503
GOP lawmaker arrested after allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
503 points (99.6% liked)
politics
30602 readers
2403 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
“Having sex”? There’s no “having ses” with a middle schooler. Its rape. He allegedly raped a child in a classroom.
Why do reporters nearly always defend these men with their word choices?
Rape culture.
Same reason they constantly describe Epstein victims with the oxymoronic term "underage women."
Rapists protecting rapists.
Same reason they don't talk about climate change during periods of record heat, or mega wildfire's, many people tune out
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
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.
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.
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.
Read the room.
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 with you.
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
I'm not the one defending describing rape of a child as sex.
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?
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.
If the say rape, the half of the country who voted for Trump immediately tune out. They cannot abide the cognitive dissonance. The rest of us already know the scale of the problem within the GOP. Journalists have to censor the word at this point so it fits within the overton window.
The article is from lgbtqnation, half the country already tuned it out just by seeing the source.
I don't think they are catering to that other half with this title. But if they were, they really shouldn't.
We're all pissed off but moral purity is not going to dig us out of this quagmire. The journalists are choosing their words for a reason. Ask them why instead of declaring their motives from within an angry online mob.
I think it’s quite odd of you to imply journalists don’t make mistakes with wording.
“Allegedly raped” or “allegedly sexually assaulted” is right there.
When it comes to reporting, they always want to go with what is verifiable, and accurate. That is why they always use phrasing like "alleged", "have sex".
The legal definition of "rape" varies quite wildly from region to region, and many things the average person would obviously consider rape, may not be in the legal definition, opening up news media and/or the reporter directly to potential legal trouble. For instance in some areas, "rape" requires vaginal penetration by a penis... So legally, a man cannot be "raped". So a report that a woman raped a man there, would technically be inaccurate and potentially defamatory.
It's much easier to just use generic terms and allegations when reporting, especially if it's not just a local media organization where differing laws for other regions are a factor. Even in situations where the laws aren't likely to be different... sex with a middle schooler is almost surely statutory rape regardless of the area. But standardizing around general statements is the best option to avoid legal issues, even if those aren't likely to be successful, they cost money to defend.
That is what the word allegedly is for. With a child it can never be alleged sex, only alleged rape or alleged sexual assault.
The child cannot consent. Not by legal definition. Therefore, more false and misleading reporting occurs. Under the implication that a child “had sex” with an adult.
It’s not verifiable or accurate that a child is having sex. It’s rape, statutory rape, or sexual assault.
If that's their excuse it's pretty lame, it isn't hard to stick to what is verifiable and accurate without implying this 14 year old could consent.
The headline is a statement about what was alleged. It's quick and easy to verify that the allegation included Pritt sticking his penis in her mouth (the full affidavit is here). I think that meets the common understanding of 'rape,' it does meet the federal uniform crime reporting definition of rape, and it would be 2nd degree felony sexual assault in WV law.
Even if the specifics were harder to verify and the reporter was looking for a broader term than 'rape,' something like 'sexually abused' would be much more accurate than 'had sex with.' And it's important to be accurate with this because describing sexual violence as a type of sex instead of a type of violence makes it seem like a normal thing for people to want to do.