There are numerous cases of prisoners falling in love with captors - look up Stockholm Syndrome. Many slave owners actually treated their slaves very kindly - even though it was still slavery. There were a good number of slaves who actually had better lives as slaves - as crazy as that sounds - than they did on their own in Africa. Quite a few supported and loved their master. It's not a stretch that one could have fallen in love with her master if he showed her affection in return. The point is, you have no idea what happened but yet throw out claims of "rapist' in true jackass fashion without any evidence whatsoever, while at the same time ignoring a man who is high in your political party that has been accused of sexual harassment and rape and admitted to infidelity while President of the United States. That, pure and simple, is why you have no credibility here with anyone other than your pal Waggie. Argue facts, Tony/AK. Facts. At least I could respect you if you did, even if I didn't agree with you.
Stockholm Syndrome is not consent,only an idiot would argue it is. A slave does not have consent to give.Jefferson was a rapist and slave owner.
I'm not saying it was Stockholm Syndrome per se, I'm pointing out that there are different circumstances that arise that boggle the mind where a captor and captive end up falling in love. There were documented cases where slaves cherished their owners, as odd as it sounds to us. It could easily have happened. The difference between you and I is that I am not sure what happened, and admit to such where you have already passed judgment with no proof whatsoever. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. That is your modus operandi these days: If it is a narrative of your party, it must be true. If it is an inconvenient fact incriminating your party, ignore it.