Woman rapes 14 year old boy, escapes conviction, bemoans she'll be seen as a sex offender anyway

[ruby sparks]

I've said this before. If (and it has happened a few times) I'm walking down a quiet street late at night and I find myself catching up on a lone woman walking ahead of me in the same direction, I may cross over the road, rather than gradually overtake her on the same footpath, because I understand that men, and perhaps especially to a woman walking alone late at night, ARE potentially more dangerous. I agree that I should not perhaps be obliged to do it, but I do think it's reasonable behaviour, just in case.

Why is it reasonable?

I explained why I think it is.

I think it's situation-specific. Probably quite rare. I would usually not do it. I probably overtake women on the footpaths a lot, since I walk quite fast.

Would you say there is a special obligation for black men to cross the street when they are catching up to a white person on a footpath, given the statistical danger they pose?

No, because I specifically said it should not be an obligation, just reasonable behaviour, in certain circumstances, imo.


Try reading posts before replying.

 

[Emily Lake]

Am I being serious that I have read articles, penned by feminists, that make the exact claim "women can't tell good guys from predators"? (Also, the related claim that "abusive men are not monstrous abberaions, they are the ordinary and expected product of the patriarchy"). Yes, I have read those articles and seen those claims made.

If you think it's a misogynist thing to say, I'm not surprised, because feminists say some unbelievably misogynist shit.

I agree with the red, although I dearly wish it weren't the case. I strongly disagree with the blue.

 

[Emily Lake]

The last part, about women being justified in treating all men with suspicion, is generally true. The degree of suspicion can be unreasonable, but all it takes is one a-hole fingering a girl's crotch as he passes her on a sidewalk for a measure of suspicion to seem prudent.

The unfortunate reality is that almost every woman, and probably every girl who has sprouted breasts, has been groped, leered at, solicited, and probably pinned in a corner at a party by a guy that did not want to take no for an answer. Most of us have been sexually assaulted multiple times - not always in physically damaging ways, but I've now lost track of how many times I've had my butt grabbed or a boobed felt when I was in a crowd. Many of us (stats suggest about one third) have been victims of an attempted or completed rape in our lifetimes.

It's straight up common sense to employ a measure of suspicion out there in the world.

 

[ruby sparks]

The last part, about women being justified in treating all men with suspicion, is generally true. The degree of suspicion can be unreasonable, but all it takes is one a-hole fingering a girl's crotch as he passes her on a sidewalk for a measure of suspicion to seem prudent.

The unfortunate reality is that almost every woman, and probably every girl who has sprouted breasts, has been groped, leered at, solicited, and probably pinned in a corner at a party by a guy that did not want to take no for an answer. Most of us have been sexually assaulted multiple times - not always in physically damaging ways, but I've now lost track of how many times I've had my butt grabbed or a boobed felt when I was in a crowd. Many of us (stats suggest about one third) have been victims of an attempted or completed rape in our lifetimes.

It's straight up common sense to employ a measure of suspicion out there in the world.

Yes, unfortunately, I think suspicion is prudent, in certain situations 'of opportunity/risk'. And yes, it is, I believe, much more commonplace (that something inappropriate happens) than many of us men who would never do it think. I have several female friends who would say exactly the same as you. My wife would say it. Once, at a large dinner party, when the topic came up, all 6 of the women present said it. I soon began to see it as a routine risk that most women face, and that I had underestimated it previously.

It involves a tricky balance, as you say. It can be taken too seriously, and not seriously enough.

 

[Metaphor]

Many airlines have policies that unaccompanied children will not be seated next to adult males. (This policy isn't openly advertised of course, but it's there nonetheless).

What Jarhyn probably would not recognise is that these kinds of cultural biases get more heavily entrenched by feminists who believe, and preach, that all men are potential predators, and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator, women are justified in treating all men with suspicion. (Of course, treating any other demographic group with suspicion or making sweeping generalisations about them would be regarded with horror and cries of bigotry from those selfsame feminists).

