Legally Obscene: Rape, Statutory Rape, and Child Support

[lord of flies]

Article

Historically, statutory rape laws were designed to protect teenage girls from males who may take their virginity, impregnate them, and refuse to take responsibility and marry them. Thus, they served the purpose of protecting the honor of the girl and of preventing teenage pregnancy. They also helped to ensure the child would have a means of support. It wasn’t until much later that these laws began to be applied to protect boys as well. However, the application remains quite uneven.

 

In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.

 

According to the DOJ, 95% of statutory rape victims reported to law enforcement are female, yet many studies have determined that boys comprise a much higher percentage of the victims. For instance, Dorais estimates that one in six boys will be sexually abused before the age of 16.

 

Social attitudes are primarily responsible for the double standard. According to Miriam Denov, there is a “myth of innocence” surrounding female sexuality that frequently regards sex between a young male and an older female to be a rite of passage and that it is somehow acceptable or less harmful than when the other way around. Further, boys are taught not to view themselves as victims as this is “unmanly.”

 

Law enforcement may not take such complaints seriously. In a previous post (Living in a Culture of Denial), I discussed the problems with the attitude of law enforcement towards male victims. Officers and other professionals may even redefine the act so as to make it acceptable. Even the male victims may view it as a positive experience and not a crime, leading to gross underreporting. In what may be the most bizarre denial of the existence of male victims, courts have held that male victims of rape can be held responsible for child support.

 

In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth. The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to provide consent to the sex act, he was an admitted willing participant and therefore liable to pay support stating that he was not an “innocent victim” because he had discussed it with his rapist prior to having sex.

 

That this act was illegal and may have constituted coercion was apparently lost on the court. If the boy is considered legally incapable of providing consent, how can he be considered legally liable for giving that consent? Any consent or cooperation on his part should have been considered coercion and therefore not consent at all.

 

California is not the only state where this is the case. Kansas, Texas, Ohio, and other states also force rape victims to pay child support to their rapists. In Kentucky, a prosecutor stated that he would help a woman collect child support from a man who was 14 at the time she raped him while neglecting to charge the woman with statutory rape. The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman. Contrast this with the allowances made for abortion for women who are raped (including statutory rape) even from many who are opposed to abortion in other circumstances.

 

Mothers are also permitted to give up their children for adoption, no questions asked, should they not want their children. In no case is a woman forced to raise or pay for a child conceived during a rape.

 

But this is not the case with fathers. Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged. [my note: this is S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M.]

 

The National Legal Research Group refers to this as “a strict liability theory of sperm,” i.e. a man is liable for his sperm no matter what the circumstance. One court has attempted to justify its actions on the basis of biology rather than admit discrimination:

 

“[w]hile it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception. The choice available to a woman vests in her by the fact that she, and not the man, must carry the child and must undergo whatever traumas, physical and mental, may be attendant to either childbirth or abortion. Any differing treatment accorded men and women . . . is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature.”

 

While there may be natural differences between men and women, in this day and age, it is simply wrong to place all the rights in the hands of women and all the responsibility on the shoulders of men. Rights carry responsibilities. If a woman desires the right to choose, then the woman must be required to bear the responsibility for her decision. If, as the above court stated, the “facts were known to the father at the time of conception” then certainly they were also known to the mother. To hold her to a different standard simply because of biology is morally wrong. She should have the right to choose, but her decision should not be forced upon the father. She may have to bear the burden of either childbirth or abortion, but she also has a wide variety of options for birth control that the man simply doesn’t have. Further, in this day and age, she also has career opportunities that will permit her to support a child on her own.

 

This is especially true in circumstances where the father was a victim of rape or statutory rape. Ordering a victim of rape (even statutory rape) to pay child support to his rapist is tantamount to allowing the rapist to rape him over and over again. Not only is it a constant reminder, it is like he is being punished for being a victim of a crime. It is unthinkable that our court system not only condones, but has legalized this draconian practice. It is not only an injustice, it is an obscenity that is being perpetrated on male victims. It needs to end.

 

_{[1] Child Abuse Effects, Male victims of child abuse. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/male-victims-of-sexual-abuse.html}

 

[2] Divorce Source. Its ten o’clock: Do you know where your sperm are? Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml

 

[3] Dorais, M. (2002). Don’t tell: The sexual abuse of boys. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

 

[4] Troup-Leasure, Karyl and Snyder, Howard N. Statutory rape known to law enforcement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, August 2005. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208803.pdf

 

[5] Wikipedia. Statutory Rape. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=child+support+rape+victim&d=4680324777181235&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=cb25fe37,dc60d545

 

If you had sat me down in a room and told me to come up with the most awful legal ideas, I would never, in a million years, have come up with this ****. You almost have to laugh at how absurdly, unbelievably evil this is, and "evil" isn't a term I use lightly. **** this planet, I want off. Edited January 25, 2013 by lord of flies

[AGX-17]

It's not "unbelievably evil." The holocaust was unbelievably evil. Honor killings are unbelievably evil. It's stupid, if remotely objective and accurate. Something which I have serious doubts about.

