331
GOP lawmaker arrested after allegedly having sex with middle schooler in a classroom - LGBTQ Nation
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
331 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30531 readers
2505 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m gonna be devils advocate, and agree with them not using rape in their title wording. Instead it should have highlighted that he coerced and groomed her. I say this because it more accurately describes the situation, per the article this was the purpose of their meetings rather than him forcing himself upon her. It also highlights the danger kids are exposed to on platforms like Roblox and social media
You want pedantry?
Statutory rape is rape. Full stop.
He allegedly raped a middle schooler who he groomed. Let’s normalize using that in headlines to stress the seriousness and awfulness of the act.
Rape is also a crime that someone must be convicted for. Imagine the worst case scenario where they call him out as a rapist, he's found not guilty with all charges dropped. Now there's a VERY solid case of libel and an endless stream of conservative lawyers ready to try and take down a website they already hate.
Like, it's irritating but surely we all see how a news source would rather be safe than so-sorry-we're-laying-everyone-off? Can we not see that journalists have to be very careful not open themselves up to litigation by people with way more money and power than them?
They used "allegedly having sex". They can just as easily use "allegedly raped".
Your argument has already fallen apart anyway. The site updated the title to "GOP lawmaker arrested after allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom".
People spoke up and they changed it. How about we don't try to quiet people down when we're rightfuly calling for language to be updated to reflect reality?
Maliciousness is a major component of defamation. It would be easy to prove they published information before a verdict, but the motivation to publish would have to be malicious. Absent some statement by the publisher that they would do anything to destroy that person they despise, just covering a legitimate news story in a normal way wouldn't be considered malicious.
The biggest issue here is that they used the word "sex" to describe what happened to a child.
The devil doesn't need more advocates.
Does being a pedantic dipshit usually result in changing anyone's mind? No? Ok then maybe try an other tactic next time.
Fuck's sake. Obviously we all agree that raping kids is bad. But this sentence isn't about conveying morality. It is about conveying the point that the teacher and the kid were meeting to fuck in the classroom.
You write the title the way you want to, and the story is completely ambiguous. Did he hide in the classroom and drug the kid before raping her? Smack her with a big stick first? Tie her up and take her to his secret rape lair behind the gym? No one knows because your title doesn't give a fucking clue as to what happened.
Well, well. Look at that. They did the responsible thing and updated the title.
Are you confused about how this guy abused this child now?
They were meeting so the lawmaker could rape the student.
I’m not going to be passive about this. Children can’t have sex.
Defending this wording says way more about you than me.
Does "have sex" imply consent?
Yes.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults. It's rape.
So "consensual sex" is a redundant phrase?
Yes, it would be considered a redundant phase. Sex without consent is rape.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults.
I am pretty sure you're wrong about this but I'm unsure where you're pulling this definition from, so maybe that would help sort it out.
In 1530, could a 14 year old "have sex"? Are you leaning on morality to define sex this way, or legality?
To be clear, this semantic argument feels much more like virtue signalling than anything else, but I'm open to be convinced it's more than that.
You’re pretty sure I’m wrong, but you can’t figure out why. Just to be clear - you're pretty sure I'm wrong about children being unable to consent to sex with adults
We’re not talking about 1530. We’re talking about right now. We’re talking about THIS case with THIS child that was raped by a lawmaker.
I took issue with the author describing this abuse as “sex” when it is impossible for a child to consent to sex with an adult.
You're pretty sure I'm wrong, but you can't figure out why. You can't just admit that I have a point, can you?
We're not talking about 1530. We're talking about right now. We're talking about THIS case with THIS child that was raped by a lawmaker.
I took issue with the author describing this abuse as "sex" when it is impossible for a child to consent to sex with an adult.
Please don't get me wrong, I do think using the word "rape" (when combined with the obligatory "allegedly") is a better title, and a better way to describe the situation, but I don't think using "have sex" is wrong or inaccurate, let alone defending anything.
"Have sex" when describing rape is absolutely inaccurate and implies consent. It's part of our rape culture and how we excuse rape and pedophilia.
I think it's telling that you came at me for defending this victim instead of any of the commenters here arguing that it's more accurate to describe this act of rape as sex with a child. Literally teamed up with someone calling me a "retard" for accurately calling this for what it is - rape of a child.
What are you even talking about? I didn't "come at you" nor is your semantic argument "defending" anyone lol. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just virtue signalling. I think I'm about done with that now.
Oh yeah, you're innocently just asking questions about whether children can consent to sex or not.
You don't need to give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm fucking right:
Children cannot consent to sex with adults.
Sex without consent is rape.
Well, a quick look at a dictionary doesn't support this definition you're using, but it does maybe provide me a path to showing you where I'm coming from. The relevant definition I have here is "sexual intercourse". Are you saying that consent is implied in that definition? If yes, which word is providing that implication: "sexual" or "intercourse"?
I didn't quote a definition.
I'm not going to get into a tit for tat back and forth on what defines rape and more specifically rape of a child.
I noticed. Maybe that would have been a good place to start?
So, if you're not using the dictionary definition, which does not imply consent, why are you pretending it does imply consent? Better, what makes you feel justified in claiming someone is wrong for using a dictionary definition, instead of your seemingly made up personal definition?
I'm not going to argue with you about sex without explicit consent. I'm not.
Make sure you're getting consent from the people you sleep with moving forward. It's important.
I was wondering how long it would take for you to imply disagreeing with you meant I was confused about consent. You did it everywhere else.
You're clearly confused about consent. A friendly reminder does no harm.
At no time did I indicate I didn't understand consent. I only ever questioned your made up personal definition of sex. lol
It's not my personal responsibility to teach you about consent and rape.
I don't recall asking you to. I'm not confident you'd even be up for the task, to be honest.
You're just salty that you're getting downvoted for your bad takes on rape and consent.
This is the last I'll say on this:
Children cannot consent to sex with adults
Fake internet points don't affect my decision-making or emotional state. lol
It says you're a fucking imbecile and that's about it.
I'm not the one defending describing rape of a child as sex.