It's very unfair to the majority of men who aren't predators. But given that about 98% of all sexual violence is committed by males... it's also not something that can just be blithely ignored. Until we address that problem, it's a really tough one to overcome.

You know that you're not a danger. I know that you're not a danger. But a random stranger doesn't know that. If the choice is between potentially hurting a grown man's feelings and potentially exposing a child to a predator, which would you choose as the more ethical approach?

Even if 100% of sexual violence was committed by men, that does not mean most men are sexually violent. Nearly 100% of serial killers are men, but you've probably never met a serial killer in your life.

Now, with respect to the 'no man to be seated next to an unaccompanied minor', if that is justified because men are more likely than women to molest a young person, then why does the same reasoning not apply to other policies that might single out people from groups who commit more crime?

Let's say a store has a policy for its store detectives/security:

* Teenagers are to be scrutinised more closely than older adults
* Black people are to be scrutinised more closely than white people

Both policies might be based on statistics that the store has gathered about theft from its own store, or more general statistics. The age discrimination policy probably wouldn't provoke any outrage (it's an example, I suspect but do not know that teenagers shoplift more often than other age groups).

But the race discrimination policy would provoke outrage, even when it's an informal, de facto policy rather than any kind of written rule. Jarhyn has even implied that in the recent BLM destruction of Walmart (or it might have been a Target) in his city, his 'community' did not mourn that loss partly because they had a stock loss policy he perceived as racist.

Do you think it's reasonable for a store to have a detective policy that targets people by race, if it had the statistics to back that up? If not, why do you think similar policies along sex lines is reasonable?

 

[Metaphor]

I explained why I think it is.

I think it's situation-specific. Probably quite rare. I would usually not do it. I probably overtake women on the footpaths a lot, since I walk quite fast.

Would you say there is a special obligation for black men to cross the street when they are catching up to a white person on a footpath, given the statistical danger they pose?

No, because I specifically said it should not be an obligation, just reasonable behaviour, in certain circumstances, imo.


Try reading posts before replying.

Okay then, would you say to a black person "you might want to think about the anxiety you cause when you approach a white person on the street, and consider that it might be reasonable for you to alleviate the anxiety of that person by crossing the street away from them?"

 

[Metaphor]

“It must be great being a female pedophile!”: The nature of public perceptions about female teacher sex offenders
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1741659016674044?journalCode=cmca

Abstract of a small study which suggests that the public (based on the sample of 900 comments analysed) do recognise the double standard traditionally applied against men and in favour of women (teachers in this case), and that these results suggest that the public believes in equality in sentencing for all sex offenders. However the abstract notes that this result is contrary to existing research which found that more punitive attitudes were expressed toward male sex offenders.

Men get longer prison sentences if they've murdered women versus murdering men, the sentencing gap is hardly a surprise.

 

[ruby sparks]

I explained why I think it is.

I think it's situation-specific. Probably quite rare. I would usually not do it. I probably overtake women on the footpaths a lot, since I walk quite fast.

Would you say there is a special obligation for black men to cross the street when they are catching up to a white person on a footpath, given the statistical danger they pose?

No, because I specifically said it should not be an obligation, just reasonable behaviour, in certain circumstances, imo.


Try reading posts before replying.

Okay then, would you say to a black person "you might want to think about the anxiety you cause when you approach a white person on the street, and consider that it might be reasonable for you to alleviate the anxiety of that person by crossing the street away from them?"

I don't think I would go so far as to tell someone else, black or white, what to do, no, especially not in your situationally overly general scenario. I would, however, exercise my own personal judgement, in a given specific situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are multiple points of interest to this story for me. In particular, much was made of the fact that the boy had a Facebook profile with a fake date of birth. Why the judge allowed it to be entered as evidence is beyond me, because the woman did not know this boy nor had looked at his Facebook profile before she lured him in off the street to rape him.

If anything it would be an indication of a pattern of him lying about his age. However:

1) It's moot as she didn't ask his age.

2) I would not take a fake age on a website to mean much, especially if it was done to avoid a minimum age requirement.

