Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CraniumInsanium
    Offline

    CraniumInsanium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    6

    Glad there's equality for all rape victims

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by CraniumInsanium, Sep 11, 2014.

  2. jazzabel
    Offline

    jazzabel Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,273
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    My heart goes out to this young man, this is monstrous. Sadly, this is exactly the type of abuse a lot of rape victims get, most of them are female, but about 9% are men too.

    The female victims might not get slapped with child support lawsuits, but they ae targeted by misogynist politicising of abortion, and many are forced to have their rapists baby (esp. those from countries where abortion is illegal, like in Ireland). Another gem is being sued for slander after their rapists 'explain' to court that the 'sex' was 'consensual'. Rape victims are regularly called liars (or 'mistaken') when they first report the rape and to some people, any female rape victim is a slut and their sanity is brought into question on account of 'she must have ptsd if she was raped, and those people shoot people (thinking of war veterans). Some rape victims lose their jobs because they are deemed 'unstable' simply because of the fact they spoke about their rape, not to mention humiliation at the hands of courts and police for that tiny minority that manages to struggle through the system and actually press charges (less than 10% of rapes are reported for this reason). The list goes on, abuse of rape victims is the norm, while the system is geared for rapists to go free.

    This is why they say that every rape victim is raped twice - first time by the rapist and second time by the society.
     
  3. CraniumInsanium
    Offline

    CraniumInsanium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    6
    I agree with you last statement. He got it once as a minor, and again 6 years later. I wonder how this would have spun out if she had come and told him either immediately after she found she was pregnant, or waited until he was 18 to tell her. But 6 years later.....I hope the court, or child support, or whoever asks why NOW, and not then. And if this would be classified as something criminal, charge her, take away the daughter, and so on. A lot of different moving parts to this scenario, but this guy is just getting the shaft, and remarkably sounding like he's doing his best to be a responsible adult.
     
    yagr likes this.
  4. yagr
    Offline

    yagr Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    166
    Location:
    West Coast
    A case in Tennessee years ago had a woman looking for a sperm donor in a bar frequented by medical students. She began a relationship and when she became pregnant, moved away with no forwarding address. Nineteen years later, she sued the now doctor, for eighteen years back child support. When asked by the courts why she waited so long she responded, "I wanted a child, not a relationship. If I had told him, he would have wanted to be involved and no one was going to tell me what to do with my child." She got her eighteen years back child support for the eighteen year old child he never knew he had. At a surgeon's salary.
     
  5. CraniumInsanium
    Offline

    CraniumInsanium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    6
    yagr, I'm not sure if you're taking one side or the other. In the case you just referred to, that's the same kind of craziness I'm talking about. There outta be some sort of check that prevents this kind of crap from happening. For the reason she stated, she outta have been denied. I mean she made it 18 years it sounds like, and unless I'm mistaken after the 18th year, you're not financially obligated. Meaning in a roundabout way, she waited 18 years too long. The father in your case could have dropped his rights, seeing as how he wasn't aware of the child, and thus never had any right, nor obligation to be a part of the childs life unless he so desired. wow, totally shaking my head here.
     
    yagr likes this.
  6. KaTrian
    Offline

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,566
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Location:
    The Great Swamp
    This is bullshit. Gotta wonder what's going on in that woman's head. Why do such a shitty thing? Although, it seems the guy wants to be part of the kid's life, which is great, but that's going to be a nice story to tell her one day, how mommy and daddy met. :dry:
     
    Adenosine Triphosphate and yagr like this.
  7. yagr
    Offline

    yagr Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    166
    Location:
    West Coast
    I am solidly in your corner. Such behavior on the part of the courts is reprehensible at best and criminal at worst.
     
  8. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,604
    Likes Received:
    5,877
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Before everyone jumps to conclusions here, the kid ignored all notices to go to court. In civil cases if the plaintiff shows up and the defendant after documented notices does not, the case is decided in the plaintiff's favor.

    In addition, in lots of states if the custodial parent gets any welfare payments the prosecutor is obligated to file against the absent parent. Sometimes they even go after non-payers without the custodial parent requesting it or getting welfare.

    He needs a lawyer. He shouldn't have ignored the legal documents.

    The article cites other cases which sound unfair as well, but we don't know the circumstances of those cases.

    Then there is this:
    I don't think every case of statutory rape is the same, but the law has these fixed ages that are deemed the age of consent. If a 14 yr old boy is sexually active and has sex with a 20 yr old woman, I'm not empathetic. If, on the other hand, the younger person, be it male or female, was seduced by an older person and the younger person wasn't previously sexually active, then I think that is definitely a crime.

    The problem for me is, half the kids I knew were sexually active by age 15, some were active much earlier. The laws rarely fit that reality.

