". . . child support (ahem) 'owed' by a raped boy should be happily paid to his uncharged, unjailed female rapist, without recourse or complaint. Protection under the law from sexual assault should mean one thing for girls, quite another for boys. And double standards — legal, sexual, rhetorical — are alive and well and reprehensible in the direction, and to the detriment, of both genders."
Read the entire thing here: http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/29629-oh-boys
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Statutory rape law is being unmasked for what it is--codified misandry.
I thought the whole point of feminism was that women had agency of their own and a sexuality of their own.
So what it is about teenaged girls that makes them so much more deserving of protection from predatory adults than teenaged boys?
One possible answer: men are dirty, aggressive, oversexed pigs. Women and girls are clean, pure, and devoid of any sexual impulses on their own.
I cannot wait for Victorianism to just die already.
Excellent article. This was the primary focus of an article on my blog last fall titled "Legally Obscene." That a male victim of statutory rape can be turned into the wage slave of his rapist can be described as nothing but an obscenity. To force a teenage girl to carry a fetus that was the product of a rape to term is almost unthinkable, but to force a teenage boy to work for the next two decades to support such a child is his moral and legal obligation. this is one of the most repugnant double standards in our culture.
http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=2380
TDOM
The whole point of statutory rape laws is that underaged people lack the experience and understanding to take responsibility for their actions, which means that the adult is taking unfair advantage of their youth.
OTOH, I, as a horny 15 year-old, would have only been too delighted to fuck a good-looking teacher.
What I'm driving at is this: It is possible for a sexual encounter of a boy with a teacher to be both an utterly enjoyable rite of passage and rape at the same time--just as it could be with an underaged girl.
The difference here is that the child is being held responsible for the actions of an adult and not the other way around simply because the child has a penis and the adult has, and is, a twat.
Male privilege strikes again.
The law should not be sexually symmetrical. To think so is just PC feminism run amuck. The reason being is that men/boys do not get pregnant and/or suffer the physical consequences of pregnancy. No man/boy has died from childbirth. No man/boy has suffered placenta previa, no man/boy has suffered pre-eclampsia, no man/boy has suffered gestational diabetes, no man/boy has suffered a ruptured uterus, no man/boy has suffered a c-section. While taking sexual advantage of a minor should be illegal for both sexes, making them legally equivalent (post pubescent) is bogus. Law should be based on the damage or potential damage caused by the act, not on the "ERA".
Anonymous - "The law should not be sexually symmetrical. To think so is just PC feminism run amuck."
After reading your "girls have it worse" gynocentric justifications for inequity in the law, I'm fairly certain you meant to say "..anti-PC anti-feminism run amuck"
inequity in the law favoring specific groups - women and (non-white) minorities, etc. are the hallmarks of both PC and feminism.
By your "logic" making a false rape allegation should be a more serious offense than rape – no woman ever got killed due to making a false rape allegation, and so on… - like you say: ”Law should be based on the damage or potential damage caused by the act”[/snark]
The point of the law really isn't to protect underaged girls from the hazards of pregnancy, anyhow. I'm not sure where this poster got that idea.
PC or not, there is nothing absurd about applying the same standard to women that they apply to men with such relish.
Anon at 2:18, enlightened people now know, based on recent studies, that boys suffer just as much as girls from statutory rape.
Or, let me guess, we're supposed to ignore that, right?
Let's test 2:18's logic: Case one: a girl gives an adult male a consensual blowjob. Case two: a boy has consensual sex with an adult woman.
Under 2:18's logic, since in Case one, the girl is in no danger of getting pregnant, there's no harm. Case two should result in a longer sentence for the adult woman because she has subjected the boy to the possibility of 18 years of child support. The harm to the boy is much greater in Case two than is the harm to the girl in Case one.
Right? Right???
The age of consent laws were originally designed to protect children from perverts.
Those laws have been hijacked by male-hating witches.
Somebody has to put a stop to all this.
ScareCrow, the age of consent where it stands today was not created to protect them from perverts. It was to keep the women virgins when they went to the big city in the early 1900's...
Anonymous - "the age of consent where it stands today was not created to protect them from perverts. It was to keep the women virgins when they went to the big city in the early 1900's"
Aren't these two "goals" really one-and-the-same? It seems the worry about (naive) young girls going to the city would be that perverted older men who knew how to take advantage of such girls would, in fact, seek to take advantage of them.
"Aren't these two "goals" really one-and-the-same?"
Perhaps but I was merely stating the reason because it wasn't as simple as keeping women from perverts. It was about protecting the innocence of females, not of males, because it would be harder to marry them off if they weren't "pure". These fears also included city boys, and I don't think that one would call them perverts if they go after a girl around their age...
I think the real goal has never been about keeping them from "perverts". It's about hating men. While they can claim such and such reason, it's clear it's ALWAYS been about women vs men.
Here I make a point why the double standard should be inverted.
a) women mature faster
b) in our modern world, women have choices about pregnancy, men don't
c) in our modern world, debtor prison enforced child support is more serious then having a child. Add this (b) that men have no choice to opt out like women ..
Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’
Unless you include men as "man hating witches" you are off track.
It was my FATHER who threatened to prosecute any older guy who might try to date one of his daughters. My mother certainly never did.
I doubt such numbers are kept, but if you checked into it I would say fathers use statutory rape laws MUCH more frequently than mothers do.
...no doubt, it is MOTHERS who push statutory rape laws when it involves a son.
...just sayin'...
btw...indentured servitude is DEFINATELY negative consequence for a male.
Have some man you utterly hate hounding you and threatening you with prison if you don't pay up for the next 20 years.
Have an amoral pervert who goes after underaged children raising YOUR child, teaching YOUR child life lessons and values, having control over whether or not YOU are allowed to be in your child's life.
Imagine paying child support for a child who has been taught to hate you.
This young man will have his life derailed in order to pay for this child. That means no college, unless he can make enough to pay child support. No school or summers abroad. No starting up one's own business. No starting a family without having the one child you aren't allowed access to having the lion's share of your income.
To put it in your own selfish perspective - one that as a women you "might" appreciate - you might have a son that you love one day. All this shit you find so "fair" or unconsequential to him will be enjoyed doubly so by you.
"Anonymous said...
The law should not be sexually symmetrical. To think so is just PC feminism run amuck. The reason being is that men/boys do not get pregnant and/or suffer the physical consequences of pregnancy....."
Anonymous is a disgusting rape apologist. She's probably a pedophile who is trying to justify her rape of boys like this one. Disgusting.
Post a Comment