Another point of interest would be whether statutory rape should be a kind of 'strict liability' offense (as it is in some jurisdictions). If it were, it wouldn't matter if you reasonably believed someone to be of the age of majority, you'd be liable. (I don't think it's actually reasonable for it to be strict liability, but in this particular case I think the woman was recklessly indifferent to his actual age so her 'belief' that he was 16 or older was actually not reasonable).

I don't believe strict liability offenses should exist, period. At most the government should get a presumption of wrongdoing. (Note that I would have no problem convicting her with such a standard--she didn't attempt to verify that he was legal. For the other extreme, see the Traci Lords case--the prosecution dropped the charges when it became apparent the defense was going to point out her real passport with a fake age. Why should they be held to a higher standard than the US government?)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Old (2010) BBC article relevant to some of the recent posts:

BA seat policy made man 'feel like a child molester'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869

Contrast the OP woman saying she felt she would be treated like a sex offender (for having sex with a 14 year old) and the man here feeling he was treated like a potential sex offender for doing nothing.

I could not help but chuckle at this line:

The company denied the policy was discriminatory although a spokesman told the BBC it was now under review.

A policy that singles out males as males for being unsuitable to sit next to unaccompanied minors isn't discriminatory. I wonder if British Airways think the public can't discriminate between a truthful statement and an obviously false one.

I rather suspect the real motive was lawsuit defense.

 

[RVonse]

Personally, I think there is a double-standard against men in this matter. That's my impression. Given the same ages of the two parties, I believe an adult male will be treated more harshly than an adult female. My guess is that the reasons for that (if it's the case) are varied.

They would. Just look at the news coverage when a man gets caught molesting a girl, compared to when a woman gets caught molesting a boy. There have also been cases in the U.S. where underage boys were required to pay child support because the perpetrator got pregnant.

He was 14, she was 20.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=cflj


Both were underage in the case linked below. She was 16; he was 12.
https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html

He was 15, she was 34.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-22-9612220045-story.html

Its a matter of the state saying that child support is not meant to be punishment for the victims of a sex crime. And if child support were actually child support, the state would have a valid point. The state simply does not want to pay for unwed mothers period. They are not intending to punish the victim who was a minor.

In a better world with rational custody awards, none of this would seem unreasonable. Because in a better world, the person most able to provide for his/her child would always be given custody. After all, money and provision for child care is what matters most to the state. And by that definition (which is an extension of society norms) the person with the income should always be the best place for that child.

But unfortunately we live in a screwed up sick world where the person with a pussy always gets unlimited custody and payment rewards from the person who is punished because he has a penis. Its only because of this that we think of the victim as being punished in these cases.

 

[Arctish]

Personally, I think there is a double-standard against men in this matter. That's my impression. Given the same ages of the two parties, I believe an adult male will be treated more harshly than an adult female. My guess is that the reasons for that (if it's the case) are varied.

They would. Just look at the news coverage when a man gets caught molesting a girl, compared to when a woman gets caught molesting a boy. There have also been cases in the U.S. where underage boys were required to pay child support because the perpetrator got pregnant.

He was 14, she was 20.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=cflj


Both were underage in the case linked below. She was 16; he was 12.
https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html

He was 15, she was 34.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-22-9612220045-story.html

Its a matter of the state saying that child support is not meant to be punishment for the victims of a sex crime. And if child support were actually child support, the state would have a valid point. The state simply does not want to pay for unwed mothers period. They are not intending to punish the victim who was a minor.

In a better world with rational custody awards, none of this would seem unreasonable. Because in a better world, the person most able to provide for his/her child would always be given custody. After all, money and provision for child care is what matters most to the state. And by that definition (which is an extension of society norms) the person with the income should always be the best place for that child.

But unfortunately we live in a screwed up sick world where the person with a pussy always gets unlimited custody and payment rewards from the person who is punished because he has a penis. Its only because of this that we think of the victim as being punished in these cases.

Do Courts Prefer Mothers Over Fathers?

It is a common misconception that family law courts prefer mothers in custody battles. People will tell you that mothers always win primary custody. (Unless you are talking to a divorce lawyer.)

