TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

15yo boy forced to pay child support after being raped by 34yo teacher [x-post /r/wtf]

JablesRadio

June 19, 2016
5219 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/74059
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title 15yo boy forced to pay child support after being raped by 34yo teacher [x-post /r/wtf]
Author

JablesRadio

Upvotes 5219
Comments 463
Date June 19, 2016 2:33 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4orixt/15yo_boy_forced_to_pay_child_support_after_being/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/15yo-boy-forced-to-pay-child-support-after-being.947117
https://theredarchive.com/post/947117
Top posts by JablesRadio

A statement just released by former UFC champion Chuck Liddell [xpost from /r/mma]

15 upvotes
October 12, 2021
/r/MensRights

When feminists finally get rid of western men this will fill the void.

3 upvotes
April 27, 2021
/r/MensRights

Are there redpill guidelines for a committed relationship?

0 upvotes
April 3, 2018
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]ParaBDL 1069 points1070 points1071 points 10 years ago (161 children) | Copy Link

The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones's criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period.

I thought the whole point of statutory rape laws was that they are too young to consent and thus can never be a willing participant of intercourse.

State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer (1993) 252 Kan. 646 [847 P.2d 1273, 1278], held that a 13-year-old boy's presumed lack of consent to intercourse under criminal statutes was irrelevant in paternity and child support proceedings.

Basically they're saying you can rape a man, get pregnant through it and then get money off him as lack of consent is irrelevant in paternity and child support procedings.

[–][deleted] 607 points608 points609 points 10 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

You didn't know? only under-age FEMALES cannot consent. Underage males want it. It's every young male's fantasy, right?

[–]CuriouserNdCuriouser 213 points214 points215 points 10 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

Because men always want sex, right? They could never be raped because they constantly want to have sex, how else can you explain the fact that they are all rapists??! /s

[–]unpicked-username 78 points79 points80 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

No wonder the 'teach men not to rape' is so successful /s

[–]babbylifts 79 points80 points81 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I was never taught that and never raped anyone, or anything. Am I still a rapist?

[–]Hexaceton 78 points79 points80 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Check your fucking privilege /s

[–]Is_totally_a_dick 29 points30 points31 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Wait wait wait a fucking minute! I have rights AND privileges!? Why the hell did no one tell me?

[–]mcslippinz 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You have the right to not rape. You have the privilege of being a rapist.

[–]Is_totally_a_dick 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't follow you, care to expand upon your reply?

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Anything you say, can and will be used against you in the court of Tumblr.

[–]manicmonkeys 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The fact that you'd even consider that you aren't a rapist is disgusting. Fucking men, right?

[–]zleuth 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Dammit, my penis is such a wanna-be rapey little shit.

[–]WalkToTheGallows 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You should cut it off.

[–]GurkleGurkle -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

HAHAHA

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Male here, yes you are, so am I. We're all rapists until we cut our ducks off.

[–]babbylifts 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But I love my little quacker.

[–]TheFacelessObserver 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're all rapists until we cut our ducks off.

on this blessed day.

[–]TheHumanite 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget eye rape. Start gouging boys!

[–]90blacktsiawd 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You mean you have raped anyone yet. There's still time /s

[–]TheHumanite 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know. Did you just rape me with your question? /s

[–]babbylifts 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See you in paternity court mother fucker!

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Drusylla 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

We said this to our son (13 yr old) as well. And then we said "In the same token, YOU have the right to say no at any time. If you are uncomfortable for any reason, you have the right to say no. You are not obligated to go through with anything. If you say no, SHE has to stop, too. If she doesn't stop and proceeds without your consent, it is still considered rape. Men can be raped, too."

His response: "I know, Mom. I'm on /r/mensrights, too."

[–]Lurker_IV 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Are you joking? Please tell me you aren't joking. That sounds awesome.

[–]Drusylla 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No I am not joking. That was how the conversation went. We were discussing sex and consent with our 3 oldest kids (13 yr old son, 11 yr old daughter, and 9 yr old daughter). So our daughters also got "If you say no, the other person needs to stop. If the other person says no, you need to stop."

[–]Lurker_IV 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

TIL there are 13 year olds on here. I'm getting too fucking old.

[–]Drusylla 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He (supposedly) has an account. I have no clue what it is lol

[–]OnTheSlope 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

when a girl says no it means no, and to stop no matter what

but this is wrong now. Women have no responsibility to say no to things they don't want, men have the responsibility to ensure that they want it and continue wanting it at every step.

[–]Ransal 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yep, teach men not to rape is teaching them to not have sex or turn gay. Because even when it's not rape, it's still rape.

[–]kingssman 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because men always want sex, they are incapable of consent, because they lack the ability to say no.

Lawyered

[–]NikoMyshkin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

which is probably what feminists actually think

[–]lenin1928 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, all men want sex but gender identity isn't based on biology or DNA. So men who want sex, who aren't women, must be rapists since it's a choice. And women cannot rape because they are just exploring sexual taboos that men were allowed to for hundreds of years previously explore.

[–]1forthethumb 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Where's that heart breaking video of the young man who went through this calling bullshit on that line of thinking? /u/kmktwo-four needs to watch that shit.

[–]1N54N3M0D3 47 points48 points49 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Here you go.

https://youtu.be/Ikd0ZYQoDko

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheWritingParadox 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't even watch this again because of that look. The whole thing is so heart-breaking. And yet the narrative is: toxic masculinity, men hide their feelings, men are the rapists and can't be raped.

Yeah, tell it to this guy you pieces of shit. Actually, don't, he's heard that enough. We all have.

[–]Avolii 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I straight up want to hug that guy and let him cry it out. That look at the end you mentioned was such a mixed bag of pain.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow. That was powerful.

[–]Hypersapien 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Funny how when I was a kid I was beaten over the head with the fact that girls mature faster than boys.

[–]Deeptrance83 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This may look like hyperbole on passing, but it smacks of a very hard truth.

[–]NikoMyshkin 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

only under-age FEMALES cannot consent.

This verdict proves beyond any doubt that your statement is law in practice. Which is so utterly fucked up and unfair.

[–]UrethraFrankIin 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While I get your point, the real point is that regardless of whether or not a 13yo boy/girl wants it, they cannot legally consent. Plenty of kids that age agree to sex with an older person, but the law says it's not consent and that's simple and clear.

The fact that this judge is applying a double standard is a betrayal of the written law, activitist judges need to be dethroned.

[–]antispeechcrew 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

funny because according to science girls mature faster than boys, so logically speaking wouldnt a young girl be more equipped to make a decision to sleep with an adult before a boy? but no, in the eyes of the law boys are men and girls are retards

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a fantasy if the woman is hot and on birth control

[+][deleted] -15 points-14 points-13 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is actually.

[–]1N54N3M0D3 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://youtu.be/Ikd0ZYQoDko

[–]ondablock_slangnrock 75 points76 points77 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Why the hell was the rapist mother given custody? Why not place the child in foster care or give it to the boy's parents until he is old enough to properly raise a child himself?

[–]chavelah 38 points39 points40 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

RIGHT?!? I represent at-risk children in family court. I literally do not give a fuck about the parents if their desires don't line up with the child's best interests. I cannot BELIEVE that this baby was left with its rapist mother. As far as I know, while the boy at least had a lawyer and a child advocate to represent him, the baby never had anybody assigned to protect its interests.

[–]butch123 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Had a Judge and a prosecutor..

[–]chavelah 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Their job is to deal with the criminal, not advocate for the welfare of the criminal's children. I often have cause to be very grateful to prosecuters, and I rely entirely on the judge to assess my recommendations and act upon them, but at the end of the day they have other primary responsibilities and that's why judges appoint people like me. I am supposed to do what the judge would do if s/he had unlimited time and energy and could personally investigate the situation of every child whose fate they must decide.

[–]butch123 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

NO, When the State petitions for income from parents to support a child. (The baby in this case.) The Judge has to take the best interest of the child as a priority. This is how the law is written.

It was written this way because the Legislature did not want to burden the taxpayer with support payments whenever it was possible to avoid those costs.

The 15 Year old will have his payment adjusted to his ability to pay, if possible. Naturally the payment will go up as necessary as the years go by. There is not get out of jail because you are a minor card here. Other minors pay if they are not victims of Statutory rape. In this case a child was conceived and those who did so are considered to have to pay.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What I am saying is that the victim, regardless of gender, should automatically be granted custody of the child that results from a rape. They can choose to raise the child or make an adoption plan. In this case, the convicted rapist was left holding the baby, and that is insane.

[–]butch123 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In this case it was a tough decision.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not really. 34-year-old woman, 15-year-old boy. There are many tough decisions that family court judges are called upon to make. This one would have been easy-peasy if appropriate laws had been in place. Again, these laws already exist in many states to protect female victims and their children.

[–]butch123 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The issue is who pays for 18 years. The 15 year old will be a wage earning adult soon. It is not punishment to pay child support.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't know where you live, but here, that's not how it works. You can't take apart a family unless you prove the parent is unfit. It's a tough standard. Only after you prove that do you ask about the best interest of the child.

[–]TacoOrgy 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So raping a minor isn't proof that she is an unfit parent?

[–]rdesktop7 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Apparently not.

[–]MyPaynis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Only if you are a woman.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I didn't say that at all.

[–]Wswgyg 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet when the rapist is a male, he doesn't get custody and in many states is outright banned.

[–]TwiceBakedProduction -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or abort it.

[–]ImMikeD 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Taking advantage of a man to get child support isn't a new thing.

http://www.uptownmagazine.com/2014/02/woman-used-sperm-oral-sex-get-pregnant-get-child-support/

[–]Tsu_Shu 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Basically they're saying you can rape a man, get pregnant through it and then get money off him as lack of consent is irrelevant in paternity and child support procedings.

You mean a boy...to make matters worse.

[–]crankypants_mcgee 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If we're going to talk equity, why would they give custody of the child to the rapist? Shouldn't custody default to the NON-RAPE-CONVICTED parent and then support be taken FROM the rapist?

[–]hhamama66 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The parent was never convicted of rape to begin with

[–]hhamama66 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The parent was never convicted of rape to begin with

[–]MrNPC009 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Childs wellbeing trumps the victims. And the State doesn't want to foot the bill, so they'll make this child do it.

[–]zer0t3ch 44 points45 points46 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

state doesn't want to foot the bill

This is the biggest fucking issue. With such a clear cut case, there's no reason the system shouldn't be footing the bill.

[–]chavelah 37 points38 points39 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yup. Reverse the genders on this case, and the victim would be getting financial assistance from the government if they chose to raise the baby, help with an adoption plan if they didn't, and the rapist would have had a jail sentence followed by either a child support obligation or a termination of parental rights.

[–]sadacal -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Uh, I'm not sure if this is exactly symmetrical. The only way your reasoning would work would be if the state forced a 15-year-old kid to raise a kid, then the kid would get financial assistance and the rapist would have child support obligations. I don't think there is really an ideal solution here, and it doesn't seem to be particularly against men except for the fact that men can't get pregnant and have babies.

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think rape victims should have the right to either abort (if female), raise their babies with all the access to public assistance and/or child support enforcement that single parents currently have, or make an adoption plan without requiring the rapist's cooperation. Meanwhile, the rapist should be in jail awaiting either the termination of their parental rights or 18 years of bills.

This approach wouldn't help every victim, since most rapes are not provable, but it would at least cover those situations where a conviction can be obtained. There are already such laws in place in many states to protect female victims.