 

I'm not even clicking on that link because once I hovered over it and saw the URL, I could smell the rank malodor of "White men are the most oppressed minority in the history of the world, especially in America! Ron Paul 2008/2012/2016! Do you even know who John Galt is?" all over it.

Edited January 25, 2013 by AGX-17

[obyknven]

It's not "unbelievably evil." The holocaust was unbelievably evil. Honor killings are unbelievably evil. It's stupid, if remotely objective and accurate. Something which I have serious doubts about.

What wrong with honor killings? It's just form of justice in societies without repressive apparatus (police/jails etc).  Anyway its better, when victim side make revenge,  than delegate this right to government.

[Volourn]

So... AGX-17 agrees that the law is int he right ehre? LMAO

 

That's digusting in every way possible. And, yes, it very much is evil. The holocaust was unbelieavly evil it was believeable evil.

[alanschu]

 

So... AGX-17 agrees that the law is int he right ehre? LMAO

 

He called it stupid, so I don't think he feels the Law is right here.

[lord of flies]

 

I'm not even clicking on that link because once I hovered over it and saw the URL, I could smell the rank malodor of "White men are the most oppressed minority in the history of the world, especially in America! Ron Paul 2008/2012/2016! Do you even know who John Galt is?" all over it.

It must be cool to base all your opinions about reality on the most blatant of suppositions and boring of strawmen. It probably takes a lot less time and effort than basing them on reason or evidence. Edited January 25, 2013 by lord of flies

[alanschu]

Hmmm, I'm going to have to agree, obyknven still needs some more practice!
 

[Blarghagh]

 

It's not "unbelievably evil." The holocaust was unbelievably evil. Honor killings are unbelievably evil. It's stupid, if remotely objective and accurate. Something which I have serious doubts about.

What wrong with honor killings? It's just form of justice in societies without repressive apparatus (police/jails etc).  Anyway its better, when victim side make revenge,  than delegate this right to government.

 

What.

[Raithe]

I think he's gotten "honor killings" the wrong way around.

 

The whole honor killings is where the family of the raped girl kill said raped girl, because the fact that some **** raped her stains the family honor and it's all her fault. So by killing her, it wipes the stain away.

 

I don't think he means that's justice...

[Malcador]

Yeah, he's taking it as the family goes out and kills the rapist.  Which, if one's police force is corrupt and uncaring, is a good way of doing things I suppose.

[Blarghagh]

Ah, see, I was already starting to doubt what I thought honor killings were. A few years back there was a string of murders referred to as honor killings in the netherlands where young muslim men would kill their sisters or cousins for dating non muslims. No justice in that.

[HoonDing]

What a disturbing world.

[Malcador]

What a disturbing world.

 

You get used to it.

[obyknven]

I think he's gotten "honor killings" the wrong way around.

 

The whole honor killings is where the family of the raped girl kill said raped girl, because the fact that some **** raped her stains the family honor and it's all her fault. So by killing her, it wipes the stain away.

 

I don't think he means that's justice...

 

 

Ah, see, I was already starting to doubt what I thought honor killings were. A few years back there was a string of murders referred to as honor killings in the netherlands where young muslim men would kill their sisters or cousins for dating non muslims. No justice in that.

It's not honor killing.  What can known about honor these cowardly loosers, who kill only because they try hide something incriminating thing? Real honor killings not different from Vendetta or Blood Feud.  In other words, its when  family opens a quest for "blood revenge" to kill the person they consider guilty of murdering or raping their relative. It's practice prevent crime in tribal communities.

[Blarghagh]

Nevertheless the term honor killing is now most often used for and associated with cowardly acts.

[Raithe]

The art of Vendetta and Blood Feud don't get quite the same spin as Honor Killings these days.  The term honor killings tends to be focused more in the behaviour used in "cleansing the family/blood line" rather then going after an external source.

[Zoraptor]

That's a (western) cultural distinction though where a single subset of 'honour killing' is taken to be the whole, it's not really how the concept is seen in places where it is actually practised. Oby's usage of it is technically more correct as it includes the whole concept (though when I saw the comment my immediate thought was WTF? as well, and that despite knowing the concept was more broad).

[Volourn]

"In other words, its when  family opens a quest for "blood revenge" to
kill the person they consider guilty of murdering or raping their
relative. It's practice prevent crime in tribal communities."

 

That's not what honour killing is.

[obyknven]

"In other words, its when  family opens a quest for "blood revenge" to

kill the person they consider guilty of murdering or raping their

relative. It's practice prevent crime in tribal communities."

