Thursday, February 3, 2011
A girl who was statutorily raped gets her abortion paid for by the taxpayers; a boy who was statutorily raped is obligated to pay child support if his rapist decides to keep the baby
As we predicted, the Smith Bill introduced in the House (the proposed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act") is being refined to appease the sexual grievance industry. Why? Because pro-abortion activists inundated Capitol Hill with calls, so the “forcible” modifier will be dropped.
This appeasement makes clear that a girl who is statutorily raped is entitled to have her abortion paid for by the taxpaying public.
If you are OK with that, are you also OK with the following -- or do you think it just might be a double standard?
If your minor son is statutorily raped by an adult woman and he happens to impregnate her, your son is liable for child support if the statutory rapist decides to have the baby (which means, you will have to pay for your son's child if you want to keep your son out of jail). In that case, unlike the situation where a female victim of statutory rape decides to have an abortion, the taxpayers don't have any obligation to pay for the result of the boy's victimization. That responsibility is his, and his alone.
Don't believe me? In the case of County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (Ct. App. 1996), a thirty-four-year-old woman had sex with a fifteen-year-old boy and became pregnant. The woman was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor -- commonly called statutory rape. She decided to have the child, and after she gave birth to her daughter, she received Aid for Families with Dependent Children, and the county sought reimbursement for the AFDC payments from the father, the 15-year-old boy. The court held that the boy, a statutory rape victim, was financially liable for the child that resulted from his victimization.
Why? Because California courts charged with interpreting California's statutory rape laws have recognized that "a minor . . . who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is not necessarily a victim of sexual abuse." In re Kyle F., 112 Cal. App. 4th 538, 543, 5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
The Obispo case is not alone: Other state supreme courts and several state appellate courts have ruled that male statutory rape victims can be financially liable for supporting a child resulting from their criminal victimization.
In one case, a 15-year-old boy who was statutorily raped was held to be "not an innocent victim of [a female adult's] criminal act, and the law should not excuse him from his responsibility to support his biological child. Oklahoma's public policy mandating parental support of children outweighs any policy of protecting minors from the consequences of their willing participation in sexual misconduct with adults." Stringer v. Dep't of Human Services ex rel. Baker, 2004 OK CIV APP 97; 104 P.3d 1132 (2004).
(There are, of course, no reported cases where female victims of statutory rape have been held to a similar support obligation.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
Let's hear the feminists justify THAT one!
I blame the patriarchy!
Funny, isn't, Jay, how the Patriarchy generally screws its supposed primary beneficiaries.
The only attempt at justifying the divergent treatment of statutory rape is the silly and baseless assumption that an older man exerts a greater degree of "power" over an underage girl than an older woman does over an underage boy, and that therefore the crime is worse when committed by older men than by older women. It's nonsense, but there it is.
Frankly there are tons of people, including may people who are not feminists to any large degree, who don't think female on male statutory rape should even be a crime -- presumably because "the boy had fun and wanted it". Never mind that this is probably also the case in nearly all male on female statutory rapes -- because in the latter case, older man is blamed for seducing or hoodwinking or what have you (note the older woman is not so blamed).
All of this just reflects the general underlying misandry which places a higher value on female sexual access than on male sexual access, such that "taking" the latter from a boy shouldn't be viewed as being as bad as "taking" the former from a girl.
It's a huge double standard, but it's really just a part of the general misandry which values women and their sex access much more than men.
Thanks Novaseeker.
I like to view gender issues from a common sense perspective. I don't go for all the theories. Girls having sex has historically been viewed as "worse" because they can get pregnant.
As for all the theories about society valuing women more than men, well, I might end up in MRA hell for saying this but I have a completely different take on it. Men, and women, have historically treated women like children who need to protected, and it's always been men's "role" to protect the weak and the defenseless (when I say that, don't think I'm advocating it -- I'm not). That accounts for why multi-millionaires -- men who EVERYONE would say are more valuable to society than the average woman -- gave up their seats on Titanic for old women, long beyong child-bearing years. Moreover, every study I've ever seen of wrongful death actions and the like, even factoring in the gender wage gap differential, shows that juries invariably "value" male life more than female life, in terms of dollars. And that's how we value things in the U.S., in dollars.
Now, I appreciate that a lot of you won't agree with that. That's fine. I refuse to make these issues more complicated than I think they need to be, and to me, they're not very complicated.
I think, that the wrongful death stats are not really a case of men being viewed as more valuable.
One of the primary valuations in those cases are that men have generally made more money overall over time (because they work more).
Also their is the secondary issue. The person asking for the money, the living victim is a spouse most often and juries are more favorable toward women, so the man's value is actually money going to a woman.
And a man can just suck it up.
As for the treating women like children our society promotes that at all times trying to shield them from the consequences of their actions.
It is why we have the oppressive state that we do at the moment.
Anon at 5:00: I think men are treated as more valuable precisely because women are regarded as akin to children.
