The story is well known. She accused Mr. Bieber of fathering her child. The charge is ironic because when the alleged sex act occurred, she was an adult (19) and he was a child (16).
Why would a statutory rapist admit -- no, brag -- that she raped a boy?
Because she stands to gain more--lots and lots more--from statutorily raping a wealthy teen boy like Mr. Bieber than from having the paternity test show he's not the father. See here. Such is the topsy turvy world of gender crimes, where double standards are the norm.
It's not only deemed societally acceptable for a woman to statutorily rape a teen boy, the law will reward her with child support for the dirty deed. (And please, spare me the blather about how "she" isn't rewarded: given the absence of accountability for how child support is spent, of course she's rewarded, and when she statutorily rapes a wealthy teen boy, she's fabulously rewarded.)
But the boy need not be a wealthy celebrity to be a target. 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).
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.
A footnote about Yeater: ". . . she faces a bench trial on December 12 in Las Vegas on a misdemeanor battery charge stemming from a December 2010 incident involving her 18-year-old ex-boyfriend. According to court records, she faces a misdemeanor battery charge for allegedly slapping the unnamed man during an argument about a broken window on his new girlfriend's car. She could get six months in jail and a $1,000 fine in the case." Oh, and by the way, she's accused that man of fathering a child with her as well. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1673823/justin-bieber-paternity-test.jhtml
So long as our law is premised on chivalry, women like Mariah Yeater will be able to benefit from the same crimes that her male peers would be severely punished for engaging in.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Mariah Yeater stands to gain much from being a statutory rapist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Appalling.
Stories like this are fast becoming an epidemic as women may act without accountability and males are ever persecuted.
As a man I see I am not even a human being in this world where women are applauded for hacking off men's penises, just for asking for a divorce. Oprah and her hoards who have no problem using baby boys' foreskin cream to rejuvenate their fat privileged faces. Universities are hate crime academies where destructive shame-based stats are pulled from a bottomless hole of hatred and lies. Men's lives entirely ripped apart via divorce court, etc.
Men are not people, nay, they are nothing at all but disposable tools of the state.
This world is incredibly sick, and to think millions of women love it, anything for a free pussy pass via big daddy government and the support of millions of hate sisters.
Meanwhile our illustrious governments lick their fascist, watering mouths waiting for the opportune time to completely enslave all.
Martial Law is already in the airports now, and coming soon to the streets and homes near you...
Not only that but in a case in which a man or boy was forcibly raped,He would still have to pay child support.In the case of S.F. V State EX REL. T.M. S.F. argued that he shouldn't have to pay child support because the mother forcibly raped him while he was unconscious and he shouldn't have to pay child support to T.M. because he did not voluntarily have sex and his sperm was forced out of him.The court rejected the claim saying that "The wrongful conduct of the mother in causing conception,Did not obviate the fathers support duties."-Of course,In a case in which a woman gets forcibly raped,Not only does she have the option of abortion or adoption,If by some strange occurrence her rapists' get's custody,She will NOT have to pay child support see, Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L--Whereas the mother did not have to pay child support do to the rape/incest of her brother because the sex was involuntary & non consensual--Get It?-When a woman has a baby,That the sex was involuntary is enough to waive child support duties Yet,When a man impregnates a woman due to a non consensual sexual encounter,That the sex was involuntary,The issue of consent is NOT enough to waive child support duties.What does this mean you might ask?-It means that the laws have a double standard in writing,Rather than just an unspoken,Unwritten,Existing one that no one cares about.
I think i hear the faint echo of the words "Best interests of the child"--Bullshit! If you ask me,It is in the childs best interests to not get raised by a rapist!
You should read this:http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
First article up when you search that on Google,By Laura Wish Morgan.
only one state has an age of consent above 16 in the US. That is TX which is 17. Many states also have what are called "romeo" laws. The media is abuzz with 'statutory" rape which just is not the case. Do you guys honestly think that HER lawyer would not have informed her that she could go to prison if she pursued this? she would have a MAJOR malpractice suit. The media needs to be more responsible. They tell men not to know what laws are to keep us ignorant.
Imagine for a moment, the backlash, if a court ordered a female rape victim to be responsible for a child born out of forcible sex absent of consent.
@ anonymous:-No,There are states besides TX with higher ages of consent,Cal has it at 18,If you've read a few articles about the case,You would have seen mentions of the fact that she could be charged,Here is a list of all the ages of consent in the U.S. & as you can see,States have ages of consent anywhere from 16 to 18-http://www.ageofconsent.us/
Kind of off topic, whatever happened to the child from this article? Does anybody know?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/11/schools.uk
It said he was jailed for life in spite of his status as a child. It's been six years, so he isn't a child anymore.
This might actually cause a small turning point for American men.
An innocient, high-profile teen eyedoll with millions of adoring female fans gets blatantly falsely accused by some lying skank of some fishnet hole groupie fantasy. That would even incriminate her of statuatory rape if true. And a completely reprehensible fabrication if (well, really no "if's" here, lol) false.
It's pretty much a no-win situation that should stuk herself in - as a last ditch effort for attention. That is unwinnable with today's DNA testing.
Credibility for Americanus Heaux may have just reached a new public low. :)
Post a Comment