    Should a teenage boy who father'd a child pay child support? I think so. Should they owe that support if they were raped and the circumstances were clearly statutory rape, then no they should not. But I'm not empathetic to every case that meets the legal definition of statutory rape, because sometimes sexually active teenage boys are not really seduced by an older woman in a real sense.
     
  9. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,339
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    So if a 14 year old girl has sex with a 20 year old male, you might not consider it statutory rape?
     
  10. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    Ginger, I have to fervently disagree with you.

    Age of consent is age of consent. He wasn't old enough, therefore there is no consent. I don't care if he was sexually active. I don't care if he was reluctant or willing. He was not old enough to consent.

    If we were having the same discussion about a fourteen year old girl who had sex with a twenty year old man, would you be just fine with the same arguments? Would you be "not empathetic"?

    I realize that this leaves a cloud over the issue of child support when two kids, BOTH below the age of consent, produce a child. But that cloud doesn't change my position in this case. He was too young to consent. She was old enough to consent. No child support.

    And it's not even as if the child is going to starve without child support--what we're discussing here is the state's demand to be paid back. As far as I'm concerned, the state can balance its books without confiscating money from a rape victim.
     
    jazzabel, yagr and 123456789 like this.
  11. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,604
    Likes Received:
    5,877
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    The law considers it statutory rape. So in that respect it is.

    But when I was that age, my peers were having sex with my peers on a regular basis. If a 14 yr old girl who had already had, say at least 5 partners, is it still statutory rape if she then has sex with an older partner?

    I know it's hard for some people to understand the issue of teenagers having sex on a regular basis, but it was the norm when I was that age. One of my good friends had a baby when she was 13. I began having sex at 15. I babysat for a woman who was married and had a child when she was 14, her husband was 21 at that time. She was in her 20s and seemed happily married with 3 kids when I was their babysitter. The law doesn't always match reality.

    Here's an eye opener for those who have lived a more sheltered (not a bad thing) life.
    Frontline: The Lost Children of Rockdale County
    [​IMG]

    That's the sexual connections of the kids who contracted syphilis from each other in Conyers Georgia in the 1996 outbreak. All the lines are people who had intercourse with each of the people the lines connect to.

    When is sex with sexually experienced partners the law defines as below the age of consent not statutory rape?

    I realize as I said that the legal definition is what it is. Those adults are no doubt taking stupid chances.
     
  12. Selbbin
    Online

    Selbbin I hate you Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,238
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Location:
    Australia
    Looks like that's a problem with the law. You'd think there would be automatic exemptions for statutory rape victims and automatic charges filed on behalf of a minor. If they can't legally consent to sex, how can they legally consent to or against legal proceedings?
     
  13. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,604
    Likes Received:
    5,877
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    You can disagree, of course, I have no doubt I hold an unpopular POV. But at the same time, if the court and the law say he's liable, then I'm not the only person you would be disagreeing with.

    I remind people there are two issues here. The young man neglected to respond to the legal summons. So we don't know if the court would find him liable for the support payments until he gets a lawyer and fights the ruling.

    But if the court still finds him liable it might be because AZ State law has a clause that says the statutory rape had to result in a conviction, and we don't have those details in this news story.
     
  14. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,604
    Likes Received:
    5,877
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    From what I gather in this case, and we don't have nearly enough details, no one pressed charges when the birth occurred. When it's the female who is underage and a pregnancy results, or when it is a teacher/student relationship or there is some other reason a third party steps in, then the sex is often discovered at the time it happens.

    But here we have a woman who began receiving welfare payments when the child was older, (age 6?). In most if not all states when a single mother seeks financial assistance she has to name the father or the potential fathers and the state goes after the absent parent. I think that's when it came to light who the father was.
     
  15. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    Yes.

    As far as I'm concerned, it's not just about sex, it's also about an imbalance of power. A fourteen year old having sex with a fourteen year old is a fundamentally different situation from a fourteen year old having sex with a twenty year old, or a forty year old, or a sixty year old.

    Never.

    The fact that kids who are too young and stupid to consent are having sex with other similarly young and stupid kids does not change the fact that it's wrong and predatory for an adult to be having sex with them.
     
  16. Adenosine Triphosphate
    Offline

    Adenosine Triphosphate Old Scratch Contributor

    Joined:
    May 24, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    424
    Location:
    USA
    Ah, yes. An irresponsible twenty year-old who had intercourse with a teenage boy six years younger than her and got pregnant (guess she didn't know about non-penetrative sex), a female child who is in no way responsible for that, the problem of making that boy support said child under these circumstances, and the always frustrating issue of statutory rape.