Bearing in mind that IANAL, this is how I see it:
One of the main arguments for Roe vs Wade was that of property rights: "A woman's body is her property".
That being so, a woman's body is also her responsibility, and being the victim of a crime does not absolve anyone of their responsibility, nor does it pass to the State.
We've seen here the example of boys who are victims of statutory rape - still responsible for child support.
If your house is burgled or your car is stolen, the State does not reimburse you for your loss - your property, your responsibility, and if you don't have insurance, well, that's just too bad.
However, if you feel that someone has violated your personal rights (a tort) then you can sue that person for damages. What's more, the burden of proof in civil court is lower than that of criminal court - "on balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".
- LaughOrCry
That being so, a woman's body is also her responsibility, and being the victim of a crime does not absolve anyone of their responsibility
That's true, if you're a man. Not if you're a woman. For example, drunk man and drunk woman have sex. Only one of them will be charged with rape, even though both are guilty as the law is written. Only the man's impairment is deemed irrelevant when considering their responsibility for the sex act. The woman's impairment serves to completely absolve her of any responsibility for what happened, and make her a hallowed victim besides.
You have two definitions of "best interest of the child".
In the first case, the "best interest" is to be forcibly removed from the womb before birth.
In the second case, the "best interest" is to be raised by a rapist.
As of 6:49 am Friday, 191 comments about this post at Reddit MensRights. 1011 up votes, 437 down votes.
Thanks for bringing that up, Johnny.
The "victim" most likely will not only be denied custody rights, but his child will be raised by his rapist.
A rapist has more custody rights than a victims - IF the rapist is a woman and the victim a male?
Let's hope this kid asserts his parental rights and goes for custody...
Ah yes, I remember the San Luis Obispo case quite well. I wrote an essay on it in a Constitutional Law course. The double standard is clearly evident. I argued the blatant due process and equal protections violations and with regard to the child support issue, I threw in the 13th amendment as well.
Unfortunately, this is a sad reality in American jurisprudence. Males are not viewed as victims unless victimized by other males and every conceivable legal protection goes out the window when a child is involved regardless of consent or the law.
Imagine for a second, the type of response that would follow a court ordering a female victim of rape/statutory rape to carry a child or abort a child.
In my opinion, money is the means with which courts further "rape" male victims. There is money to be made from child support (really alimony).
So much for educating young men about the risk of statutory rape or adult female predators. How would that PSA go? Whether you want it or not, wear a condom, child support is a bitch when child labor laws reduce you to part-time, low-wage work...
How many women pay their rapist child support?
How many rapists get custody?
BLOOMINGTON — A judge ruled Thursday that a woman convicted of battery is not required to register as a sex offender but she must follow other rules of sex offender probation.
Defense lawyer Stephanie Wong argued that Trina Hall’s conviction for battery of two minor boys does not qualify as a sex offense under state law.
Among the requirements Hall must follow are possible electronic monitoring of her whereabouts and documentation of her phone calls if probation officers make such requests, said Wong.
A McLean County jury acquitted Hall of aggravated criminal sexual abuse but convicted her of battery.
In his Nov. 12 sentencing order, Judge Charles Reynard said Hall must register as a sex offender. He temporarily rescinded the order in December after Hall reported police in Peoria and Bloomington declined to register her as a sex offender because they said the battery conviction did not qualify for registration.
In his ruling Thursday, Reynard stuck with his earlier opinion that the battery was a sexually motivated offense based on the testimony of the minors. He said he believes a sex offender evaluation and recommended treatment is appropriate for Hall.
Reynard also acknowledged that Hall’s case is unique and that she is “certainly not a stereotypical sexual predator.”
Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Workman supported the judge’s ruling that Hall’s offense was related to a sexual intent.
Wong said Hall intends to appeal the ruling.
Actually I suspect that a woman in say her thirties or late 20s having sex with an underage teen boy, is more likely to cause lasting sexual harm or change from how the young person would otherwise develop, than when the genders are reversed, especially when the guy is in his middle teens.
First of all I don’t think either most often cause harm, at least if the teen is 14 or more and doesn’t get pregnant. At least I don’t think the relationship itself is likely to. Public uproar about it often does though.
The reason I think older woman mid teen underage boy might more often be harmful is that I think in a substantial proportion of those cases the woman is probably looking for male submissive, female dominant, sex. Probably most of the time in this situation the older woman isn’t looking for male submissive sex but I doubt it’s a small percentage. Since she can offer him his first ever sex acts which he desperately wants much more than girls his age do, and which he can’t otherwise usually readily get, and since he’s highly impressionable especially in sexual areas, she can often mold him into what she wants.
Most 20s or early 30s males having sex with mid teen girls are simply pursing normal usual male sexuality with post pubescent girls. The main issue here is that she might be lead into enjoying sex a whole lot at an earlier age than she might have otherwise.
