Legally Obscene: Rape, Statutory Rape, and Child Support

[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.

 

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.

 

Well my point was that while a woman gets to choose if she wants to keep the kid or not after the accident happened, the guy's just screwed. If he wants to keep the kid while the woman wants the abortion? He doesn't get to have any recourse for his situation. And the opposite obviously happens given how much we hear about it.  It also doesn't help that the second that the accident happens, if the girl decides "I'm gonna keep it" the entirety of society turns and glares at the guy as if he's the only person who ever did anything wrong in the situation.

 

As to the SLO v Nathan J. case.

 

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/50/842.html

 

with probably the most relevant parts being:

 

 

Upon complaint, San Luis Obispo police officers investigated Jones's unlawful sexual intercourse with Nathaniel J. (Pen.Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) fn. 1 During an interview with a police officer, Nathaniel J. described the sexual intercourse as "a mutually agreeable act." The San Luis Obispo County prosecutor prosecuted Jones and obtained a conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

 

 

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].)

[lord of flies]

That logic is so ****ing absurd and disgusting. If when he had been raped (bolded for reminding everyone that having sex with a 15 year old when you are 34 is rape) he had signed a contract which amounted to "you do some things for me, I'll pay you $10k when I'm 18," it would be voidable and basically unenforceable. But because he was raped, and some piece of **** family law judges decided he "voluntarily" engaged in sexual intercourse, his "consent" counts? But, oh, perhaps if he'd been 13 at the time it wouldn't.

 

Also it's nice that even judges use the phrase "seduce" to describe child rape.

Edited January 26, 2013 by lord of flies

[Calax]

 

"[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.)

 

And I'm sure at 15 you'd TOOOOOOTALLY ignore the advances of a hot person who's older than you.

 

Tooooootally.

[lord of flies]

 

 

"[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.)

And I'm sure at 15 you'd TOOOOOOTALLY ignore the advances of a hot person who's older than you.

 

Tooooootally.

I would, in fact, not ignore the advances of such a person when I was fifteen. They would almost certainly make me uncomfortable, just as most any sexual advance made by an individual in a position of temporal authority over me would make me at any point in my life.

 

More importantly than my personal reaction, however, is the question of whether or not these acts qualify as rape. Whether or not the perpetrator was hot is besides the point. A rapist is a rapist, regardless of how sexually attractive they are.

 

Suppose that the genders of the victim and the perpetrator in this case were switched. A fifteen year old girl "willingly participates" in sex with an attractive, 34-year-old man. Would you offer even the slightest defense of the man? I propose you would not. And don't give me some nonsense about it being different for boys and girls: plenty of girls below the age of consent have daydreamed or fantasized about having sex with men much older than them. But fantasy and reality are very different things. One of the most popular sexual fantasies out there is the fantasy of being raped. That does not mean that the people who fantasize about it would actually enjoy being raped, or that they would somehow have magical resistance to the psychological damage it causes.

 

Child sexual abuse is a very serious issue. Female-perpetrated CSA especially, given that what limited evidence I have seen points towards it doing more damage that male-perpetrated CSA (e.g. "all seven victims who reported sexual abuse by men and women declared that the sexual abuse by women was more harmful and more damaging than the sexual abuse by men." and "Risk factors during childhood for later offending [by male victims of sexual abuse] included [...] sexual abuse by a female person ([odds ratio] 3.0, [95% confidence interval] 1.1–8.7)."). Please do not trivialize it or make light of it merely because the victim "consented" or the perpetrator was "hot."

Edited January 26, 2013 by lord of flies

[alanschu]

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?

 

It's only pointless to mention if it isn't reality.  Unfortunately, it is.

 

Someone was suggesting that men get the bum rap and gave an example.  I explained why.

 

 

The only pointless thing mentioned so far has been

 

 

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.

 

Since it's demonstrates a fantastic ability to state the obvious, in light of no one claiming otherwise.