    I was going to write a paragraph on age of consent laws, but I'm not exactly sure what I think about that issue, and I feel like it would make a lot of people yell very loudly at me.

    At the minimum, this was a very, very unwise decision on her part.
     
  17. Adenosine Triphosphate
    Offline

    Adenosine Triphosphate Old Scratch Contributor

    Joined:
    May 24, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    424
    Location:
    USA
    I would ask some of you one thing, though: would you be as angry if this had happened on his fifteenth birthday?

    I don't appreciate what she did, but I'm not sure what the moral difference between the two is.
     
  18. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,604
    Likes Received:
    5,877
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    On both their parts.

    Here's my question, regardless of the woman's responsibility for the pregnancy (because obviously she is the most responsible for the child), is the state responsible to support the child because a 14 yr old boy is sexually active?

    What about the boy's parents? If a 14 yr old breaks the law, takes a car and crashes it, the parents are responsible for the damages.

    I'm curious how people feel about that?
     
  19. Adenosine Triphosphate
    Offline

    Adenosine Triphosphate Old Scratch Contributor

    Joined:
    May 24, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    424
    Location:
    USA
    He's old enough that I can't completely discount his willingness, but I'm going to hold a twenty year-old adult to a higher standard than a fourteen year-old boy. She's fully developed, and she belongs to a social class that has both direct and implied power over his.

    It would help if we had more specific details about that act and what led up to it. I'm particularly interested to find out if he was pressured into it by anything other than her status.

    I'll have to think about that for a while.
     
  20. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,604
    Likes Received:
    5,877
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    It's not an easy answer. From one side he looks like a child and the adult woman was at fault. From the other side he looks like he's old enough that his parents shouldn't be held responsible.

    The idea by itself that parents are legally liable for children their underage children have is incongruent to picture. Having a child makes you an adult.
     
  21. BayView
    Offline

    BayView Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    5,116
    Ooh, I don't think I can agree with "having a child makes you an adult". Not at all.

    Being an adult is about responsibility and understanding and maturity. It's mental. Having a child is about biological processes. It's physical. Totally different things, to me.

    I'm on the side that says there's a big difference between two fourteen year olds and a fourteen year old with a twenty year old. The twenty year old, assuming no mental challenges, should damn well know better. Children aren't fully responsible for their actions; adults are.
     
  22. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,604
    Likes Received:
    5,877
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    "Adult" has many definitions.

    Parents of children have responsibility for their care even when the parent is a child themselves. Would you want a child to have custody of another child if you didn't consider them responsible? We don't typically take the child away from a parent because the parent is too young to be responsible for the baby.*

    *Not saying there aren't exceptions.

    The parent might late prove to be too irresponsible, but it would be the actions the minor took, not an automatic decision based on an arbitrary age.
     
  23. BayView
    Offline

    BayView Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    5,116
    This seems like circular logic. Underage parents have custody, and it would be bad for people with custody to be irresponsible, so underage parents are therefore responsible? That doesn't really work.

    Underage parents may have custody, but it's because they're the parents, not because they're responsible. It's far from ideal for them to be in charge of children, and I would assume that, since a fourteen year old needs an adult to be responsible for him, that adult would also be responsible for the fourteen year old's child.

    Having sex with a fertile person and neglecting to use birth control is not in any way a sign of maturity. Not at all.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  24. Adenosine Triphosphate
    Offline

    Adenosine Triphosphate Old Scratch Contributor

    Joined:
    May 24, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    424
    Location:
    USA
    Well, in that case, I know a lot of adults who aren't really adults. :)
    Yes, she damn well should.

    What does "children aren't fully responsible for their actions" mean, though?
     
  25. BayView
    Offline

    BayView Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    5,116
    Well... just that children aren't... I'm having trouble putting it more simply.

    Like, if a baby hits someone in the face with her fist, we wouldn't punish her - she didn't know what she was doing, she didn't have control over her arm, whatever. That's the extreme level of not responsible. She's not responsible at ALL.

    And then as kids get older, they get more control over themselves, get more understanding of the world, and start becoming more responsible for their actions. If a five year old punches someone in the face, he probably did it more or less on purpose. But we still wouldn't punish him as severely as we would punish an adult, because we know that five years olds are still developing their self-control, still learning the rules of society, etc. It's a sliding scale of responsibility, with kids becoming more responsible for their actions as they gain self-control and understanding. By the time someone is an adult, barring psychological disorders or other special conditions, we consider them to be more or less completely responsible. (Although we still make allowances in criminal proceedings for adults who lose their temper under provocation, etc.).

    So, children aren't fully responsible for their actions. They have limited responsibilities AND limited rights until they're old enough to know how to behave.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page