[–]KMKtwo-four 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nathaniel J. adds that the child will not suffer because she will receive welfare support.

Am I the only one who actually read the court's opinion?

[–]zer0t3ch 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Welfare support that the state is suing the father to pay for. Like I said, fuck the state.

[–]MyPaynis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's what the child tried to argue but the judge said "no, you will pay instead of welfare from the state".

[–]DemonB7R -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Government only wants what gets them votes and more of our money

[–]TomHicks 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

THE VICTIM IS A CHILD! FFS

[–]MrNPC009 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law doesn't care. You think I'm joking, but I'm seriously not. The law doesn't care.

[–]RadicaLarry 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So give the child to a statutory rapist?

[–]MrNPC009 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If she's not convicted of those crimes, you betcha

[–]RadicaLarry 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How can one not be convicted of statutory in this situation?

[–]MrNPC009 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Welcome to the clusterfuck that is underage sex law. Where the underage can rape but cannot consent to sex.

[–]TheDarkMaster13 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, laws as they are currently written means that this is the only legal outcome. The problem can only be fixed by changing the laws, not by getting mad at the court rulings that result from the current ones.

[–]I_Know_Your_Watching 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But the victim is a child also. Does the court just default to the youngest? In my state you need a work permit to be able to work at the age 15.

[–]MrNPC009 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, yes. The law doesn't care that he's underage, or legally incapable of consenting. Once the baby is born, it's rights are superior to the parents rights when under scrutiny of the courts

[–]Prof_Acorn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Child's wellbeing trumps the victims.

Which child?

Like, if the rape baby is raped in 12 years and has another rape baby, then the first rape baby can pay child support for his own rape baby, and on and on.

[–]MrNPC009 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

According to this ruling, yup.

[–]Hypertroph 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Step back for a second here. The law states that a child has a right to receive financial support from both legal parents. That is an unconditional right, provided to children born of a married couple, a one night stand, or of statutory rape. The origin of the child is not relevant to that right. This is the law being consistent in its application. To do otherwise would set a precedent that a child's right to financial support is conditional, and that's a dangerous precedent to set.

In gender reversed situations, the typical resolutions are either abortion or adoption, absolving both parents of financial responsibility. Since the mother in this case decided to keep the child, both parents are on the hook. While the option for abortion lies solely in the hands of the mother, and the idea of legal abortion for the father is valid, it is not a current option.

However, where the judgement really failed is allowing the mother to keep the child. She was convicted of a statutory sexual offence, making her a risk for child abuse. Since the safety of the child is paramount, trumping even the father's apparent lack of responsibility due to lack of consent, this is a situation of two evils. The child can either go into foster care, or stay with the mother. Since the statutory rape was not forced, I can see why the law may have seen the mother as the lesser of two evils. That said, had the court been truly consistent in all areas, the mother would have served time, making her unavailable to raise the child.

In addition, the father was not required to pay child support until such time that he became an adult, and had sufficient income to warrant said payments.

This really is a garbage situation, but I am not convinced the court was malicious in it's judgement. In gender reversed situations, the juvenile mother has more tools available to prevent this exact scenario from developing. That is more a failing of society and the development of new laws than a failing of application of extant laws. That inequality is more worthy of anger than this ruling in and of itself. It's not about punishing the father for being a victim of statutory rape, but rather a statement that the rights of a newborn child trump those of either parent.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why does a proven child rapist have custody of a child?

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, that's the biggest failing, at least at first glance. That said, being a sex offender does not automatically exclude a person from having a child. Depending on how she registered, there may be no legal precedent preventing her custody.

[–]thatusenameistaken 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The law states that a child has a right to receive financial support from both legal parents. That is an unconditional right, provided to children born of a married couple, a one night stand, or of statutory rape.

This is just patently false.

The difference if the child is a result of a female rape victim, she can either choose to abort or later forfeit parental rights and give it up, and NOT pay support.

A male rape victim is the only victim being held responsible for his victimization, it's a second rape at the hands of his rapist with the collusion of the court.

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Like I said in my original post, women do have more options available to prevent the birth of the child, but that isn't the issue here. Once born, the child does have the right to financial support from both parents, as stated directly in the case notes. That right exists independent of the origin of the pregnancy, the sex of the primary parent, or any other factors you bring up.

Your muddying the waters by citing issues relating to the differences between the sexes in terms of mitigating parental responsibility before birth. These differences have no bearing on the rights of the child, once born. They are often overlapping, but wholly separate issues.

[–]thatusenameistaken 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

have the right to financial support from both parents

But only one of those parents has the option to unilaterally give up that responsibility, either with an abortion prior to birth or giving up the child free and clear after birth. (google safe haven laws)

I'm not muddying waters, you are. If a woman gives up her child, she is not later held responsibly for it. This means that your theory of both sexes being held responsible to support the child's financial rights is just that, a theory.

You're trying to cry wolf by claiming it's all about the child, and ignoring the very real issue that this man was raped, then ex post facto held to be responsible as an adult despite being an underage rape victim.

So, to recap:

This man was raped, as a minor, with no choice.

This man had no choice if the child resulting from his rape was born.

This man was ordered, years after the fact, to pay for the child resulting from his rape, that he couldn't abort or give up without prosecution of abandonment.

His rapist, however, had the choice to keep the pregnancy after raping him, then had the choice of either giving it up via safe haven or not, or giving it up for adoption or not, and then gets paid for raping him years after the fact, or he'll get imprisoned.

Sounds totally fair and all about the child. /s

[–]Hypertroph -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But only one of those parents has the option to unilaterally give up that responsibility, either with an abortion prior to birth or giving up the child free and clear after birth. (google safe haven laws)

Abortion is about bodily autonomy before the fetus has legal rights. Safe haven laws exist to prevent infanticide, and hold because an abandoned infant can't have a positively identified parent. In this court case, both parents openly admitted to being the child's parent.

I'm not muddying waters, you are. If a woman gives up her child, she is not later held responsibly for it. This means that your theory of both sexes being held responsible to support the child's financial rights is just that, a theory.

You are. An abandoned child can lead to felony charges with the exception of safe haven laws. However, should the child be kept, with both parents known, both parents are on the hook for supporting the child.

I'd like to note that safe haven laws are not sex-specific. A single father can abandon a child at a safe haven with the same protections as a mother. Why you felt the need to use a sex-neutral law to demonstrate inequality is beyond me.

You're trying to cry wolf by claiming it's all about the child, and ignoring the very real issue that this man was raped, then ex post facto held to be responsible as an adult despite being an underage rape victim.

Cry wolf? I think you've got the wrong reference.

Anyways, child support is a civil matter, which occurs independently of criminal proceedings. Although he was the victim of statutory rape, those criminal proceedings have no bearing on the civil matter of child support. Even if they did, as the judge stated, the rights of the child supersede the rights of the parent, meaning he is still responsible for the child regardless of the legal outcome of the criminal case, regardless of the origin (i.e. rape) of the child.

So, to recap: This man was raped, as a minor, with no choice. This man had no choice if the child resulting from his rape was born. This man was ordered, years after the fact, to pay for the child resulting from his rape, that he couldn't abort or give up without prosecution of abandonment.

This is no different than many other child support cases that frequent this subreddit. From a legal standpoint, his age at the time, or willingness to be a father don't play in. He is the legal father, and as such, has legal responsibilities. Even if that was not something he consented to.

His rapist, however, had the choice to keep the pregnancy after raping him, then had the choice of either giving it up via safe haven or not, or giving it up for adoption or not, and then gets paid for raping him years after the fact, or he'll get imprisoned. Sounds totally fair and all about the child. /s

The ability to abort a fetus is a separate matter. The child was born, and thus has legal rights. The possibility of using a safe haven or filing for adoption is a separate matter. Both parents admitted to being the parents, and filing for adoption has to be a mutual decision.

While I appreciate what you are arguing for, that is not how the law works. This is the appropriate legal outcome for the case, as unpalatable as that might be. Yes, this is an area that the law handles poorly, but it was handled appropriately within the confines of the law. Yes, the law should be changed, but right now, this is what it is.

[–]thatusenameistaken 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Abortion is about bodily autonomy before the fetus has legal rights.

This doesn't wash with the fact that if someone kills a pregnant woman, it's two counts of murder.

You are. An abandoned child can lead to felony charges with the exception of safe haven laws. However, should the child be kept, with both parents known, both parents are on the hook for supporting the child.

This is where you're being deliberately obtuse. We're in a thread talking about a man not knowing, so why is he being held accountable years after the fact? If the woman gave up the child, he would not have any legal rights to parentage years later. It's only responsibilities being enforced, and only in one direction.

Cry wolf? I think you've got the wrong reference. Anyways, child support is a civil matter, which occurs independently of criminal proceedings.

Call it an appeal to emotion if you can't bridge that reference gap. Child support is not just a civil matter, or 12.5% of men in South Carolina jails wouldn't be there for failure to pay it. It's not just one state, either.Of the 2.2 million people incarcerated in the United States, about half are parents, and at least 1 in 5 has a child support obligation.

From a legal standpoint, his age at the time, or willingness to be a father don't play in. He is the legal father, and as such, has legal responsibilities. Even if that was not something he consented to.

You may be misunderstanding the point of this thread. It is unjust specifically because bullshit like this is legal. A rape victim should bear no responsibility to the issue of that rape, period, end of discussion.

The ability to abort a fetus is a separate matter.

It's not a separate matter, it's part and parcel of the total lack of men's reproductive rights. Men have such an absence of rights in this issue it's legal at this point for an adolescent rape victim to be held responsible to pay his rapist. There is no jurisdiction in which CPS checks up on how child support is used.

[–]Hypertroph -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't wash with the fact that if someone kills a pregnant woman, it's two counts of murder.

Depends on the jurisdiction and context, but it can. However, at that stage, the fetus has been granted rights, and thus same scenario would play out again, except before the child is even born.

This is where you're being deliberately obtuse. We're in a thread talking about a man not knowing, so why is he being held accountable years after the fact? If the woman gave up the child, he would not have any legal rights to parentage years later. It's only responsibilities being enforced, and only in one direction.

If only the mother knew about the child, and thus was the only parent considered responsible, and the mother abandoned the child at a safe haven, there would be no legal repercussions. If both parents knew about the child, and both were responsible, but the mother unilaterally abandoned the child, she would be on the hook for kidnapping and abandonment. Same as if the father had abandoned the child without the mother's consent.

Regardless, these are all hypothetical "what ifs" that didn't happen. What did happen is the mother kept the child and demanded the state enforce the child's right to paternal support.

Call it an appeal to emotion if you can't bridge that reference gap. Child support is not just a civil matter, or 12.5% of men in South Carolina jails wouldn't be there for failure to pay it. It's not just one state, either.Of the 2.2 million people incarcerated in the United States, about half are parents, and at least 1 in 5 has a child support obligation.

Breaching a child support agreement is criminal, yes, but the actual issue itself is civil.

You may be misunderstanding the point of this thread. It is unjust specifically because bullshit like this is legal. A rape victim should bear no responsibility to the issue of that rape, period, end of discussion.

The criminal proceedings of the rape and the support of the child are two legally distinct entities. You keep conflating them, but that simply isn't how the law works. Where the child came from does not change its rights, or the court's priority in enforcing those rights.

The ability to abort a fetus is a separate matter.

