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.