You don't know what rape is. The modern interpretation of rape isn't just when people force themselves on others, it also includes things like coercion, and abuse of power.
I'm not sure I can think of a more obvious example of taking advantage than a almost middle-aged affluent man who marries a child from a group of people almost completely isolated from the outside world while he's supposed to be studying them.
Why is it in every thread online involving statutory rape is there some guy trying to shift the definitions or morality of it around? What are you trying to accomplish?
I hope you see the irony in your complaint about "some guy trying to shift the definitions or morality" when we're discussing a primitive tribe in the Amazon that thinks marriage to 13 year olds is perfectly OK.
You're saying that the moral rules of your culture are the absolute correct ones that apply globally? What else might this apply to? There are cultures who lay out their dead for the vultures to eat; we don't do this, so do you have a problem with that too?
You not understanding me is not ironic. He's not a member of a primitive tribe, he's an anthropologist.
If I visit a country and they tell me I should hate homosexuals, knowing what I know about homosexuality means that doing it would make me an awful human being. Even if I respect their different opinions on the matter, it doesn't mean that they are being good, because we know that homosexuality isn't a choice more than they know it is a choice.
Vultures eating dead flesh is not inherently wrong, it's just distasteful to some. This very obvious example of child sexual abuse that actually harms someone who is alive is not even close, and it's weird that you're making that comparison. Do I really need to cite the negative effects of sexual abuse on children to justify my position here?
And I'm saying she's a member of a primitive tribe who thinks being 13 and having sex is fine. To her, she's not being raped.
If you read my comment above in full, I did say what he was doing was reprehensible. Relative to our culture, he's molesting a child, and if it were happening in the US it would be considered rape because we consider people under 18 to be incapable of informed consent. And therein lies the uncertainty of definition, since she was informed and consented.
I'm not sure I can think of a more obvious example of taking advantage than a almost middle-aged affluent man who marries a child from a group of people almost completely isolated from the outside world while he's supposed to be studying them.
Why is it in every thread online involving statutory rape is there some guy trying to shift the definitions or morality of it around? What are you trying to accomplish?