It's a related matter, but again, legally distinct. This court case is not a ruling on a man or woman's reproductive rights, it is a ruling on the right of a child to parental support. If there was a case for the reproductive rights of the father, it would have had to happen before the fetus was granted rights of its own, just like the mother. Once the child is a person under the law, both parents are on the hook. This child was born, meaning both parents are on the hook.

[–]neveragoodtime 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The right to financial support from both parents becomes nonsense once it's implemented in real world cases. The government should not be telling parents how to raise their children. The government is making the case that it's in the kids best interest for parents to be forced to spend money on them. That is ridiculous to suggest the more money spent on a child is causal to raising a better person. There are times when parental responsibilities can and should be removed. This is one. Sometimes a parent dies. Is that child at a disadvantage for the rest of his life because of it? Sometimes a parent chooses to quit his job to stay home with his kids. Are those children disadvantaged because of it? In a world where parents are nothing but paycheck a for future tax payers, rape victims are forced to raise the child of their victimization. Imagine for a second if the government forces a woman to carry and raise the child of her rapist, because abortion is not in the best interests of the child.

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is not about the parents, it's about the child. The court is enforcing the child's right to financial support to ensure the child's needs are met. You keep bringing up permutations of parental complications, but even as hypotheticals, they don't apply. The child is entitled to the support of both parents.

Maybe two caveats should be added, to be entirely clear. First, is the child is entitled to parental support, if possible. If one parent is deceased, or has fled the country, then enforcing said support is not possible. Second, the financial support is enforced in lieu of direct parental support, which the 15 year old father is unable to provide. If it is a two parent situation where one does not work so they can raise the child, the child's rights are met.

As for your last point, it is irrelevant for two reasons. First, such a ruling would violate the bodily autonomy of the mother, which the court can not do. Second, at that stage of the development, the fetus has no legal rights for the court to enforce. Once born, the child is afforded all their legal rights, allowing this ruling to occur.

[–]neveragoodtime 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The child is not entitled to the support of both parents. Only when one parent sues the other parent for money to raise their child is the child given that support. Child support only comes up in divorce, therefore it is not an entitlement or some kind of inalienable right of all children as you're suggesting. You say that a stay at home parent can provide care in lieu of money, so why isn't a divorced parent ever sued for care, and ordered to have 50% custody by the court because a parent's care is far more beneficial to a child than money? If the court is only interested in ensuring the child's needs are met, then child support would be means tested. If one parent makes enough money to support a child's needs, there would be no child support order. Instead we have a system where one parent making $150,000 receives child support from the other parent, even under equal custody, if the other parent makes slightly more. How does that relate to the kid's basic needs? Are you saying some children just deserve to have more money spent on them because their parents are wealthy? That's what the court is enforcing. Child support, as designed and enforced by the courts, provides no demonstrable benefits to the child. The fact that there is no mechanism for verifying child support is spent on the child tells you how little the court cares about the child's needs. The fact that it's awarded even in equal joint custody tells you the court doesn't care about the level of care provided by each parent. The fact that it's awarded even when the parents make enough money to provide financial support for the child individually tells you that it's primarily about subsidizing the lifestyle of the lower income parent.

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right that it's a broken system, and many of the balances needed to ensure its appropriate use do not exist. I'm not defending the effectiveness of the system. I'm merely suggesting that this judge's ruling is consistent with extant case law and legal precedent.

[–]neveragoodtime 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get you. This case is so appalling because it is actually consistent with extant case law. The current law is appalling.

[–]luciansolaris 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[Praise KEK!](29757)

[–]Hypertroph -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No, dangerous to the child. As soon as the child no longer has an overarching right to the financial support of both parents, people of both sexes will find ways to wiggle out of their parental responsibilities. Yes, most single parents are women, but this isn't about the parent, it's about the rights of the child.

While the two issues are often overlapping, they are distinct legal precedents. Linking them together muddies the waters, especially in an already muddy case like this.

[–]luciansolaris 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[Praise KEK!](94684)

[–]Hypertroph -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Invented like every other law, yes. I don't see how that factors in at all.

[–]VodkaHappens 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The issue isn't removing the right, it's putting the burden on the rape victim.

[–]Hypertroph 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The case notes state that the court determined that the rights of the child supersede the rights of the parent in this case. The origin of the child is not a relevant factor for how the rights of the child are applied.

In cases where two individual's rights conflict, it must be determined who's rights take priority, and the judge ruled in favour of the child. Had the judge ruled in favour of the parent, they would have been setting the precedent that the child is less important, which is contrary to all legal proceedings in the US. The child is always the priority. It would have been doubly worse if the reason for such a ruling was due to the child being borne of rape, which would then set the precedent that children of rape have less rights than children of consensual intercourse.

The ruling is not about the parents at all, but rather about the child. Yes, it is one of those cases that there really is no right answer to, and it highlights one of the many failings of our legal system, but it was a legally consistent ruling, and not one grounded in discrimination.

[–]ParaBDL 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A child does not always have the right to financial support from both parents, for example in the case of a sperm donor to a single mother. A sperm donor, depending on the law, can be defined as not being the legal parent and thus not be responsible for child support. So it's not a question on whether you are the biological father, but the legal father. If through illegal actions someone procured your sperm to get pregnant, should you be defined as the legal father? This debate will be very tricky legally, but I feel it's one worth having.

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, it's about legal parenthood, not biological. However, based on this ruling, the legal system seems to support the idea that a victim of statutory rape can, in fact, be a legal parent.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Since the statutory rape was not forced, I can see why the law may have seen the mother as the lesser of two evils.

Cos men are all rapists and can't say no to sex, right?

He's just a kid ffs

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He was 15, and very aware of what was going on. It was still statutory, but it wasn't forced. It doesn't excuse the woman, but don't equate this situation to the level of actual, violent rape. That term has already been so diluted by overuse; let's not add fuel to the fire there.

[–]MyPaynis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Through rape she stole the sperm. This is a judges opinion which means they can find or set precedent to go the other way with it. Whether we like it or not judges create laws all the time based on their political affiliation, religion, race, sex, etc... through INTERPRETATION of the law. They can't really be punished for these interpretations, only overturned by a higher court which happens all the time. I would bet my firstborn that if you looked through this judges history his interpretation has been overturned and agreed with in the past.

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You mean this ruling? Considering I saw it cited a few times in more recent cases, I think this judge's ruling held

[–]MyPaynis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ruling is kind of an opinion if it goes over the judges head. A ruling in an opinion and rarely if never a fact.

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An opinion that, if appealed, was not overturned. An opinion shared by multiple judges in subsequent cases. The fact that a ruling is an opinion does not invalidate said ruling.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Hypertroph 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because the child always has priority. If you make the child's rights conditional or lower priority here, you do the same everywhere. That's the danger of legal precedent. The law must be consistent, and any ruling that reduces the rights of the child will have far reaching effects.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Hypertroph -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the priority the legal system provides. Frankly, I'd hate to live in place where children take the back burner in favour of the parents, but that's just me.

[+]Dwayne_dibbly -22 points-21 points-20 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The money is for the child not the woman. Regardless is how it happened there is still a child that needs looking after.

[–]FLOHTX 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing in place that ensures the money is actually used for the baby. The mother has the choice to spend it on the baby or for whatever she wants.

[–]Korvar 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It still means the rape victim paying money to the rapist. The rapist is supposed to spend that money on the child conceived by rape, but doesn't actually have to, and nobody is going to check.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The boy didn't consent to a child or sex

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The boy didn't consent to a child or sex

[–]lasssilver[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I'm sure the courts will be super strict that the rapist who gets to keep custody of their rape-child ... another potential victim of sexual predation... spends the money only on the child.

Maybe she will spend it on a child. Like taking another 13y/o to McDonalds before raping him.

[+]DoomAndGloom4 -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are in the wrong subreddit my friend. Logic is not welcome here.

[–]MyPaynis 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you rape children and expect them to pay you? When they pay you do you spend that money to take your future rape victims out to dinner or buy them Pokemon cards?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheHawk71 59 points60 points61 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's irrelevant if he wanted to have sex or not, just as it's irrelevant if an adult in California has sex with a "willing" 14 year old girl. Statutory rape, means the child is too young to consent. His willingness is not a factor in the crime of statutory rape. Perhaps, a discussion about reform of these laws should take place but it won't, because most of the so called victims are girls, and we know they can't ever consent. That last part was sarcasm by the way.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

5 times over 2 weeks? Yea the law may say one thing but she sure as hell was willing. Don't even fucking try to make some bullshit up for this. I personally believe this man should be punished, but how the fuck could you even possibly believe that girl didn't want to get laid? 5 times over two weeks. Just think about it you stupid fucks. You realize to even maintain a wet pussy you have to be aroused right? If you're a man shut the fuck up because you don't know, if you're a girl give me your bullshit excuse how she was forced and somehow had a wet pussy at the same time.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Females regularly orgasm during rape, doesn't mean they enjoy it, or a intentionally aroused. You are, without a doubt, the most disgusting poster I've read on this site in a while. And your comment is completely fatuous. You shouldn't be here, go back to 9Gag where you belong. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/193e3x/iama_sexual_assault_therapist_discussing_when/

It's idiots like you that really hold humanity back. Seriously, why don't you just do us all a favour and fuck off.

[–]Amp3r 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At 15 I'm sure that someone playing with your cock is going to give you a boner whether you really want to have sex with them or not. Jeez, even a stray breeze gave me an erection at that age. Treating an erection like consent doesn't make sense.

Not to mention how easily manipulated a 15 year old is. Someone with more than double the life experience can lead them by the nose wherever they want. "Remember how we had sex last week? If you don't do it again I'm going to tell your parents and you will be grounded forever" or some other bullshit. It is called grooming and it is sickening.

[–]manicmonkeys 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention that if becoming sexually aroused matters, any woman who has orgasmed when being raped (it happens) consented.

[–]Anzai 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's irrelevant. He probably was willing, but if we are going to have an age of consent, then it holds across the board. The whole point of an age of consent is that it is deemed that someone cannot give consent at that age.

Of course, in reality they can, as could a fourteen year old girl to her twenty something oh so cool teacher. It doesn't matter. You can't hold a child accountable for their actions if you're not even willing to legally recognize their consent. And you can't have laws that discriminate by gender.

[–]manicmonkeys 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Basically yes, the whole point of these laws is to protect younger people from predatory older people, and from the fact that they're more easily manipulated due to worse judgment.

[–]manicmonkeys 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That makes it WORSE if he was a horny teenager, the whole point of statutory rape laws is to protect children/teenagers from predatory adults, since younger people tend to have worse judgment. And this case is a perfect example of WHY we need those laws, because younger people are less likely to think about the consequences of their actions, and are more prone to being taken advantage of.

[–]muselesscreator 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The point of the law is that he isn't old enough to really understand the CONSEQUENCES of sex. Sex is fun. In general, cases of "statutory" rape are ones where the minor is willing, or even actively engaged. It is still rape PRECISELY because the minor is not fully cognizant of the possible repercussions, while the adult is. This situation is bullshit.

[–]sandmann68 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is for you;

https://youtu.be/Ikd0ZYQoDko

[–]xbearface 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I bet if a man played with your little dingus against your will you'd have an erection at the same time. It's the bodies response to stimulation, wanted or unwanted.

[–]ilovesquares 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn't your average everyday stupid.... this is advanced stupid

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you call yourself a feminist? Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum?

[–]MyPaynis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Checked history, troll account

[–]ajrc0re 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If a 14 year old girl had sex with a 34 year old dude 5 times over two weeks, would that be okay?

