The judge’s convoluted rationalizations are nauseating.
Because a young child is raped, they have had a “sexual awakening” is nonsense. That they are later able to have sex voluntarily with others does not negate the physical or emotional damage that took place. Even worse, to say that they suffered no harm because later they agreed to incestuous sex is just repulsive. It could justifiably be called “Stockholm syndrome”.
An analogy is that this judge is sent to prison, where he is raped repeatedly by violent criminals. After he is released from prison, the criminals look him up, and he is so emotionally subjugated to them he voluntarily agrees to be raped by them some more. The judge has had his “sexual awakening.” The courts find that he is now legally a homosexual, so cannot be raped by other homosexuals. Maybe with the logic that he can keep them out with a cork.
“The judge’s convoluted rationalizations are nauseating.”
You ain’t just whistling Dixie! Lucky for me I already threw up my egg nogg with what I posted last night.