Dad defends son(convicted rapist); "it was only 20 minutes of action"

[naruball]

Wyrdness said:

naruball said:

That's not even an argument. Just because it's the most common reaction, it doesn't mean it's the only possible reaction.

It may not have been 20 minutes. He was clearly contrasting 20 minutes of something that could ruin his son's life (if perceived by jurors as rape) to his son's age, i.e. 20 years. Also, the way he phrased it works in his son's favour. In all those 20 minutes he dry humped her and inserted his fingers in her, but didn't penetrate her with his penis. He wasn't a sober rapist who took her behind the dumpsters and had sex with her.

Again, not defending the rapist. There were signs of struggle (like bruises) that clearly show there wasn't consent as he claimed.

Stop saying you're not defending the rapist because it's coming across as that way and yes common reactions are a thing it even gets brought up in court and part of your post highlights this with the girl having bruises, why? Because consent commonly doesn't leave bruises so yes it is an argument whether you want to accept it or not.

The way he phrased it also doesn't work in his son's favour in anyway I don't even get how you think it does the whole statement itself does not help his son it just comes across as a callous statement and your post indicates a lack of understanding of what rape is, It is any sexual act that is forced and is not exclusive to the penis. Are you also suggesting that because he was drunk it's less of a crime?

Right. So just because it's coming across that way to you, then I'm definitely defending him. Noted.