[–][deleted] 421 points422 points423 points 10 years ago (130 children) | Copy Link

"Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities."

...

"Rapists deserve to be punished. Here, the rapist also deserves to be compensated."

[–]Batbuckleyourpants 124 points125 points126 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Not only that, they let the childraping woman keep the kid..

[+]GeneralBS -67 points-66 points-65 points 10 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

let the pro-life and the pro-choice battles begin...

edit - i always try to help you fucks out without caring about the karma, this just shows how pathetic you all are...

[–]osburnn 59 points60 points61 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I don't think he was talking about forcing her to have an abortion, I think he meant CPS should have taken the baby.

[–]TomHicks 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Get out. Get the fuck out. Mods can we ban this cunt already?

[–]GeneralBS 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol

[–]sillymod 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Why? What the hell has this person said that breaks our rules?

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well SRS and AMR ban MRAs for no reason, this guy is deliberately stirring shit here. Can't you ban feminists on sight like they do us?

[–]sillymod 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Read our policies. We ban for those reasons. That is it.

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Can you update those policies? Why not take a hardline approach, like the leftist feminist subs do?

[–]sillymod 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You must be new here.

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Been a regular visitor since I created this account, over 4 years ago. But hey, if you want to let feminists run amok and turn this sub to shit, that's your prerogative.

[–]gellis12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're getting very pissy for no reason. That's something SRS is famous for, we don't need people like that on our side.

[+]congelar -20 points-19 points-18 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

"Rapists deserve to be punished. Here, the rapist also deserves to be compensated."

More like.. "Rapists deserve to be punished. Here, the rapist also deserves visitation rights."

EDIT: Seriously.. what is wrong with what I posted? I'm agreeing with the post I'm replying to, but just trying to double down with the comparison. Did it come across wrong or.. what? I don't get it..

[–]stationhollow 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You mean the rapist of a child gets primary custody?

[+]congelar -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No.. I meant it's probably a more apt comparison to the situation described in the link.

[–]EskimoPrisoner 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The bitch doesn't get visitation rights. It's legally her kid. You think it's ok the rapist gets the kid?

[–]EL_TATICH -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He never said that, read first.

[–]Tiafves 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It didn't come across wrong, you're just wrong.

[–]gellis12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She didn't get "visitation rights," she gets the kid full time, and gets child support payments from her victim for that.

[+]KMKtwo-four -123 points-122 points-121 points 10 years ago* (91 children) | Copy Link

But the compensation is for the child? The law states that the child has the right to support from both parents. Everyone is up in arms about the kid who was raped, no one seems to have any concern for the welfare of the child who has done nothing wrong.

California law provides that every child has a right to support from both parents. (Fam. Code, ?? 3900, 3901 [former Civ. Code, ?? 196, 196a, 242]; County of Shasta v. Caruthers (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1838, 1841 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 18].) Family Code section 3900 provides that, subject to other statutes governing support, the father and mother of a child bear "equal responsibility" to support the child.

The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones's criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period.

In an action to impose vicarious liability upon a minor's parents, Cynthia M. v. Rodney E. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1045 [279 Cal.Rptr. 94], held a minor's consent to unlawful sexual intercourse was "a permissible consideration" in denying liability. "[T]here is an important distinction between a party who is injured through no fault of his or her own and an injured party who willingly participated in the offense about which a complaint is made." (Id., at pp. 1046-1047.) One who is injured as a result of criminal conduct in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. (Id., at p. 1047, fn. 13.) It does not necessarily follow that a minor over the age of 14 who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is a victim of sexual abuse. (Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 261 [226 Cal.Rptr. 361].)

In re Paternity of J.L.H. (1989) 149 Wis.2d 349 [441 N.W.2d 273, 276-277], held that for purposes of child support, voluntary intercourse may result in voluntary parenthood, although the child's father was 15 years old. Other states agree. (Jevning v. Cichos (Minn.Ct.App. 1993) 499 N.W.2d 515, 518 [child's interests in receiving support supersedes economic consequences minor father suffers from statutory rape]; Mercer County DSS v. Alf M. (1992) 155 Misc.2d 703 [589 N.Y.S.2d 288, 289-290] [16-year-old [50 Cal.App.4th 846] victim of statutory rape legally responsible for child support]; Weinberg v. Omar E. (1984) 106 A.D.2d 448 [482 N.Y.S.2d 540, 541] [age of putative father irrelevant in paternity proceeding and does not excuse support obligation].) We agree with the reasoning and holdings of these decisions.

[–]hobovirginity 97 points98 points99 points 10 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

Both the kid who was statutory raped and his child did nothing wrong. So why should the rights of the latter trump the former?

[–]FroggyMcnasty 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In situations like that infants are considered the greater of the innocent. It's the same mentality as ordering men to pay child support for kids who aren't theirs. It's totally mental and bullshit.

Also one of the highest incomes for the government is delinquent child support, so it's really just another form of indentured servitude.

[+]KMKtwo-four -104 points-103 points-102 points 10 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

I could ask you the same question, why should the rights of the former tump the latter?

In fact, the court held that the 15 year old did do something wrong.

[T]here is an important distinction between a party who is injured through no fault of his or her own and an injured party who willingly participated in the offense about which a complaint is made

[–]springy 94 points95 points96 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Yep, just like when a 50 year old man rapes a teenage girl, and she was really keen to participate. Raping kids is often about seducing them rather than holding a knife to their throat. The whole point of child rape laws is that kids are not mentally mature enough to consent.

[+]KMKtwo-four -81 points-80 points-79 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

If 2 minors have sex, they are not mature enough to consent. However, they still bear responsibility to support the child.

[–]PM_ME_BATCH_FILES 56 points57 points58 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because they are not being taken advantage of

[–]hobovirginity 27 points28 points29 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

That's because two minors having sex who are being irresponsible enough to cause a pregnancy to happen should BOTH be held accountable for bringing a new a life into the word.

This kid was seduced into sex and taken advantage of so why punish him? The woman knew what she was doing to him and if she can't support her own kid financially that's her and her baby's problem not the victimized 15 year old boy. Honestly child support is such a scam anyways. There are so many other government programs out there for those who need help and then you have charities and etc...

If it's one or two kids child support is usually just a cop out for the woman having to work and provide for her own. More than that then why the hell would a woman keep having kids knowing she can't support them? To me willingly getting pregnant knowing you can't support the baby should be criminal.

[+]KMKtwo-four -33 points-32 points-31 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

If it's one or two kids child support is usually just a cop out for the woman having to work and provide for her own.

Wow that's some potent Coolaid right there. But what was I expecting, this is /r/mensrights

[–]hobovirginity 31 points32 points33 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow that's some potent stupidity right there. But what was I expecting, this is an attack on /r/mensrights

[–]1forthethumb 27 points28 points29 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Bitch I got here from /r/all and even I know you're extremely fucked up. HOW DOES A CHILD RAPIST GET TO RAISE A CHILD?

[–]tiorzol[🍰] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And get paid for it. What the actual fuck.

[–]FrozenNexus 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're a bit dim aren't you?

[–]LeSirJay 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, after many tries you seem to not get it... THE KID WAS RAPED HE WAS FUCKED WITHOUT PERMISSION. HE DIDNT LIKE IT. HE IS EMOTINALLY SCARED FOR HIS FUCKING LIFE AND HAS TO PAY FOR IT YOU GODFORSAKEN IDIOT.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're a shitty person.

[–]KaBar42 23 points24 points25 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How the fuck is a 34 year old a minor?

[–]G-man88 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

woosh, right over your head. They're not referring to the couple in that context just positing a what if scenario.

[–]Touchmethere9 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What don't you understand about the difference between 2 15 year olds fucking after school and a 34 year old woman raping a 15 year old kid....

[–]Gnometard 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you're saying that minors and adults are the same? Why even have the distinction?

[–]thewildcard02 57 points58 points59 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You are LITERALLY defending a rapist. That kid was groomed by an adult who raped him. It boggles my mind that you would go out of your way to type this stuff out without noticing WTF you are typing.

[+]KMKtwo-four -55 points-54 points-53 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

You are LITERALLY defending a rapist

I know in your mind the child and the rapist are the same thing, but they aren't.

[–]foxyramirez 32 points33 points34 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Where is the justice of holding a victim responsible for the outcome of the crime committed against them?

[–]TheDarkApostle 26 points27 points28 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's like being forced to replace the bullets that you got shot with.

[–]poachy 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow you truly are retarded aren't you

[–]Jazzeki 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

intresting. so the court in fact held that 15 year old kinda can consent to sex?

oh and if you don't imedietly complain and do everything in your power to fight it is not rape... what a disgusting verdict.

as for the kid how about we force the fucking rapists to put the child up for adoption?

there welfare of child considered and secured.

[–]PM_ME_NICE_THOUGHTS 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. Can't wait to see this precedent used in a scenario when genders are reversed.

[–]MajinAsh 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't see how that would be possible. If the genders were reversed the underage would have options to abort, possibly place the child up for adoption or even collect support if they choose to keep it.

[–]Sour_Badger 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They can use it as precedent to place the child with the rapist father.

[–]PM_ME_NICE_THOUGHTS 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ding ding ding!

[–]MajinAsh 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No the court still said he couldn't consent. She was tried for sex with a minor as you would expect.

What the court did say was that his inability to consent doesn't mean anything when it comes to child support. This isn't the first I've heard of exactly this situation so I guess they just cited the precedent from earlier cases. The entire situation just seems like something out of a black comedy.

[–]Jazzeki 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

What the court did say was that his inability to consent doesn't mean anything when it comes to child support.

the justice system should never ever attempt to right a wrong by adding another wrong.

again i agree that the child has rights. including the right to be cared for.

however you can not saddel that obligation on people randomly. it is not the kids fault that child was born so he can not reasonably be held responsible for the child. it would have been as reasonable to point at any othe random person in the court and order them to pay the child support.

as i said if the childs rights are the only concern over all other rights: force an adoption. there are plenty of people looking for newborns this is a fast and easy solution and the kid will be better cared for than most(most likely).

[–]MajinAsh 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh no I totally agree with you. Just commenting on your first line there. The court didn't decide he can legally consent. I think it did take into account that he was a willing party in the whole thing, despite the fact that legally he can't be.

[–]G-man88 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it did take into account that he was a willing party in the whole thing, despite the fact that legally he can't be.

Which makes no damn sense. Talk about double standard/insane logic. They're doing some crazy ass mental gymnastics.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You need to pause your life, take a long, hard look at yourself and realize that you are part of the problem.

A child was raped. A baby came from that rape. You think it's logical for the VICTIM OF RAPE to pay for the result. You are fucked in your head.

Turn it to a 15 year old girl. A 34 year old man rapes her. He assumes custody of the child and makes the girl pay. Betcha would have a problem with that situation, eh?

Sickening.

[–]Stephen1985 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because there are literally laws which say that kid can't consent to sex because he is too young to fully appreciate the consequences, that's why we set ages of consent.

This child could not give consent so he cannot be at any fault. It's disgusting that we have laws to protect children from stuff like this and nobody cares.

[–]1forthethumb 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wanna know how a child rapist gets to raise a child? Like that kid isn't in danger? What the actual fuck?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, then Brock Turner only deserved 6 months, right? After all, that's what the court held.

Fuck off, you hypocritical shitbag.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]KMKtwo-four -20 points-19 points-18 points 10 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

One of the main arguments that sex with a minor constitutes a form of rape is that they can't understand the consequences of having sex. To acknowledge that by maintaining statutory rape laws while simultaneously imposing the consequences of sex onto a minor is fucking absurd.

