A 67-year-old man solicited a 13-year-old girl for sex. The judge called her 'an aggressor.'

A 67-year-old man solicited a 13 and 14-year-old to sexually abuse them. Then the judge called the girls "an aggressor."

In a normal world, when a 67-year-old man molests underage girls, he's 100% at fault. In a normal world, when a 67-year-old man pays money to underage girls in order to molest them, he's 100% at fault. He's the adult. He's the one who knows better. He's the one breaking the law and all standards of human decency by soliciting sex with girls who cannot legally consent to it.

But apparently we don't live in a normal world. At least not in the Kansas courtroom where a judge decided that 13- and 14-year-old girls are "aggressors" in the above scenario. That's right. Aggressors.


Raymond Soden pleaded no contest to soliciting a 13-year-old for nude photos and sexual acts through Facebook. He admitted to knowing her age at the time. No contest. He did it.

But Leavenworth County District Judge Michael Gibbens decided that Soden couldn't totally be blamed for being a disgusting perv.

“I do find that the victims in this case, in particular, were more an aggressor than a participant in the criminal conduct,” Gibbens said before Soden's sentencing. “They were certainly selling things monetarily that it’s against the law for even an adult to sell.”

“I think that a 13-year-old who offered what she offered for money is certainly an aggressor," the judge said, per the Kansas City Star, "particularly since she’s the one that had to travel to Mr. Soden.”

I see. So Soden didn't go to the girl's house and force her to perform sexual acts; she traveled to him and he paid her money. Surely that means the 13-year-old minor was basically forcing this 67-year-old man into being a pervy sexual criminal. Got it.

The perpetrator's sentence was reduced to less than half of the state's sentencing guidelines.

Judge Gibbens sentenced Soden to five years and 10 months, almost eight years less than the 13-plus years prosecutors were seeking based on Soden's criminal history. The Star reported that Soden had two prior criminal convictions for battery and sexual battery.

According to Kansas law, a judge has to have “substantial and compelling reasons” to depart from sentencing guidelines. In this case, the judge cited evidence that the young teens had voluntarily gone to Soden's house and taken money for what they did.

The mental gymnastics this judge had to go through to try to justify a 67-year-old's criminal child sex abuse must have pulled a muscle in his brain. That's the only explanation.

The judge is facing harsh criticism for his comments, because there's no other reasonable reaction to have in this case.

The fact that a judge seems oblivious to consent laws in his own state is baffling enough. The age of consent for sex in Kansas is 16, which means that any adult sexual contact with someone under age 16 is sexual abuse or rape.

But beyond the law, isn't this just common sense?

How can a 13-year-old child possibly be considered an "aggressor" when a 67-year-old solicits her for sex?. I don't care if she showed up at his door stark raving naked. I don't care if she suggested it. She is a child. He is an adult. He is the aggressor if any sexual acts take place. Full stop. End of story.

But the judge appears to be convinced that these girls deserve some blame. According to the Star, the judge questioned one girl's statement that she was "uncomfortable" with the sexual contact and doubted that the experience was traumatic for her.

“And so she’s uncomfortable for something she voluntarily went to, voluntarily took her top off of, and was paid for?” Judge Gibbens asked the prosecutor.

“Yes, judge," the prosecutor responded. "She was also a 13-year-old who under our laws can’t consent to anything.”

Judge Gibbens said he understood that, but then added, “I wonder what kind of trauma there really was to this victim under those peculiar circumstances.”

Good gracious. She's a child. He's an adult. She cannot consent. You cannot judge her trauma, Judge Gibbens. You should know better, and the fact that you don't puts a damning stain on our justice system.

President Biden/Twitter, Yamiche Alcindor/Twitter

In a year when the U.S. saw the largest protest movement in history in support of Black lives, when people of color have experienced disproportionate outcomes from the coronavirus pandemic, and when Black voters showed up in droves to flip two Senate seats in Georgia, Joe Biden entered the White House with a mandate to address the issue of racial equity in a meaningful way.

Not that it took any of those things to make racial issues in America real. White supremacy has undergirded laws, policies, and practices throughout our nation's history, and the ongoing impacts of that history are seen and felt widely by various racial and ethnic groups in America in various ways.

Today, President Biden spoke to these issues in straightforward language before signing four executive actions that aim to:

- promote fair housing policies to redress historical racial discrimination in federal housing and lending

- address criminal justice, starting by ending federal contracts with for-profit prisons

- strengthen nation-to-nation relationships with Native American tribes and Alaskan natives

- combat xenophobia against Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders, which has skyrocketed during the pandemic

Keep Reading Show less
True

If the past year has taught us nothing else, it's that sending love out into the world through selfless acts of kindness can have a positive ripple effect on people and communities. People all over the United States seemed to have gotten the message — 71% of those surveyed by the World Giving Index helped a stranger in need in 2020. A nonprofit survey found 90% helped others by running errands, calling, texting and sending care packages. Many people needed a boost last year in one way or another and obliging good neighbors heeded the call over and over again — and continue to make a positive impact through their actions in this new year.

Upworthy and P&G Good Everyday wanted to help keep kindness going strong, so they partnered up to create the Lead with Love Fund. The fund awards do-gooders in communities around the country with grants to help them continue on with their unique missions. Hundreds of nominations came pouring in and five winners were selected based on three criteria: the impact of action, uniqueness, and "Upworthy-ness" of their story.

Here's a look at the five winners:

Edith Ornelas, co-creator of Mariposas Collective in Memphis, Tenn.

Edith Ornelas has a deep-rooted connection to the asylum-seeking immigrant families she brings food and supplies to families in Memphis, Tenn. She was born in Jalisco, Mexico, and immigrated to the United States when she was 7 years old with her parents and sister. Edith grew up in Chicago, then moved to Memphis in 2016, where she quickly realized how few community programs existed for immigrants. Two years later, she helped create Mariposas Collective, which initially aimed to help families who had just been released from detention centers and were seeking asylum. The collective started out small but has since grown to approximately 400 volunteers.

Keep Reading Show less
True
Gates Foundation

Once upon a time, a scientist named Dr. Andrew Wakefield published in the medical journal The Lancet that he had discovered a link between autism and vaccines.

After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything.

Keep Reading Show less
via TikTok

Menstrual taboos are as old as time and found across cultures. They've been used to separate women from men physically — menstrual huts are still a thing — and socially, by creating the perception that a natural bodily function is a sign of weakness.

Even in today's world women are deemed unfit for positions of power because some men actually believe they won't be able to handle stressful situations while mensurating.

"Menstruation is an opening for attack: a mark of shame, a sign of weakness, an argument to keep women out of positions of power,' Colin Schultz writes in Popular Science.

Keep Reading Show less