If she was groomed as a child to have sex with older men as she alleges, then “Yes. She was a sex slave.” Children (those under 18 for the most part, 21 for drinking) are protected because they are not yet capable of “simply making bad choices.” That’s why you can’t sign contracts at that age.

I know when I was 17 I thought very differently about what I was able to take responsibility for.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have only commented with you. The point is that Prince Andrew should be tried. Right now he is using his position to do what the average person can’t — ignore the FBI and not face questioning from authorities and possible trial for what he may or may not have done.

There is nothing circular about saying statutory rape is just “rape.” Taking advantage of children in any case is horrible. Taking sexual advantage of children is extra horrible. Many people, and you appear to be one of them, take the opinion that having sex with children is just normal sex, but a technicality (one is over 18, the other under) makes it illegal. That standard might apply if it is (for example) an 18 year old high school guy having sex with his 17 year old high school girlfriend. That is not what is being alleged here.

The situation here is that a convicted sex offender may or may not have forced an underage girl to have sex with a much older man. That man refuses to talk to authorities about the alleged crime. The whole article is about how it looks like rich and powerful men don’t have to answer for alleged crimes.

Your first comment starts with the nonsense that somehow the US must cough up another alleged criminal before the Prince has to answer questions. As if one alleged crime has anything to do with the other. Thus my mocking of you with “a prisoner exchange?”

I’ve wasted enough time on your nonsense. Bye now rape apologist.