But a 15 year old who has sex with another 15 year old is still responsible for thier child, despite both's inability to consent. The world is not black and white, and this is a definate grey area.

[–]whodatis22 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you're getting the point. It's the fact that a 34 year old women took advantage of a 15 year old. Statutory rape laws was put in with the idea that they're too young to consent. Yes if a 15 year old impregnates another 15 year old they're both responsible, but that's not statutory rape either.

Put it this way, say a 34 year old man seduced a willing 15 year old girl and got her pregnant. Would you say it's just for the 34 year old man to get both custody and child support from the girl?

[+]YouCntHandleTheProof -32 points-31 points-30 points 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

And his point is that the new-born child has a legal right to child support; you are saying that he shouldn't have this right. You are supporting the removal of rights from birth ultimately.

If he hadn't have willingly consented I'm sure he wouldn't have been paying anything.

You guys are all so emotional. This dude you're all downvoting is literally answering the questions and making some good observations. He's not defending the child who was raped, he's defending the rights of the new-born child.

This is a weird situation legally but if you stop and think about it objectively you should be able to understand both halves of the story. Failure to do so is nothing more than a disservice to the human brain.

Then again, the majority of you are genuinely stupid. Down vote me and move along.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]YouCntHandleTheProof -26 points-25 points-24 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

He did. Read it.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Jesus christ you're another level of stupid altogether. Do you literally have no idea what 'statutory rape' actually means? Better to keep your mouth closed and have people assume you're stupid than to open your mouth and prove it like this.

[+]YouCntHandleTheProof -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Of course I understand. So tell me how you would have dealt with the situation? Would you have denied the new-born child support?

[–]MrBigMcLargeHuge 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The 15 year old cannot consent, willingly or not, regardless of whatever comes out of his mouth. Statutory rape laws make it impossible.

He is completely devoid of the ability to consent to an adult.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

A child cannot willingly consent. you've got your head up your ass as far as that judge did.

[–]YouCntHandleTheProof -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes they can. If you read it you will see that it's in his (the raped) statement.

He was willingly raped, not forcibly.

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So can a teenage girl consent to an older man?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

HE'S 15 HE CANNOT CONSENT YOU IDIOT!

[–]manicmonkeys 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd be more than happy to have my tax dollars help raise a child when they're conceived from rape, rather than taking a chance that any such minor has to foot the bill for being a victim.

It's not that hard.

[–]KMKtwo-four -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

You're saying the judicial system should have imposed a new tax and public policy? That's absurd.

As distasteful as it is, the ruling was consistent with precedents that were cited.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Foster homes aren't a new public policy, and our taxes already pay for them.

[–]manicmonkeys 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As /u/secv808 said, we already have taxes going towards helping raise kids. Furthermore, when did I say the judicial system would be imposing a new tax? Nice strawman.

Whether or not it's consistent with precedents isn't what matters, what matters is whether such precedent can be justified. I have yet to see such justification.

[–]Sanureyic 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see where you and the other user are coming from but I agree with someone else I saw higher in the thread. Why doesn't the state foot the bill? Why force a 15 year old boy to pay (ACTUALLY monetarily pay) for a consequence he didn't even know could happen? That's why statutory rape is there in the first place, regardless of if a minor agrees to it or not they cannot understand the possible consequences of their actions. However in this case because the minor is male the government decided to fuck this poor kids life up for being seduced by his teacher, something I'm sure every man has had fantasies about.

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And his point is that the new-born child has a legal right to child support

Child support which is given to the mother, who is free to spend it on herself if she wishes. Child support which if not paid in time, will be awarded to the mother even after the child has reached adulthood instead of the adult child whose 'right' (as you call it) has been infringed.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Atheist101 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The law....

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MrBigMcLargeHuge 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can question it all you want but right now its still in effect.

[–]manicmonkeys 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you know why that is different?

In a relationship between two minors, there's a much lesser chance of there being predatory coercion or manipulation.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OMG, you are a horrible fucking person.

This is not about one fifteen year old having sex with another 15 year old. This is about a scummy adult taking advantage of a child.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[–]Whisper 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But the compensation is for the child?

Who will it be paid to?

[–]unexpected_post 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Since we are thinking about the welfare of the child, it's obvious the mother has absolutely no right to custody. She is a child rapist after all. Thus, the father should raise the child, and she pay him alimony.

[–]chakan2 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's the correct answer, but could you imagine being a responsible dad at 15...phew...

[–]unexpected_post 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's possible. And he would be a better parent than her. Plus, his parents would help raise their grandchild. Adoption would be the best choice, however.

[–]KMKtwo-four -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I am sure the court would side with him over the mother if he had sued for custody instead.

[–]unexpected_post 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He shouldn't have to sue separately, they're already deciding what to do with the child. The mother loses custody because she is a child rapist, in jail and has no way to support the child or take care of it. The child goes to the father or up for adoption.

[–]no_lungs 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who are you kidding? The law says a lot of shit, doesn't mean things always work out that way.

[–]Stephen1985 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which child's rights are you referring to?

[–]Tyrone_Shekelstein 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's say the teacher was a 34 year old man that conceived a child with a 15 year old girl. The teacher obviously loses his job, but the girl's family is wealthy. Should the girl's family be liable to give him a paycheck every month to help raise the kid?

[–]heronumberwon 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes everyone knows child support is only used by moms for raising children /s

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit.

You people defend the indefensible, and then wonder why most people despise feminists. This is feminism -- making men pay for women's crimes.

[–]manicmonkeys 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cool, so if I get a minor to sign over an irrevocable POA so I can do virtually anything in their name for the rest of their life, it should stand in court, since they were a willing participant. Sound logic there.

[–]Attentive1 124 points125 points126 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

So let me get this straight. A 34 yo woman illegally has sex with a juvenile. She's convicted of raping a minor in Criminal Court but Family Court deems the minor equally responsible for the outcome (pregnancy/birth) by saying that the minor was a willing participant. Yet the Criminal Court pressed charges on behalf of society because the minor cannot legally give consent.

Let's see:

  • The male minor had no authority over whether the pregnancy should be terminated. Had it been a female rape victim she would be entitled to a late term abortion caused by rape.

  • The minor cannot get a job without parental and school consent and at that age it can only be a part-time job.

  • He can't sign legally binding documents at that age.

  • He can't legally move out on his own much less quit school

  • He can't join the military at that age.

  • He can't smoke or drink alcohol at that age.

  • Also, legally the 15 yo is both underage and the victim of rape. Why is his identity not protected by the court?

It seems to me that the minors legal rights are seriously restricted. I'm willing to guess that they're restricted because his judgment is deemed immature.

So the idea is to saddle this minor with a debt that keeps accumulating until an unspecified date in the future.

Where are the adults, the good people, that should be stepping up and saying that this is a secondary abuse of the minor? I see the apologists bringing up the rights of the newborn but who is protecting the minor?

[+]eskamobob1 -17 points-16 points-15 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Dude. I 100% agree with everything you said, but calling someone an "apologist" in damn near any situation just shows your a cunt that doesn't value discussion on the topic. Honestly, you had my complete support until that dumb ass line.

[–]xzxzzx 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, you had my complete support until that dumb ass line.

If a single word is enough to completely reverse your support of someone, you should really spend some time thinking about what bothers you so much about that word, and how to not let it affect your life so strongly.

[–]eskamobob1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't say that it change that fact that I agree with what he said. As for why it pisses me off to such an extent is because discussion is one of the most important factors of progress. You won't ever convince someone that this is wrong by calling them an apologist. If you can calmly discuss what your grievances are and what you feel would be a better alternative, you may stand a chance though. This sub is suppose to be about promoting equal rights, not belittling people who hold singular different views than we do.

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you looked in a dictionary to find what "apologist" means? You seem to think it's derogatory, but it's not.

We are all men's rights apologists, for example, or at least I hope we are.

[+]FogOfInformation -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I will castrate you.

I will love you.

Which one do you like?

[–]xzxzzx 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know where to start in explaining how non-analogous that is. I suggest you read all the comments above again, more carefully this time.

[–]FogOfInformation -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the premise of an argument is wrong, then the statement is wrong.

[+]Buildapcformeplease2 -34 points-33 points-32 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The child does not have to pay child support yet. He will have to pay it eventually. When he is 18.

[–]Stacksup 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He became 18, seventeen years ago. This case is from 1996.

[–]GODZiGGA 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The court ruled that the 15yo's parents have to pay child support until the 15yo is 18. All of this is in the linked article.

[–]DoverBoys 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, you fuckstick. He should not pay a dime. He cannot legally consent, so the family court is full of fucking shitstains.

[–]Avagad 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The story is 20 years old.

[–]trustworthy_expert 92 points93 points94 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is some straight up, bunk ass, bull shit! The legal precedence here is astonishing, disgusting, and offensive.

[–]Ded0099 485 points486 points487 points 10 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

"Is the child's father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape"

"We conclude he is liable for child support"

So about that male privilege?

[–]derpeddit 71 points72 points73 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We have the privilege of supporting rapists. /s

[–]manicmonkeys 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He's privileged to even have contact with his rapist, what a lucky male! How dare he complain about that!

[–]derpeddit 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"You're a guy! Isn't sex all you want anyway, big deal, this wasn't rape. You have to pay me now."

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a more accessible article about the case from The Chicago Tribune, 1996:

Statutory Rape Victim Ordered To Pay Child Support

Of particular interest:

(Judge Arthur Gilbert) cited cases from other states in which minors were deemed responsible for child support if they had consented to sex with an adult.

So not only are there legal precedents where male victims of statutory rape convictions are responsible to pay child support for consenting to sex with actual rapists, so-called feminists still argue that females, who realize some guy is not as attractive in the hangover morning light and feel guilty for consenting to sex the night before, are actually encouraged to claim "rape", that they are not only "victims", they are "survivors".

[–]Alarid 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We all know only men have power and responsibility, and we need to reinforce it no matter what...

[–]Red_means_go 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

This is the most disgusting thing I think I've seen from our courts and judges yet. Wtf America, we've truly lost our minds. Let's stay to the left, seems the way to go...it does at least if we want to our ensure that our poor, poor female and muslim population have rights.

[–]Bezulba 89 points90 points91 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

You really think that the shitty crap you have going on for a justice system is a fault of the left?

Don't make me laugh... you guys haven't had a proper left since the communist party got banned.. everything after that was either right or extreme right.

This is clearly a result of the way you want "criminals" to pay. You don't go for justice, you don't go for rehabilitation or what's best for the country, you want to hang everybody. And since that's a little barbaric you go for the next best thing: insane sentences for the most minor of offences or even complete reversals of what should be justice.

This kid got fucked by all those politicians that got elected by shouting they were going to go after deadbeat dads.

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The right or extreme right argument is absurd and makes you look like a total wacko

[–]maaghen 29 points30 points31 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

well compared to the rest of the world the american left looks a lot like the right

[–]MyPaynis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well compared to the "rest of the world" we are the last superpower. Also you are wrong about the rest of the world. The majority of the Middle East, Africa and Asia are much further right than the US. To the left of us are European countries, Australia and some South American countries.

[–]Kaboose666 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no, compared to pretty much every western democracy we are by far the most right leaning. Our most left politician right now getting any attention is Bernie Sanders, and he would be considered a liberal centrist in most of Europe, not a true leftist.