 

That's not what honour killing is.

Now i find what you talking about. In near past "Human Right Watch" usurp this  term for homicides performed by Muslims. They describe this as Islamic cultural tradition. Obviously it is rude propaganda.

1. Murders are not aristocrats, or  warriors, or tribal members. They are lumpen, they can't worried about honor.

2, Must be Islamic Code of Honor, described these homicides as legitimate punishment. This code must be widespread, because these  murders have origins around the world. I never hear about something similar from Muslims.

3. Murders are not educated, and almost known nothing about own culture.  It's cannot be Islamic cultural tradition. 

4. Muslims consider these murders  as criminals. 

Actually i very surprising by this situation. Your media  especially spreading Islamophobic  propaganda and discredit honor killings as form of people self-defiance. 

Russians have different point of view on this. When in near time, family of Christians kill own adult daughter ( some sort of exorcism), nobody don't naming this as honor killing. These crimes we consider as maniacal killings or domestic murder. Honor killing it's when Vitaly Kaloyev kill Peter Nielsen, at least for us.

Kaloyev said. "I protected the honor of my children and the memory of my children."

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/carroll/article/A-revenge-killing-in-Switzerland-3694365.php

[AGX-17]

 

I think he's gotten "honor killings" the wrong way around.

 

The whole honor killings is where the family of the raped girl kill said raped girl, because the fact that some **** raped her stains the family honor and it's all her fault. So by killing her, it wipes the stain away.

 

I don't think he means that's justice...

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, see, I was already starting to doubt what I thought honor killings were. A few years back there was a string of murders referred to as honor killings in the netherlands where young muslim men would kill their sisters or cousins for dating non muslims. No justice in that.

It's not honor killing.  What can known about honor these cowardly loosers, who kill only because they try hide something incriminating thing? Real honor killings not different from Vendetta or Blood Feud.  In other words, its when  family opens a quest for "blood revenge" to kill the person they consider guilty of murdering or raping their relative. It's practice prevent crime in tribal communities.

 

 

When a Pakistani girl is raped, and her family murders her to preserve "family honor," that's what I'm referring to by "honor killings." That's what those people who do it call it. That's what the term means in the English-speaking world. Middle Eastern immigrants do these things even in Western countries where they should know it's obviously illegal and carries severe punishments. One woman in England recently bludgeoned her young son to death because he couldn't memorize the Koran. 

 

I'm not talking about blood feuds or tribal wars. Not that those are a good thing, either. Violence begets violence. That sort of paleolithic tribal mentality is why countries like Pakistan, Somalia and the Sudans are so chaotic and violent. When one man feels wronged, and he kills the man he believes wronged him, the family of the murdered man wants revenge so they kill the man who killed their own man, and the original killer's family demands vengeance on the family of the man he killed, and so on. They have tribal cattle-rustling wars that have been going on for decades in the Sudan region. How can any of these tribals be sure of who's guilty of what offense? 

 

I don't know how lawless, governmentally ineffectual and violent Russia is, so I can't comment on your claim that "true honor killings" are better than letting police and courts try and convict the guilty party.

 

So... AGX-17 agrees that the law is int he right ehre? LMAO

 

That's digusting in every way possible. And, yes, it very much is evil. The holocaust was unbelieavly evil it was believeable evil.

 

Yes, when I call things "stupid" that means I agree with them and support them. See, when I call you stupid, I'm complimenting you!

 

Volourn, you are stupid. Compliment!

 

More to the point, you avoided the real substance of my post, that this article is coming from a biased, misogynist source that believes that there's some feminist conspiracy ruling the world and oppressing the most oppressed of minorities, white American men. This cliche of feminazi fascists ruling the world that you believe in (you attributed support of this supposed legal decision to me, why shouldn't I attribute misogyny to you?) is the same thing that started that Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fiasco. In which your misogynist conspiracy theorist ilk showed their idiocy for the whole world to see.

Edited January 26, 2013 by AGX-17

[Calax]

To be fair, there is, sexually, a bias against the guys. I'm not going to say that men are some horribly oppressed minority or something stupid like that, however in terms of birth control failures and accidental pregnancies and divorces, there isn't that much help for the guys. If the woman wants an abortion, it's her body and she can do with it what she wants. If the guy doesn't want to pay for the kid, or whatever, well, you stuck your **** in it, you're paying for the consequences! And in courts are highly bias towards the women in terms of custody. Dad could be an upstanding citizen with a fantastic job and a good house and stable relationships, while mom is drinking booze every other night and can barely maintain a 3 bedroom apartment, but mom will get the kids because hey, she's the mom.

[Raithe]

Now i find what you talking about. In near past "Human Right Watch" usurp this  term for homicides performed by Muslims. They describe this as Islamic cultural tradition. Obviously it is rude propaganda.