Archivists 3:16 I believe what you are saying is true however I did read that the titanic women/children first was a myth or overblown to proportion, its true that men are to blame partially for instance a man doing vigilante justice to the wrong person with no regard to validity.
A boy is not really consenting all the time, while it may be okay to think for a guy to have a relationship with your teacher at a teenage age, you would soon realize that the fun and real relationship has begun and possible child support, fantasy not reality and the immaturity of making a decision is why it is supposed to be important that male statutory rape is just as female in legal importance.
Archivist comment is valid as a masculist, sure men and woman are different but masculist identity sees to gain equal rights where possible which I support, for instance a female may say cleaning air conditioners is a man's job or men cannot drink dairy coffee since he is a sissy or a wuss, (now drinking soy is girly/vegan)
when a woman can repair air conditions and construction, your mother of a son may be the best anti-feminist who realizes the false rape and false allegations against her son and defends her son against women who tend to be judgmental in the school,hospital, etc.
Perhaps the male teacher listens while the female teacher is too aggressive and entitled, or the woman is lazy nurse or other person, the locker room argument is another a woman thinks 6-7 year old boys are pervs and would rather them be subject to going to a man's locker alone or restroom.
Republican males are guilty do of branding transgender male to females or predators when laws are already broken and not pointing out that boys can be raped by men.
Shame on the republican and "pro-family" crowd for that. Also republicans and the "law and order crowd" sometimes love to brand victims bills of rights and setting bail and restraining order too, so be careful its not so much gop v. dem although the dems do try to make domestic violence and rape issues more common gop will have no problem capitalizing on this issue.
Unfortunately, I am a mother of a boy in this situation. He is 15 and we are waiting to see if charges will even be brought against this women. To make matters worse she is pregnant with twins.
It is my understanding that she can keep custody of the children and force my son to pay child support. So, not only does he have to pay for being a victim of a crime but, he also will be forced to interact with his rapist.
At 15 he acknowledges that he's not ready to be a father but has no legal say to place the babies in a suitable adoptive home. Since the mother is planning to keep the babies he is also not comfortable with her raising his babies and him having no contact because he doesn't believe that would be the best for his children.
The laws pretty much say if you are a male victim of statutory rape and a child is conceived then you will remain a victim for the rest of your life.
Doug1:
I had sex with my 18 year-old boyfriend when I was 15 years old. At the time I was in love with him and would have done anything for him.
To say that there were no lasting effects because I am female and he is male is an outright lie. To this day I struggle with the feeling that the only way to make men like me is by having sex with them or making them want me sexually. Despite my constant efforts, I still feel as if when a man wants me sexually or thinks I am attractive, then I am beautiful and worthy.
Sexual abuse hurts the victims, no matter what gender the victim may be. I never understood the Legal Age of Consent being 18, thinking that I was more mature than most of my peers. Now that I am 18, I understand it perfectly. I was not ready to have sex, even though I thought I was, and now because one man decided that I could make my own decisions regarding sex, I am scarred in ways I'm not sure I can fix. I will not blame him for everything, but he does take a large share of the blame due to him being an adult and me being a minor. He should've known that I was too young. I was too young to know I was too young.
If adults don't protect kids, who will?
I think the majority of feminists would agree that that outcome is ridiculous.
Feminism is about equality of the sexes and that means leveraging the same punishments for the same crimes.
That said it is men who propagate the idea that men enjoy sex under all circumstances and the young boy who gets to sleep with an older woman is always 'lucky.'
Sex education is key and I discuss that in my blog http://thesobersingle.com/?p=133
Isn't it also important to consider the agendas of the legislators in these cases....?
A lot of you seem to think that feminists would say this is great.... Well, I think that everyone should have equal rights, including women, so I guess to a lot of people that makes me a feminist.
However, I also think men should get equal rights. I think that if it's considered rape when an adult male has sex with a female minor, it should be the same even if the genders are switched. Someone said the thing about if both people are drunk, only the man is blamed. I think if anything feminists would find that wrong. Why, if they are both over the age of consent, should one be expected to have more responsibilty than the other? That is basically saying that women can't make their own decisions and men are expected to look out for them.
For this, I think people should realize that it is a terrible idea to pay a rapist to take care of children. And, the law says that gender doesn't make a difference to age of consent. So, it should also not make a difference to who is the victim. Why should the victim have to pay their rapist?
"a minor . . . who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is not necessarily a victim of sexual abuse."
i thought the point of the age of consent was because minors cant be volountry!
Funny but if the underage girl kept a baby, yep the father would be liable for child support as well. No double standard here, other than mother nature did not put a man in a position to carry the baby and thus have a say in what his carries inside during the reproductive process. I find this website to be full of crybaby douchebags that want to portray men as victims.
No double standard here, other than mother nature did not put a man in a position to carry the baby and thus have a say in what his carries inside during the reproductive process.
What, exactly, does "carries inside" have to do with mommy's demand for money? They are orthogonal concepts.
Post a Comment