[–]Bezulba 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you honestly believe that the democratic party is left or even centric? Compared to the rest of the world it's a right wing party...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In terms of the general world population, the "left" in the US would be like if we had a proper Socialist party, and the "right" in the US would be the Democrats now.

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The communist party was never 'banned' in the US...

[–]rightard10 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

[–]Bezulba 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

black listed from doing anything ever during the glorious McCarthy days basically makes it a ban.

[–]dopamineheights 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Beaten up and blackmailed, I think is the phrase. At least for the members.

[–]Void_Gazer -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well they sure didn't get the red carpet treatment either.

[–]TacoOrgy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This guy knows how life works

[–]TomHicks -18 points-17 points-16 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Fuck the left. Fuck the oppressed/privileged dichotomy. Fuck the incessant whining brats who comprise the left. What's the difference between a man and a parasite? A man creates, a parasite asks- where's my share?

[–]Hypersapien 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hey. I'm left and I think this woman not only doesn't deserve a dime, but needs to be in prison.

[–]TomHicks -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Good for you. There are far too many lunatics in your camp though.

[–]Hypersapien 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Unlike the right, at least the left doesn't elect its lunatics to public office.

[–]TomHicks -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You sure about that?

[–]Bezulba 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

again? What left?

It's the devil and the deep blue sea in the states. You haven't got a left party.

[–]TomHicks -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So the party whining about the oppressed women and minorities isn't leftist? That's centrist? lol

[–]gellis12 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your democrat party is slightly more right wing than the conservative party in Canada, which is widely believed to be too right-wing for our country up here.

So no, you do not have a left wing party. You have a right wing party, and a ridiculously over the top right wing fascist party.

[–]TomHicks 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Whining about oppressed women and minorities is right wing? What are you, a communist? Socialist?

[–]gellis12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I voted NDP, so I'm a bit left of centre. And the democrats stance on pretty much everything else is more right wing than the conservative party up here, who got completely curb stomped at the last election after being in power for around a decade.

[–]Bezulba 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

compared to the rest of the world? Yes.

And the democratic party isn't whining about anything. You guys still don't have mandatory maternity leave, mandatory holidays or anything you might consider left winged policy... hell even obama care is a cheap knock off of universal healthcare as not to upset the corporations running the show.

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What are you, a fucking communist? Wait, those are extinct. So, a socialist?

[–]Bezulba 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

original marxist since 1910.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Lmao did you just quote bioshock to back up your political ideology. I mean this with all respect, grow up.

[–]TomHicks -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Fuck off leftist. Fuck off back to Venezuela, see what your ideology brings you. Disgusting leeches.

[–]Flaktrack 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You do realize that Bioshock was a criticism of those beliefs, not an endorsement of them, right?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He just got off for summer break. Give him time to decompress.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're so stupid you must have your own show on TLC.

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that subreddit. You may use a screenshot instead.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]FrozenNexus 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I feel like where we have reached a point in the US where we have so many Laws that can be taken out of context and allows(or forces) the courts to just throw all sensibility out.

[–]Mmcgou1 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Our laws and most rulings are based on precedent. You're right, there's just too damn much of it.

[+]duffmanhb -18 points-17 points-16 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Because the child shouldn't be punished because it was conceived trough statutory rape. It still should have a father who's going to help it fund its future.

[–]Anaxagoras23 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the child be given up for adoption than to have him or her be raised by a rapist and paid for by money extorted from a teenaged rape victim?

I see where you're coming from but the logic of allowing her to keep the child and solicit funds is highly questionable.

[+]duffmanhb -15 points-14 points-13 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

If it was real rape, yeah, but this wasn't real rape, this was statutory... Meaning it's only rape within a legal sense. That's why they call it "statutory" rape.

I think regardless of the conception of the child, both are parents whether they like it or not, and have an obligation to support that child.

[–]Anaxagoras23 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That makes it sound as though there aren't good reasons why statutory rape is against the law. A 15 year old isn't properly going to consider things like the possibility of pregnancy and so on. Experience aside, even, the prefrontal cortex lags way behind the sexual development process. This means that your ability to really weigh consequences of actions is severely hampered compared to an adult. And that isn't even touching all the hormones flooding the system that haven't been totally adapted to quite yet. The thought processes needed to make a good decision get overridden by "Holy shit this is awesome!"

We don't generally consider two teenagers having sex to be rape not because we somehow want them having sex with people their own age so much as the simple fact that arresting them for rape would be worse than removing the legal penalty, which is to say that the cure would be worse than the problem, but there are good reasons that societies have typically steered people too young to support themselves or a family away from sexual relationships.

We consider people that age to be incapable of giving true, informed consent because they actually are capable of giving true, informed consent.

[–]duffmanhb -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Of course, I get WHY it's a statutory law. But I also get that there is a significant differences between statutory laws and non-statutory. Which is why I think it's important to understand why there is this distinction. This kid wasn't held down and forced to have sex with her, this was still a voluntary decision, even if it wasn't entirely informed because of his age.

The reason we have laws like this is because basically the state is saying, "Yeah there is a lot of grey area and variables at play... So we are just going to blanket outlaw it just to stay on the safe side of precaution". Which is why it's "statutory". The state recognizes that every one of these cases isn't literally rape, and can be fully consenting and informed... But again, just to be safe, the state outlaws it across the board to prevent children and young adults from potentially getting taken advantage of by adults.

I mean, technically our brains aren't finished developing into our 20s, but we still allow people to make consenting decisions the day they turn 18? Come on...

This 15 year old, most likely made the conscious decision to engage in a child creating activity with a woman. He probably wasn't tricked, and he probably actively sought out getting laid by this sexed crazed teacher of his.

So while she is at fault for allowing that relationship to result, she paid the punishment of her crime. But the student, also has to face consequences for his decisions. When a 16 year old gets drunk and drives, we don't say, "Oh, he's a stupid teenager, he shouldn't face any consequences." No, actions have consequences, even at 15. He should not be immune from those consequences just because he's three technical years away from the legal definition of adulthood.

[–]Anaxagoras23 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What else is traditionally available once someone turns 18? They can get a job and support themselves and a family. Granted in the economy we have that isn't as realistic as it used to be, but back in the day an 18 year old guy who got a girl pregnant could get a job in a factory and still do more or less alright in life.

This kid wasn't held down and forced to have sex with her, this was still a voluntary decision, even if it wasn't entirely informed because of his age.

Violently raping a teenager would be much worse than the improperly gained consent involved in statutory rape, yes. On the same note, shooting an 8 year old would be much worse than letting him have access to a loaded gun (say in an unlocked dresser drawer). Neither one is good, just one is less horrifically bad than the other. The comparative moral weight doesn't alleviate all the badness or the responsibility from the adult sexual predator any more than it does from the irresponsible parent with the gun.

We're talking about having the child brought up by someone who considers it okay for a grown adult to have sex with a fifteen year old.

The mother of the product of this particular union can already be judged to be a person of poor judgement. If she's asking for financial aid then she's admitting to being financially unfit to raise her child as well. If she's an unfit mother then we should consider moving the child, for her own safety and financial well-being, into another home. The boy himself is obviously unfit due to his age and financial earning capability. If the boy's parents were willing to adopt her (with her mother paying child support to them) then that should be fine, otherwise the state should do what the state normally does for parents who aren't fit to raise their own children.

[–]duffmanhb -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Whether or not the mother is fit to raise the child, which the state thinks she's more fit to raise it than the state itself, is besides the point.

The point of the matter is whether or not the 15 year old who made the decision to voluntarily have sex with this women should still face the responsibility of financially contribute to raising the results of his actions.

Why would he not be removed of this responsibility if the woman was also 15? Anyone with a reasonable mind would say, "Yes, if he got a 15 year old girl pregnant, and even though he's not yet an adult, he should still contribute to raising this child." Why should he lose this responsibility just because of the age of the other party? If you ask me, her age is completely irrelevant to whether or not he should fulfill this obligation.

[–]Anaxagoras23 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually if two 15 year olds conceive a child I don't think it should be entirely their choice about whether or not to keep it, either. I wouldn't support forcing the girl to get an abortion, but if she wanted to raise it herself she would need someone to take responsibility for her and the child both, would she not?

Some options I would support in that case would be one set of parents adopting the grandchild, one or both sets of parents agreeing to help their teenage children raise the child, finding parents to adopt the child so that the 15 year olds don't have to raise it or, as a last resort, simply putting the child into foster care.

I would not, however, support giving the 15 year old girl the legal ability to decide on her own and in a complete vacuum the ability to decide to raise the child herself and force the grandparents to financially (and otherwise) support her decision.

As for the mother in question I would probably posit that the state is giving her the most potent aspect of female privilege, the freedom from responsibility for her own actions. If a 34 year old man had gotten a 15 year old girl pregnant and something unfortunate happened to her, like a car accident, and he tried to sue for custody as the sole surviving parent would society just be okay with that? It's doubtful.

[–]cenatutu 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ok. As a woman.

Are you insane??? This child was raped. His rapist should be in prison (just like a male would be for statutory rape of a female student). The courts can't have it both ways.

[–]duffmanhb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I never said the kid wasn't a victim, nor should she be vindicated. I'm saying that he still has a responsibility to support his child. Why would we, as a society, say "Okay he pays child support if he gets another 15 year old pregnant, but not if the girl is legally an adult"

That doesn't make any sense. That child still needs support from his or her father.

[–]cenatutu 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This person was the victim of a crime. No, we cannot force victims of crime to pay. Let her fucking pay for it. Rapist pedophile that she is.

The fact you used the phrase "real rape" really tells me all I need to know. My question is, do you think only boys can't be victims of statutory rape or do you think the same for girls too?

[–]duffmanhb -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said he wasn't a victim, nor that girls can't be victims. At 15 years old, he damn well knew what he was doing, and that having sex can result in babies. That's all I'm saying. So he should still be held responsible for his actions of having sex which lead to making a baby.

If he was like 11 and genuinely was sheltered, not knowing what he was doing, then there would probably be a case for him. But at 15 he knows damn well what he's doing and the risks associated with it.

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Fuck that and fuck you. You're vile. You'd never say that shit if the genders were reversed, if a statutory rape victim was forbidden from seeking an abortion.

[–]duffmanhb 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That's completely different.

The age and genders have 0 percent to do with whether or not the child's parents have an obligation to support it.

Let's say the boy was 17 and the girl was 19, in California.... That's technically statutory rape. So would the boy then be freed clear of any obligation to help financially support that child? What if they were both 15? Both are statutorily raped. But then does that kid never have to worry about paying child support?

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The child is not being supported. There is no guarantee that the mother will spend it on the child and not on herself. She's free to splurge on herself, and the child is none the better for it. Especially a CHILD RAPIST mother.

What if they were both 15? Both are statutorily raped.

Nobody sees any rape in that situation (unless one was coerced).

Let's say the boy was 17 and the girl was 19, in California.... That's technically statutory rape. So would the boy then be freed clear of any obligation to help financially support that child?

Romeo and Juliet laws- look em up.

[–]duffmanhb 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Childsupport isn't designed to go directly to the child. It's meant for the household. So your point is besides the point. Child support isn't determined on whether or not the other parent "deserves it" or even needs it.

Nobody sees any rape in that situation (unless one was coerced).

That's still legally statutory rape. Legally, both those kids are raped. The only difference here, is that the woman is the same age. But the end result of having a kid is the same... Since it's legally rape, under the law, do none of the kids deserve to pay child support?

Romeo and Juliet laws- look em up.