1. Murders are not aristocrats, or  warriors, or tribal members. They are lumpen, they can't worried about honor.

2, Must be Islamic Code of Honor, described these homicides as legitimate punishment. This code must be widespread, because these  murders have origins around the world. I never hear about something similar from Muslims.

3. Murders are not educated, and almost known nothing about own culture.  It's cannot be Islamic cultural tradition. 

4. Muslims consider these murders  as criminals. 

Actually i very surprising by this situation. Your media  especially spreading Islamophobic  propaganda and discredit honor killings as form of people self-defiance. 

Russians have different point of view on this. When in near time, family of Christians kill own adult daughter ( some sort of exorcism), nobody don't naming this as honor killing. These crimes we consider as maniacal killings or domestic murder. Honor killing it's when Vitaly Kaloyev kill Peter Nielsen, at least for us.

 

I have to say, the occasions I've heard about honor killings haven't actually involved Muslims as such. The one's I remember hearing about tended to be more more from India and in a lot of ways part of the caste system as well.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Raithe

[Volourn]

"Volourn, you are stupid. Compliment!

 

More to the point, you avoided the real substance of my post, that
this article is coming from a biased, misogynist source that believes
that there's some feminist conspiracy ruling the world and oppressing
the most oppressed of minorities, white American men. This cliche of
feminazi fascists ruling the world that you believe in (you attributed
support of this supposed legal decision to me, why shouldn't I attribute
misogyny to you?) is the same thing that started that Tropes vs. Women
in Video Games fiasco. In which your misogynist conspiracy theorist ilk
showed their idiocy for the whole world to see."

 

R00fles!

[alanschu]

To be fair, there is, sexually, a bias against the guys. I'm not going to say that men are some horribly oppressed minority or something stupid like that, however in terms of birth control failures and accidental pregnancies and divorces, there isn't that much help for the guys. If the woman wants an abortion, it's her body and she can do with it what she wants. If the guy doesn't want to pay for the kid, or whatever, well, you stuck your **** in it, you're paying for the consequences! And in courts are highly bias towards the women in terms of custody. Dad could be an upstanding citizen with a fantastic job and a good house and stable relationships, while mom is drinking booze every other night and can barely maintain a 3 bedroom apartment, but mom will get the kids because hey, she's the mom.

 

I hear people talk about this bias a lot, and yes in some situations there is a bias towards women.  In general though, as a 30 year old white male, it doesn't take much for me to recognize how many extra privileges I get simply because of being born a white male.

 

Mom typically gets the kids because, historically, mothers were ascribed the role of child rearer and not qualified or capable enough as a man to earn money via employment.  So while you go "The man is screwed here," ironically it's because of systemic discrimination against women and what their capabilities were.  In the end, because they were expected to be the ones raising the children, society evolved to feel that they must be the best at doing so.

 

 

Although the situation you describe in your last sentence is patently untrue in my neck of the woods.  Alberta tends to be pretty conservative too, but I know plenty of single fathers because they are the responsible one.

[lord of flies]

The idea that men never face discrimination for being men is one of the most absurd concepts the feminist movement ever tossed out. Sexism is not, and has not ever been, a one way street, unlike most other forms of discrimination. Whites do not serve more time for the same crime than blacks. Cisgendered heterosexuals are not more likely to be homeless than LGBT people. The rich are not less likely to make it to college than the poor. The disabled are not more likely to get custody of their kids than able-bodied people. Et cetera.

 

Mom typically gets the kids because, historically, mothers were ascribed the role of child rearer and not qualified or capable enough as a man to earn money via employment. So while you go "The man is screwed here," ironically it's because of systemic discrimination against women and what their capabilities were. In the end, because they were expected to be the ones raising the children, society evolved to feel that they must be the best at doing so.

 

This isn't really historically accurate, but more to the point, it's pointless to mention. Who cares whether this or that thing is actually because of dangerous gender ideas which hurt men or which hurt women?

 

To give an example, the idea that women who "tease" men have brought their rapes on themselves (in the same way that, say, someone who smokes has brought their lung cancer on themselves) is, at its core, ludicrously misandrist. It is based on the idea that male sexuality is just one step shy of rape at any given time and that men lack any real capacity for self-control in regards to their behavior. I use the term "misandry," very particularly here: the hatred and fear of men. To say that women who "tease" men bring their rapes on themselves is to say that men are all, at their core, rapists. That is nothing less than hatred and fear.

 

Yet, obviously, it is women who suffer here. Bringing up how this particular rape myth is ACTUALLY misandrist is ridiculous, just as your point is. Pretty much every ****ty gender idea is based on ****ty ideas about both men and women. Who actually gets hurt by discrimination in family court? Fathers.

Edited January 26, 2013 by lord of flies