Andrew Tate has been indicted for various crimes including trafficking minors, money laundering, and sexual offenses in Romania.

Andrew Tate has been indicted by Romanian prosecutors for various crimes, including trafficking minors, money laundering, and sex with a minor, according to reports.

    • Carl@anarchist.nexusEnglish
      54·
      23 days ago

      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.

    • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zipEnglish
      101·
      23 days ago

      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.

      • froh42@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        22 days ago

        German law is a lot more complicated and protective than what is shown here. There’s several stages at 14, 16 and 18 that have different protections - and in some of them the age of the other partner plays a role, too.

        The law is trying to prevent kids from being abused when under 16 or 18, without creating legal traps for teenagers having their first relationships.

        Age of consent is 14, but for example if one is 14 and the other one over 21 then additional rules activate - specifically something like “just using their naivety is already considered abuse”.

        So a 21y old sweet talking a 14y old into sex principally is abuse.

        Sex for money (prostitution is legal in Germany) always is abuse when one is under 18. (You’re legally an adult with 18 over here, changed from 21 in the 1970s I think)

          • M137@lemmy.todayEnglish
            52·
            23 days ago

            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.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          193·
          23 days ago

          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.

          • JoeBigelow@lemmy.caEnglish
            51·
            23 days ago

            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.

            • JoeBigelow@lemmy.caEnglish
              41·
              23 days ago

              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.

          • im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish
            1·
            23 days ago

            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.

            • FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              3·
              23 days ago

              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.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              41·
              23 days ago

              However, the law says that your consent in this case has no legal baring.

              Many places have a sliding scale, usually a window of a few years. 19 and 17 was legal under that scale.

              • Danquebec@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                6·
                23 days ago

                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).

            • Karjalan@lemmy.worldEnglish
              6·
              23 days ago

              It is very hard, without writing a mini essay, to convey all the relavent context, tone and meaning via a text based comment.

              Often what people write will end up being interpreted differently by people reading it and different to your intentions.

              Also the, for lack of a better term, “dog pile” effect really matters. If the first few people down vote you, that changes how successive people will interpret your message. “Maybe it seems harmless but it’s -3, so I might have missed some context and it’s more nefarious than I realised” etc.

              • MeatPilot@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                133·
                23 days ago

                Kinda a weird hill to die on. But I’ll answer this for you.

                Yeah, you need to put the line somewhere. Is it ok to send a 15 year old to war or let them smoke?

                They are children is the reason, not the age gap. The fact that’s not obvious to you is disturbing.

                  • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
                    52·
                    23 days ago

                    yeah, we’re all horrible, you should move along somewhere else where your views are respected. byes

                  • MeatPilot@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                    48·
                    23 days ago

                    Yes it’s rape, a child is not old enough to make clear decisions and is underage. The law sees anyone under 18 as a child.

                    Rape
                    Simple Definition
                    unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person’s will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception

                    Did you expect other pedophiles to unite here in your defense? You got a lot you need to work out, please talk to a therapist.

          • M137@lemmy.todayEnglish
            32·
            23 days ago

            Ah, yes, you’re just curious about that independent of the thread topic and what the person you replied to said…
            This is on the same level as a thread about Trumps ICE militia kidnapping an disappearing people and you replying with “ah, but what about that one time Obama wore a tan suit? How do you feel about that?”
            All you managed to do with your comment is show that you’re ok with child rape because the age difference might be less, which is real fucking bad.