prez
With giant hands, perfect for child grappling
And orange skin, just to make things saucier
While I agree, the way the article is worded makes me suspect that is the name of the crime they’re accused of.
Sort of like how Trump was found liable for “sexual abuse”, because the jurisdiction it occurred in strictly defines rape as penis-in-vagina sex. And since he “only” (ugh) used his fingers, it wasn’t technically rape as far as the law was concerned. But the judge who oversaw the case later had to clarify that it would colloquially be referred to as rape, even though that wasn’t the technical term that the lawsuit used. Because Trump was trying to use the “well I wasn’t found liable for rape, so she can’t say I raped her” argument in his defamation lawsuit.
I don't think Romanian law sees it like that. Minors above 14 can technically consent to sexual acts with adults, which makes it still illegal, but not rape and carries a much lighter sentence.
German law (and quite a few other European countries) is even more relaxed in that regard, while it's still technically illegal to have sex with minors aged 14+, if they consented and weren't somehow pressured etc, there will usually be no prosecution.
In Romania the age is now 16 https://cne.news/article/3356-romania-tightens-law-on-sexual-consent
Oh I must've missed that, last information I had was still 14, as in germany. Thanks!
I only found out today. It’s a pretty recent change. Romania is possibly the most referred country to the EHCR, so not a great track record there.
Were you a minor at the time?
Yes.
My comment was removed.
Then how is that relevant? This is about an adult having sex with minors, which is rape. All you did with your comment was show that you are trying to defend him. This whole "sex with a minor" thing has been a very talked about deal for over a decade now with all the well known pedophiles in places of power and the media not calling them what they are (rapists).
Other than defending him and the others (Epstein, Trump etc.) I seriously don't see any reason to make the comment you did.
Uh
I mean, I lost my virginity at 17 to a 19-year-old, and it definitely wasn't rape.
Obviously there's not a lot of nuance when you're talking about a full grown man taking advantage of a minor, but I also think it's kind of ridiculous to suggest two 16-year-olds having sex, or two teenagers barely on either side of 18, can't be consensual.
I got my relatively prude vanilla ass handed to me for attempting to draw a distinction between rock stars given social consent and then proceeding to break a law and 70 year old power brokers making false promises to get young women in positions where they cannot say no. I believe that conflating even those two by not acknowledging that they have different terms, is disingenuous to the victims who gave all of zero consent and were not interested in the action, but we're subject to violence.
To say that few us us here are interested in actually protecting women, just being seen as white knights.
White knights may now proceed to shower me with downvotes.
Yes, but what the law says and what is going on in practice are often (or usually) two different things.
In your own example, a forensic psychiatrist might have interrogated you when you were 17 and concluded that you were of sound mind and had the requisite emotional and logical faculty to "consent" in every reasonable definition of the term.
However, the law says that your consent in this case has no legal baring. This is not to undermine your own agency as a 17 year old, but to protect those 17 year olds who were not as well developed as you, or who might be manipulated some how, and so on.
The trade-off is that there usually has to be a complainant. In your own example you or your parents would (in most jurisdictions), need to ask the police to press charges.
Of course, the age of consent varies between jurisdictions. Here I think it's 16. I went to school with someone who got married when she was 16 because she had become pregnant when she was 15. I didn't realise at the time how messed up that was.
I'm reminded of the fascinating and macabre history of Pitcairn Island. The abridged version is that in the 1700's (?) a sailing ship named the Bounty visited Tahiti for several months where many of the crew became involved with Tahitian ladies. Rather than return to their lives they mutinied, and absconded to an uninhabited island with their brides. Much violence and depravity, and later fanatical religious stuff ensued, but ultimately a tiny community of several dozen people survived to the 1990's. At that time it emerged that underage sex / rape was a common and even celebrated practice. It's a truly incredible story for a variety of reasons.
Law depends on jurisdiction, some have lower ages of consent and some give allowances when the ages are within a couple years of each other.
Many places have a sliding scale, usually a window of a few years. 19 and 17 was legal under that scale.
That would be crazy otherwise.
John (17 years and 11 months) and Mary (17 years and 5 months) are in an intimate relationship since 6 months and are sexually active.
John hits his birthday and now they can't have sex for 6 months (otherwise it would be rape).
Exactly
Like in the coal mines?
I love miners. Dirty, filthy miners.