Edited January 26, 2013 by alanschu

[lord of flies]

It's only pointless to mention if it isn't reality. Unfortunately, it is.

 

Someone was suggesting that men get the bum rap and gave an example. I explained why.

And I explained my point of view, which is that such cultural backdrop is irrelevant to actual suffering. Perhaps an alternative explanation would assist:

 

After a long, grueling custody battle in court, two parents, one a cis male and the other a strong, empowered woman who don’t need no man and divorced his ass for partaking in the rape-culture fueled media of internet pornography, waited to hear who would be awarded custody.

 

The judge, a crusty old adherent to patriarchal societal norms, awards the children to the woman.

 

“WHAT! MISOGYNY! HOW DARE!” expresses the woman in an empowered tone, ignoring the cis male rules for order in the court.

 

“That you expect me to take the children (the children I have been fighting a court battle in order to keep) probably because I am a woman, is sexist and misogynistic. Raising a child is not woman’s work!”

 

Her ex-husband, smiling a rape-supporter’s smile, says “I am so glad that you have been awarded the children by sexism (against women, men can not be the target of sexism, even in incidents like this where they usually lose the court battle). I just fought a court battle to be handed the children, but this is much better!”

The only pointless thing mentioned so far has been

 

 

 

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.

Since it's demonstrates a fantastic ability to state the obvious, in light of no one claiming otherwise.

Perhaps you should read whatshisfaces posts where he claims that the website linked in the OP is a horrible misogynist hellhole for discussing the ways in which men are unfairly discriminated against in modern society? Edited January 26, 2013 by lord of flies

[Azure79]

I had to look up cisgender. I didn't realize that was a thing. I learn new things on this board everyday. 

 

Seems like a very difficult issue regarding the link Calax posted. Overall I have to agree with what the courts decided. Yes, the woman did seduce a minor, but she was convicted for it. Though I feel bad for the boy, I don't think the court is being too unreasonable. They are not forcing the boy to get a job and start paying immediately. That will begin after he has matured and finished schooling. 

 

The fact is the baby is here. It needs support. The boy should shoulder part of this responsibility if/when he is able to. 

 

I guess what makes this so complicated is the number of accusations that can be thrown in either direction. What if the boy indeed did suffer some type of emotional or social trauma because of this? Where can he find restitution? From the mother? Does he still have to pay child support if so? and so on. 

[Volourn]

So.. a raped victim should eb child support? That's laughable! Azure is hilarious. (though I think rape is a word causually used in  adult-non adult relationships).

 

This is a case of sexism against males. Not reverse s exism. just plain sexism. This wouldn't happen most likely against women except in backward places where rape victims are forced to marry their rapists (which is disgusting as well).

 

This young man/boy should not be forced to pay for the child. The woman, by the alw,w as convicted of statuary sex crime. She should pay for the child 100% on her own. in fact, imo, she should lose the child since she likely isn't responible enoguh to be a parent.

 

If I were the boy, i'd sue her for crimes for a lot of money. heck, I'd sue her for child custody if I'm beingf roced to pay for it.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Volourn

[Azure79]

My friends do call me hilarious. 

 

Like I said, its a difficult situation and I do blame the older woman completely for causing the whole mess. However, the child is now born. Wouldn't it be better if the baby had some relationship with the father and the father have some role in the upbringing of the child when he matures and becomes financially stable?

 

I agree the woman should not keep the child. She obviously is not in a correct state of mind if she went around seducing kids. 

[Volourn]

It's about forcing 'rape' victims into doing anything against their will.

[Meshugger]

I was about to type something, but then the universes turned themselves inside out as Volourn made a sensible post that i happen to agree with.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

I had to look up cisgender. I didn't realize that was a thing.