That's why I mentioned CA, since they don't have those laws. If a 19 year old fucks a 17 year old, it's statutory rape. Since it's legally considered rape, does the 17 year old not have to pay support?

We are talking about statutory rape here. Not violent forced rape. You may be able to have an argument if this was violent rape, but this wasn't. This was a consenting minor who got a woman pregnant. Age is irrelevant to whether or not this child deserves to have a father help support it.

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Childsupport isn't designed to go directly to the child. It's meant for the household.

So it isn't even child support then. LOL. Now try and fit this into the "child has a right to..." To what? To support for itself the household? Doesn't really work that way.

Child support isn't determined on whether or not the other parent "deserves it" or even needs it.

Complete fucking bullshit, in other words.

That's why I mentioned CA, since they don't have those laws. If a 19 year old fucks a 17 year old, it's statutory rape. Since it's legally considered rape, does the 17 year old not have to pay support?

Let's imagine if the 19 year old was a guy. He'd be railroaded by the justice system, and lose many years in prison. The same should happen to the 19 year old woman. Throw her in jail. Give the boy custody. If he can't cope, it goes in the foster system. Problem solved!

That's still legally statutory rape. Legally, both those kids are raped. The only difference here, is that the woman is the same age. But the end result of having a kid is the same... Since it's legally rape, under the law, do none of the kids deserve to pay child support?

Are you asking what I would suggest in that situation or what I think should be done? I think the child should be taken from them and put in the foster system as they are both far too young to care for them. If one of the grandparents adopts it, no child support form anyone as is done with normal adoptions.

[–]bobsotherson 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

but the child that was raped should be punished for being raped?

Women say abortion is their choice all the time, and they're absolutely right. It's their choice and only their choice. So why is someone else responsible for their choice?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then we should ban abortion. A child shouldn't be punished because its mother is irresponsible and hates it. It still deserves to have a future.

[–]manicmonkeys 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's this thing called taxpayer dollars. They're often used to pay for criminal proceedings and such.

[–]Hugh_Jadong 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, don't worry. This will all be blamed on the patriarchy and benevolent sexism.

[+]Third_Ferguson -21 points-20 points-19 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRussianEwok 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If a man raped an underaged woman and got her pregnant I'm pretty sure he'd be in jail for quite some time plus the woman wouldn't be blamed for the pregnancy it would solely be the mans fault (as it should be in this example)

[–]manicmonkeys 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And since they've proved themselves to be predatory, they probably shouldn't have custody either....

[–]Third_Ferguson -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRussianEwok 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So your saying there's no cases of people going to jail for underaged rape and so this is fine

This woman raped the boy and then still got custody of a child and the victim is forced pay for it... That's not right even if the roles were reversed

Anyway, he's a list of the laws by state https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm

As this happened in California the law clearly states the punishment us 'Up to one year in a county jail or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years' plus this would make the woman a sexual predator meaning the child isn't safe in that home hence she wouldn't be raising it let alone receiving child benefits of the victim

As for an example for the roles reversed that simply isnt possible as if an older man gets a teenaged girl pregnant she then has to give birth meaning the man's sentence goes up drastically (rightly so) and so there's no directly comparable cases. These however are closely linked with reversed genders http://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/tour-bus-driver-gets-30-years-jail-raping-12-year-old-girl/ http://www.superiortelegram.com/news/superior/4056210-superior-man-sentenced-jail-probation-sex-assault (he went to jail while the age gap was significantly less, plus no pregnancy was involved which would've increased the jail term further) and http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article82133382.html where he handed himself in and got 13 months (no pregnancy involved again)

[–]Golmore 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Roman Polanski is still in France. Luckily no baby.

[–]cajunrevenge 472 points473 points474 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Could you imagine the shit storm if a 34 year old male teacher raped a 15 year old girl and they not only did they allow him custody of the child but forced the girl to pay him child support. The SJWs would be holding cry ins across the country.

[–]Red_means_go 71 points72 points73 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Completely true. California can suck my dick. Hope the rest of the country doesn't catch up anytime soon.

[–]I_AM_A_PIRATE_AMA 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

🖕🖕🖕🇺🇸

[–]dopamineheights 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's it like living on the high seas?

[–]TGameCo 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a hook hand?

[–]doubleneat 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe a peg leg?

[–]Wallballs72 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why does it feel like my body's being drained out of my face?

[–]Tsu_Shu -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This is hardly representative of California.

Always gotta turn it into an us vs them...

[+]torik0 -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Commifornia is a shithole all-around.

[–]Tsu_Shu 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Nah, it's fucking awesome. Couldn't ask for a better place to live. Odds are we're basically subsidizing wherever you're from too.

[–]torik0 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are other places to get avocados.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Paying us not to live in California. Thank you!

[–]Tsu_Shu 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I honestly don't get the hate. Perfect weather, beautiful beaches, beautiful mountains, some of the best national parks in the country, beautiful women...Hell even our tree's are beautiful.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

cali for life yo

[–]Tsu_Shu 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeee!

[–]nomintode 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ugly people who make rape victimd pay the rapist.

[–]MakingItWorthit 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They've done more of what's happening in OPs link because they knew they can get away with it.

[–]Luzianah -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Cajun eh? Where ya from?

[–]cajunrevenge 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Opelousas. Moved to Texas a long time ago though.

[–]beebeekay 40 points41 points42 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Country A: A woman is raped, and then is charged for sex outside marriage.

Country B: A young boy is raped, and now has to pay for child support.

[–]ShadowAssassinQueef 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There must be a happy medium here

[–]luciansolaris 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[Praise KEK!](05255)

[–]Hickster1991 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This was almost 20 years ago. Any updates?

[–]BDMR_lurker 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It makes sense the judge would uphold the child's rights.

What doesn't make sense is to go against the very definition of "age of consent":

After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations.

Oh, sure, change "consent" to "decide", and 15 is the "age of decision".

They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period.

Not unlike married couples trying to conceive, actually.

.

.

Aren't there cases in the US law where the State pays child suport, because it can't be recovered from the father?

Like the father being currently dead and unable to take calls. Or in prison. Or just legally not responsible, like say, a kid would be.

.

Seems to me the judge conflates ruling for the baby with ruling against the boy, because, well, it would cost money, and the State can't afford justice.

.

.

Edit: read a Tribune article, and yes, the decision is wholly about recouping welfare costs, nothing to do with justice.

[–]DaphneDK 35 points36 points37 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

It was deleted from wtf. Now it's in a subreddit called ripwtf

[–]drybonespwns 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Why was it deleted?

[–]DaphneDK 37 points38 points39 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Don't know, perhaps because its a 10 yo story. But nothing seems to have changed in that decade that followed. Here (from a post here) is a more recent case from 2014: Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support. Even more crazy, as he was only 14 and only informed of the child support 6 years after when he was hit with backpayents and 10% interest.

[–]leptophilic 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

1996

20 years.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, not the victim is the same age as the perpetrator, 35.

Think about this.

[–]ma2016 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you mean "now the victim"?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Definitely!

[–]iTalk2Pineapples 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck.

[–]manicmonkeys 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And just to be clear, he was ordered to pay child support not from when he turned 18, but from the time of the child's birth when he was still a minor!

Like holy shit, ignoring the fact that it's ridiculous to award a rapist child support for the product of their crime, he wasn't earning anything because of that whole going to high school thing, so upon what the ever-loving-fuck are they basing the child support calculations?

[–]lemonLimeBitta 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Man that article Is confusing af. It says in there he didn't realise she had the kid until 2 years later, 6 years later and 8 years later

[–]Nes370 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Rule 3. No rage-worthy posts.

Basically because the content is offensive and would promote a lot of dumb arguments as we've seen by a select few here trying to defend the court decision.

[–]ondablock_slangnrock 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Understandable rule. /r/wtf is not /r/rage, although occasionally the content is rage-worthy

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminist mods, same reason shit like this always gets deleted.

Feminists put themselves in positions of power wherever they can, and then suddenly you can't even make a comment on a forum about car repair without some whacko feminist deleting it.

[–]Red_means_go 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What rights do men, or boys in this case, even have then?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The right and privilege to keep the machines running, the floors clean, and their mouths shut.

[–]ondablock_slangnrock 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The right to buy a better lawyer.

[–]a_posh_trophy 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What court was this in? Does the judge have a history of retardation?

[–]neon-neko 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seems like it.

[–]lightsolgr 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

this should be in r/WTF

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminist mods won't let anyone post it there.

[–]infamous-spaceman 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or it would be inconsistent with all the other content that is posted there. It isn't filled with articles about stuff that would make you say "What the fuck", like shootings or strange killings. It is almost exclusively images and videos.

I have a feeling a subreddit about shit and gore doesn't have a feminist agenda.

[–]manicmonkeys 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's where it was cross-posted from, but apparently it was removed from there.

[–]AztRak 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This happened in 1996?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The state requires parents seeking public assistance under the state's welfare programs to first pursue child support. The child-support payments then are used to help reimburse the state for assistance payments.

"They have to comply with us," said Scott Lekan, DES child support operations administrator. "We're trying to keep them off the cash assistance, and we're trying to get back some of the cash assistance money. It benefits everybody at the end of the day.

Sooo ask the baby daddy for money first, then give us some of that money when you get it...

[–]OriginalPostSearcher 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

X-Post referenced from /r/wtf by /u/Banditjack
A 15 year old boy was forced to pay child support payments after being raped by 34 year old teacher.


I am a bot. I delete my negative comments. Contact | Code | FAQ

[–]HoundDogs 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How about taking the child away from the mother and allowing the father the choice to ether raise him or give him up for adoption.

When you rape someone, you shouldn't have normal rights.

[–]Dick-Punch-Man 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

His parents should sue for custody & turn the tables.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

IN 1996! The fact that this case is 20 years old is more than a little relevant.

[–]itstrueimwhite 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, he shouldn't have had a penis.

[–]rockymountainoysters 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I can barely even afford to have a penis anymore without crippling austerity measures in place.

[–]rockymountainoysters 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a purely financial matter, the cost of penis ownership is skyrocketing faster than rent or even health care.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If he's underage why isn't his name deducted from the document?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How can they have it both ways if 15 years can consent and be held legally responsible then why have the statutory law in the first place

[–]lostapwbm 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

California Uber Alles.

"This State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent."

[–]zedarian 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I seriously cant wait until LGBT divorces and child support cases(adopted children when applicable) become common place. Just to show how fucking flawed the system is.

[–]TheWritingParadox 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

34 year-old seduces a 15 year-old? Seduces? SEDUCES! It's called rape motherfuckers!

[–]classic0090 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is the first time I have ever heard of the rapist asking for something from the victim. I wonder if a man raped a woman that gave birth to his child would the courts grant him visitation.

The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones's criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period.

What the hell? If it was a teenage girl that agreed to have sexual relations with a man he would be buried underneath the jail, ostracized by everyone in his life, called a predator, and have to knock on his neighbors doors to "introduce" himself. But because he is male he knew exactly what he was doing, this woman prayed on a hormonal teenager and got pregnant now wants money. Fucking women.

[–]dalef77 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In this case, the rapist was not requesting money from the victim himself. The rapist was requesting money from the state. The state then ordered the victim to pay.

[–]classic0090 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thats worse

[–]dalef77 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. I would not expect a rapist to have moral values or a sense of justice, but I sure would expect it from the government.

[–]dalef77 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"It does not necessarily follow that a minor over the age of 14 who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is a victim of sexual abuse."