A divorce lawyer will tell you that was probably true for your grandparent’s generation. Possibly true for your parents’ generation, depending on the state.

But wait. You know this couple who got divorced, and the mother won primary child custody. Isn’t that evidence of prejudice against fathers?

Family law courts base their decisions on the best interests of the child. If joint custody is off the table, they look for the parent who will make sure the child gets the best preparation possible for their adult life.

Child support and custody are much more equitable nowadays than they were 50 years ago.

WRT the OP, I agree with Toni. The woman is getting off too easily. She should have made sure the young man she wanted to have sex with wasn't still a boy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Looks like it left that out, because it is the common one, and it's the one the laws were initially written for. The paper is looking at how other combinations get treated.

Yes, I can see that when it came to case studies, the writer took a limited view. But if your article is about the bit I bolded above, then why sideline by far the most common type of example?

My guess, as before, is that as a Feminist, the types chosen are closer to her concerns. Which as I said, would not be surprising, if true.

The "standard" view of an older male taking advantage of or coercing a younger female don't undermine gender-neutral laws. They're the "norm" for which the law was originally written.

The OTHER combinations - adults of either sex taking advantage of younger males, or older females taking advantage of younger females - are the ones where our socially-conditioned assumptions of gendered behavior can reduce the effectiveness of a gender-neutral law. Especially those cases where the younger partner is male, because there's a sex-based bias that assumes that pubescent males are always horny and can't possibly be harmed by sex with an older person, especially if that older person is female. There's a sex-based bias that an older female engaging in sex with a pubescent male is a "reward" or a "conquest" for the younger male - something he should be proud of. That bias undermines the effectiveness of gender-neutral language in the law.

 

[Emily Lake]

Society barely acknowledges that 14 year old girls can be and are raped. It remains unwilling for the most part to acknowledge that 14 year old boys are raped even when presented with evidence of rape.

Yep.

 

[Emily Lake]

We absolutely don't know, using old narratives, if anything has recently or now changed for the most common type, in light of the recent changes in the wording of the laws.

Okay, I'm assuming you have something in mind here.

In what way would the well-established sex-based bias and stereotype assumptions for an interaction between an adult male and a pubescent female CHANGE if the language is altered from "old man getting it on with young girl" to "old person getting it on with young person"? Do the socially accepted assumptions that a young girl is harmed and taken advantage of by an older man magically shift when the language becomes neutral?

Alternatively, does the neutral language effectively alter the assumption that young men are NOT harmed by the sexual attentions of older women?

 

[Emily Lake]

Writing an article that says in part "I, as a woman, take precautions and feel anxiety when I see men around" is publically advertising and justifying your prejudiced reaction to men. I did not attack the feminist for writing it for having those feelings. I said they have the feelings, they do not feel ashamed advertising them, and they would not do the same (advertise them) if it were prejudiced feelings about any other group.

If there were a group (Group A) that had a well-documented history of violence and harm against another group (Group B), then it would not necessarily be considered "prejudice" to acknowledge that some portion of Group B represents a risk to Group A, even if not all of Group B are a risk.

For example... In the 1930s, I think it would have been reasonable for Jewish people (Group A) to acknowledge that German people (Group B) represented a risk to them, even if not all German people were Nazis. Similarly, at this moment, it is reasonable for Muslim people living in China to view Chinese people as a risk, even if not all Chinese people support rounding them up and tossing them into re-education camps.

Is it unreasonable and prejudicial for black men to generally view police as a potential threat and risk? Even if most cops aren't a direct risk to black men, they do face a disproportionate risk from cops.

Is it unreasonable for a gay man to view fundie christian zealots as a potential threat and risk? Not all of them are going to be an actual risk... but can you tell at a glance which of them are safe and which of them are likely to jump you and beat you up for being gay?

 

[Emily Lake]

A policy that singles out males as males for being unsuitable to sit next to unaccompanied minors isn't discriminatory. I wonder if British Airways think the public can't discriminate between a truthful statement and an obviously false one.