 

 

It's more, outside of gender studies, of an Internet-thing than a real-life-thing, so I'm not surprised you hadn't heard of the term. It's used, by some people, instead of 'gender normative' because, in their minds, if transgender is a thing there has to be a correlating term for people who aren't trans (as saying 'gender normative' would, heaven forbid, imply that there's something queer, pardon the pun, about people who aren't that way). Currently it's mostly used by Internet 'social justice bloggers' on Tumblr, and other such sites but mostly Tumblr, when pointing things they don't like - mostly used in 'Cisgender Privilege; posts of questionable validity (or for making 'helpful' comments like 'die cis scum' - because that's useful). But enough on that, let's get back to the topic at hand...

 

It's bull**** that he's expected to pay child support. That sums things up rather nicely. 

[Deadly_Nightshade]

And I'm sure at 15 you'd TOOOOOOTALLY ignore the advances of a hot person who's older than you.

 

 

Tooooootally.

 

Actually, yes I would have ignored said advances - at best they'd be annoying and unwelcome and at worse they'd be disturbing and unwelcome. Not everyone likes random people hitting on them, attractive or not - and at that age someone being older would have made it even worse. Wow, I guess I just agreed with Lord of Flies... That's a first. 

[Bos_hybrid]

 

"[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.)

 

And I'm sure at 15 you'd TOOOOOOTALLY ignore the advances of a hot person who's older than you.

 

Tooooootally.

 

I would of failed the check.

 

However that doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of the law, a crime was committed. And the victim is still being victimized. If the mother can't afford to raise the child, give it to a family that can raise it. Honestly a women that is sexually interested in young boys, shouldn't be raising the child anyway.

 

Can you imagine how society would look on a male pedophile raising the child of the victim?

[Volourn]

Contarary to the new definers, sleeping with teens isn't pedophile.Nor is it rape. Morally sucpsect, yes, illegal yes, but pedphile? No.

[lord of flies]

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.

By the way, just so we're clear, when I said this was "historically inaccurate," I was referring to how this had no basis whatsoever in reality. The modern defaulting of custody to the mother is a consequence of the "Tender Years Doctrine," a doctrine introduced in the 19th century which became legal standard until its de jure (but not de facto) removal fairly recently. It was introduced by...

 

A feminist.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

This is ridiculous. Teen bangs a MILF and then yells rape. That deserves envy, not sympathy.

 

Now identity rape is a much more sinister conundrum than this crap that should upset you a teensy bit more. Unless you are one of those "white upper-class males are the most oppressed people in the world!" Paultards.

Edited March 31, 2013 by KaineParker

[Walsingham]

I would gently suggest to newbs that they re-read this thread keeping in mind that LoF and obyknven are the same poster.

[lord of flies]

 

I would gently suggest to newbs that they re-read this thread keeping in mind that LoF and obyknven are the same poster.

So, okay, it's been a while, I want to make sure I've got everything straight. I'm Kreyzak, obyknven, and Cyclone Man, right?

[Walsingham]

 

 

I would gently suggest to newbs that they re-read this thread keeping in mind that LoF and obyknven are the same poster.

So, okay, it's been a while, I want to make sure I've got everything straight. I'm Kreyzak, obyknven, and Cyclone Man, right?

 

 

No, not Krez. Krez is a real person.

 

EDIT: you WISH you were Krezack.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Walsingham

[Blodhemn]

Haven't read this until now as I'm just staying away from corrupt law/government as much as possible these days, but is this surprising to anyone? The USA is run by lawyers and is a place where common sense has all but vanished in this devolved society with the manipulation of words being held in the highest regard. It'll only continue to get worse until one day people wake up and wonder how we got to the point that we are and then it's too late to change anything. Our time as the hypocritical world leader will be over soon, so I take pleasure in that, however it'll only be replaced by an even more hypocritical one.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

I would gently suggest to newbs that they re-read this thread keeping in mind that LoF and obyknven are the same poster.

So, okay, it's been a while, I want to make sure I've got everything straight. I'm Kreyzak, obyknven, and Cyclone Man, right?

 

 

 

 

No, not Krez. Krez is a real person.

 

EDIT: you WISH you were Krezack.

 

 

I thought he was Felithvian as well.