Did this court make it easier for adult males to have sex with 15-, 16-, and 17-year-old girls?

If a male is charged with statutory rape of an underage female between and including the ages of 15 and 17, does this precedent allow him to claim that as long as the girl was compliant, that he is not guilty of statutory rape because she was not sexually abused?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you couldnt even find the news article about it. you had to dig it out of a court filing. hahahha. meanwhile we can't stop seeing everyone cry about that stanford guy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is pretty much identical to forcing rape victims to marry their attackers.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jesus Christ this is fucking despicable.

[–]CantHugEveryCat 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He, not his rapist, should get custody of the child. Then the rapist should pay child support to him.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why are we focusing on something that happened 20 years ago? I assume most commenters didn't read that part of the article and are getting up in arms thinking this was recent.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought it was recent at first. But there was another case in 2014, so it shows how long this has been going on without any public outcry whatsoever.

[–]Machnow 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities"

hmmmm.....yes that same theory seems to be what most feminists say about drunken "date rapes" right????

yeah...okey dokey then....

[–]danielmd92 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Im so fucking scared of this happening. I´m honestly scared of women sometimes with this sort of insane things happening. I also dont know the situation of third wave feminism on my country Colombia, South America.

[–]Heromedic18 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't be scared. Just don't have sex with women. Problem solved.

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Unless they rape him.

[–]SirSkeptic 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or simply accuse him.

[–]EduBA 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In my country (Agentina, South America) they are, by law, one third of the Congressmen people. See article on Wikipedia.

[–]neon-neko 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What on earth? This boy does not deserve this in anyway. How could he even afford to pay them? He's 15 for fuck sake.

[–]RBeck 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I'm reading the right, the lady went to jail but the state is suing the boy for the foster care of the child? Very odd.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Roll on RISUG/Vasalgel etc. I'll be strongly advising my boys to get it when they reach the danger years.

[–]oddMahnsta 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Does child support fall under family law? If so i hate family law..

Just watched Divorce Corp on Netflix scared the shit of of me.

[–]blette 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If a 34 year old male teacher had sex with a consenting female student, got her pregnant perhaps she would not be ready to be a mother. Maybe she would be on meth or something. Maybe after he got out of jail, he could sue for custody, right? After getting custody of the child, could the man sue the girl for child support?

[–]nuesuh 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing new under the sun.

[–]redog 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Guilty until proven rich.

[–]AllFourSeasons 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It surprises me that onlookers are so surprised by this sort of ruling from a court. This is courtbabble at it's best. They get caught up in the need of following rules, and they're inundated with all sorts of people claiming you're not being emotionally understanding enough. That's everyone's claim. It can be difficult to step away from hard-and-fast rules that have existed for many years and then make an exception.

It's a shame that courts don't allow for including interpretation of the people themselves in addition to holding to a set of guidelines rather than blind law.

Additionally, in our society, sometimes the only way there can be national understanding of new concepts is when it's played out in a court of law. I think the reasoning behind what statutory rape is and why it exists really needs to be reestablished publicly. I think there are a lot of people these days that struggle between telling themselves their child is totally empowered to make any decision they come across with full understanding, and being completely incapable of making any decision for themselves ever.

That huge misunderstanding on top of courts general dismissal that male rape exists makes this case pretty difficult all around.

[–]MagicPickles 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is absolutely sickening. What the fuck.

[–]Proteus_Marius 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It seems like San Lois Obisbo might have a massive Pb water poisoning problem.

Because the illogical leaps in that document were stunning.

[–]dominotw 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this post is over 2 yrs old. fyi.

[–]kneaders 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a single father. Personally I don't see how this is any different than trying a 15 year old as an adult for murder. If we can convict them as adults why can't we convict them as adults?

[–]zyxwa2000 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

(long time lurker, first time commenter blah blah blah)

I'm sorry, but what kind of ass backwards logic is this? Like... How does this make sense?!?

[–]TheBigShablowski 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What in the actual fuck

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Such anger at this. Flip the genders and it would be jail and money.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What kind of support could he give - even if this wasnt ludicrous? Hes still in high school.

[–]classic0090 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nah he would be in his 30's right now she gave birth to the kid in 1995 the victim was 15 years old at the time.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh. Still wrong though.

[–]classic0090 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very wrong. Bullshit wrong.

[–]harleypig 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The guy would be in his mid to late 30s now, and the child would be 20 or so now.

I wonder how their lives turned out. Is she an sjw? Is he languishing in jail because he couldn't keep up with the payments?

[–]bananapanther 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a 20 year old case in a state where statutory rape wasn't applied to boys until just two years prior.

I'm not saying it's not terrible but here's got to be a statute of limitations on what is worth posting about here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This makes me wanna cry empathizing with that kid

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The whole reason certain laws are in place; ie "age of consent" "statutory rape" "age of majority" etc is because at the age of 15 he is not considered legally old enough to be able to make informed decisions for himself. The courts should know this and stop using what he says against him. Shame on them and shame on his lawyer for not doing a better job and making better arguments. His age should be central to their whole defense.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn this is old. Why didn't someone post this sooner? And do we know what happened afterwards?

[–]Web_Sheriff 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kid had a shit lawyer

[–]LAGreggM 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I was this kid, I'd calculate how much child support he'd have to pay until the baby was 18 and sue the teacher for that amount.

[–]ChaosOpen 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Amazing how a consensual relationship between two adults becomes rape because the woman had a couple drinks and "couldn't make informed decisions" while a 15 year old is presumed to be able to make informed decisions despite only know about sex and its ramifications for 2-3 years, less time than it takes learn to read and do basic arithmetic.

[–]elliotron 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand.

Is he 36 now? Is this current news or did they decide way back in 1996 that a fifteen-year-old boy would be motivated to succeed, at all, knowing that he had a child support bill waiting for him when he finished his education.

[–]bettingdog000 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

so are we ready to protest in mass to end this shit or are we going to get the lube and just take it?

[–]Devastration 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This. This is why I keep coming back to this sub, no matter how much it hurts. I read about these things that happen, and I let it fuel me. Healthy or not, I let this hatred for the things that are allowed to happen keep me going in the hopes that one day I'll find myself in a position where I can fix it.

[–]Daktush 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Muh male privilege

[–]JablesRadio[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I'm still right though.

[–]Chickenthang47 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a disgrace to see things like this still happen, especially to underage boys, and yet women still feel oppressed by society. Will they ever see the irony or will their delusional minds drive men to extinction?

[–]jimrosenz 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is decidedly weird.

[–]jimrosenz 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Teenage fathers who have a baby by a teenage mother all consensually are up for child support. The odd thing is that teenagers are normally assumed to have limited abilities to enter into complicated contracts and liabilities.

[–]jpguitfiddler 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not surprised, it's a billion dollar a year industry. Don't let anyone fool you, child support is about the money, not the family.

[–]HotDealsInTexas -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Remind me again how men aren't second-class citizens?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

With this ruling, It can empower those men that rape to sue against victim abortions. The precedent is really scary.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's about time fathers are forced to own up to their actions

/s

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't think rape is the right title

[–]Lance_lake 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think rape is the right title

When someone has sex with someone who can't consent to it, what should we call it other then rape?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Actually pretty sure the teen consented to it

[–]Lance_lake 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually pretty sure the teen consented to it

Minors can not legally consent. Unless you consider someone fucking a 13 year old as acceptable. Then you are just messed up in the head.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

The 15 year old knew what he was doing ... he just ignored the consequences. Now he's paying the price. Unless you're saying a 15 year old kid is to incompetent to say 'No' or that he was forced to put his pecker in the teacher and thrust his hips.

[–]Lance_lake 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Would you say the same with a 13 year old girl?

[–]JablesRadio[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Flip the roles and see what happens. A 15yo girl and a 34yo male. Forget that he's a teacher. Even with consent, it would have been called rape from the very beginning, statutory or not. When is the last time anyone heard of a woman commiting statutory rape.

[–]basednidoking -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just got out of the twoxchromosomes thread about a girl not wearing a bra to school because of being chastised for it previously and guys needing to stop being as they say "walking boners"

I think woman need to stop raping our boys and pay for their own actions and illegal behavior

[–]imnotgoodwithnames -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This was from 1996. I dont think this would happen now.

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To my knowledge, this has happened every time it has gone to court. This is not an isolated instance, and I know this Subreddit has posted these cases before. How a woman is deemed fit enough to parent after raping the father I'll never understand.

EDIT: Tagging OP /u/JablesRadio

[+]RaelyBae -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I MEAN, it makes sense. It's not like men can be held against their will or anything.

I mean, even though being erect doesn't indicate consent, it's just a physical response to touch, but fuck physiology, right?

[+]BlacksmithSasquatch -14 points-13 points-12 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

During an interview with a police officer, Nathaniel J. described the sexual intercourse as "a mutually agreeable act."

He wasn't raped.

[–]dolandoes 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

children can't consent. he was raped.

[–]JablesRadio[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A 34 yo male has sex with a willing 15 yo girl and it's called rape. What's the difference here?

[–]BlacksmithSasquatch -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No difference. You can't rape the willing.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Depending on the law, it might be statutory rape.

[–]BlacksmithSasquatch -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Lightning bugs are not lightning. Statutory rape is not rape.

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You mixed up the noun with the modifier/adjective The only sensible analogy would be: "Lightning bugs are bugs" but that contradicts what you're trying to say. Better find another.

[–]BlacksmithSasquatch 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a reference to a Twain quote, you illiterate.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok then: TWAIN mixed up the noun with the modifier/adjective. How about using your own words instead - show me how terribly literate you are.

[–]Lose__Not__Loose 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just...wow. I know the English language is hard and all but this is just pathetic.

[–]lasssilver[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You think you're being clever, but ... you are not.

Statutory Rape - It's rape, with the modifier of statutory.

Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual. - Guttmacher Institute (emphasis mine).

So, consent is specifically not suppose to even be considered due to age and lack of rational understanding of consequences of a minor.

The original purpose of statutory rape laws was to protect young, unwed females from males who might impregnate them and not take responsibility by providing support for the child. -"The pros and cons of statutory rape laws". Cable News Network

The only difference here is the genders are switched, and the MALE victim was raped (by legal president) and then punished financially.

Edit: And oh, police officers... yeah, they're not lawyers. As matter of fact they don't often know what is or isn't "legal" in many areas. That's why we have court systems.

[–]Unconfidence 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually agree, but I think what happened legally falls under the classification of rape.

And before anyone says I'm a pedo, it's because I too was having entirely consensual sex with older women at that age. Those women should not be jailed because the guy they met at a bar had a fake ID.

[+]goofball_jones -22 points-21 points-20 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Wow, he was raped? Forced against his will? How did he maintain an erection if it was forced against his will?

Couldn't happen. So no way is that his baby. I mean, he was raped! It's a violent, ugly act and not sexual at all. Did she tie him down and somehow forcibly remove his sperm?

What a horrible, horrible thing for a 15 year old boy to have to go through. I'm sure he's scarred for life now.

EDIT: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. I mean, a 15 year old boy was forcibly raped by a 34 year old woman and I'm agreeing to that. I'm just calling into question his paternity to this child she had...as if he was forced and raped, as everyone is saying, there's no way he could have gotten an erection and performed any type of sex to impregnate her, yes? So naturally it's either not his child, or she obtained his sperm through other forcible means. I mean, he was "raped", yes?

[–]ajrc0re 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

wait are you saying its impossible for men to be raped?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you sarcastic.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter