What Really Happened in New Zealand?

This is a mess of a news article out of New Zealand. Here is how it starts…

A woman raped by the adult son she adopted out as a child has asked the courts to reveal his name, even though it could identify her.

That first line states that a man raped his genetic mother, who did not raise him.

The 29-year-old man, who was sentenced to five years and nine months in prison on Tuesday, was convicted of assaulting and raping his biological mother some months after he tracked her down to ask questions about his parentage last year.

Again, it says he was convicted of assaulting and raping her.

But rather than multiple rapes, he was convicted on nine counts of incest after the jury found the sexual relationship they embarked on was consensual to begin with.

Okay, if a jury in a court of law said it was consensual and convicted him of incest rather than assault/rape, why does the news article call it rape? Is this a bias against Genetic Sexual Attraction? As it turns out, if I'm reading it right, it looks like they believe it was an ongoing, consensual relationship that involved one incident of rape. I think. The defense plans to appeal on what they claim is a contradiction.

He made contact on Mother's Day, moved in with her a few weeks later, and soon began a relationship with the woman, who was separated from her husband at the time.

The man has had name suppression to protect her identity, but at sentencing, Crown prosecutors said she waived the protection granted under legislation that ensures the privacy of sex case victims.

Prosecutor Gareth Kayes said the woman did not care that she might be identified, and wanted her son named under his adopted name.

His new family is fighting to keep his name suppressed.

Confusing.

The man's trial in Auckland District Court in May was harrowing. Jurors were shown evidence, and the woman broke down repeatedly giving her testimony, and at times ran from the court.

She said she was ''doing what she was told to do'', which included ''performing like a porn star''.

If she was coerced then the guy should have been convicted of rape each time she was coerced. But considering that adults are still prosecuted and discriminated against for consensual sex, she had a strong motivation to claim to be a victim, rather than a mutual participant (which is what the jury saw her as, at least most of the time.)

Adopted family squared off against biological family, with the man's adoptive mother telling the court the woman had told her the relationship was consensual.  The jury did not accept the woman was being forced, and found the man guilty of incest rather than rape.

No coercion/force/intimidation then no crime… that’s what it should be.

The violence charges included kicking and punching the woman in the face.

Excuse me? Notice that the article spent all of that time talking about consensual sex and then gets to that. Isn’t violence more important in criminal trial than consensual sex?

What a mess. It will be much easier for everyone to get the help they need, and for abusers to be held accountable, if we stopped criminalizing and discriminating against consensual adult relationships and sex. The bigotry and ignorance surrounding Genetic Sexual Attraction places a tremendous strain on people. That doesn't excuse assault, but it can somewhat explain what pushes people, who would otherwise never perpetrate violence, over the edge.