joevitus said: "And in fact, I said there was one instance where the boy involved was underage, and in that case it was rape."
So what is there left for you to defend here?
Even if we assume for sake of argument that there was "only" one rape, does that leave Levine in a more defensible position?
Even if we assume for sake of argument that the remaining boys were "just" coerced into having sex with a person who had the power to kill their careers, does that leave him in a more defensible position?
You are free to forgive and forget anything you want, but let's end the charade that it is intellectually defensible.