Given that it's in public, with lots of people around, that policy does seem unnecessarily discriminatory.

 

[Emily Lake]

“It must be great being a female pedophile!”: The nature of public perceptions about female teacher sex offenders
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1741659016674044?journalCode=cmca

Abstract of a small study which suggests that the public (based on the sample of 900 comments analysed) do recognise the double standard traditionally applied against men and in favour of women (teachers in this case), and that these results suggest that the public believes in equality in sentencing for all sex offenders. However the abstract notes that this result is contrary to existing research which found that more punitive attitudes were expressed toward male sex offenders.

Men get longer prison sentences if they've murdered women versus murdering men, the sentencing gap is hardly a surprise.

The justice system is harsher on men (especially black men) than on women. It's clearly unjust. It essentially assumes a higher level of agency and responsibility for men than for women. I disagree with it. To be fair though, I don't want lighter sentences for men, I'd rather have harsher sentences for women.

 

[Toni]

I would say, by a long shot, the most dismissed type of rape, which occurs relatively frequently, is of male prisoners by other male prisoners. It is frequently the subject of jokes, and a lot of people seem to treat it as simply a part of the punishment package that comes along with prison. That is my impression.

I understand what you mean about the cultural bias against men. But I also think it is not entirely irrational. But yeah, it sucks.

That one gets messy. It's not just prison rapes that get downplayed (although they are a large proportion of them). In general, rapes of males by other males are downplayed.

Part of that, I think, is the ingrained social bias that men shouldn't complain, should "man up" and "be strong" and that they're somehow less masculine if they admit to being harmed by it.

Part of it, also, is a pretty strong aversion to honestly look at the very strong pattern of aggression - especially sexual aggression - that is almost entirely exhibited by males. It's a male characteristic, whether it's socially developed or has some evolutionary root, it's still a problem that needs to be dealt with at some point. And that means that males are going to have to get involved with it too.

I think there's a different aspect of the aversion to discussing male rape. I think that generally speaking, males do not like to even contemplate that they, too, could be victims of rape. Sure, there are bad taste jokes about prison rape and priests and occasionally Boy Scout leaders or coaches. The jokes are, of course, to cover for the discomfort and to imply that only a certain kind of (weak, probably gay) boy would ever be subjected to such. And of course, boys who are raped by women are 'lucky.' Who doesn't have a hot teacher fantasy, after all? Well, lots of people and that's hardly the point.

Being a victim is being weak, vulnerable. Something that boys and men are not supposed to be. Being a victim of sexual abuse---much, much worse shame and so much, much more in need of being downplayed, laughed at or denied.

I remember once having an argument--actually a very small one as neither of us wanted to go into any details, with my father, who opined that for boys or men, rape was much, much worse than it was for girls or women. What I told him, succinctly, and will say now is this: Rape is horrible, no matter who the victim or who the perpetrator. He felt that boys who were victimized probably felt a lot of self doubt, that perhaps they were responsible in some way because maybe they secretly had gay feelings or were perceived to be gay. Of course, girls have equally detrimental feelings of self doubt, guilt, etc. because society quite frequently tells them that it was their fault: they were slutty or stupid or wanted it or deserved it or had no right to say no. For starters. Society wants to downplay the gravity of the assault, the damage to the victim, the culpability of the rapist. I don't think one gender of victim suffers more than another, except that I think the younger the victim, the worse the assault affects them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do Courts Prefer Mothers Over Fathers?

It is a common misconception that family law courts prefer mothers in custody battles. People will tell you that mothers always win primary custody. (Unless you are talking to a divorce lawyer.)

A divorce lawyer will tell you that was probably true for your grandparent’s generation. Possibly true for your parents’ generation, depending on the state.

But wait. You know this couple who got divorced, and the mother won primary child custody. Isn’t that evidence of prejudice against fathers?

Family law courts base their decisions on the best interests of the child. If joint custody is off the table, they look for the parent who will make sure the child gets the best preparation possible for their adult life.

Child support and custody are much more equitable nowadays than they were 50 years ago.

WRT the OP, I agree with Toni. The woman is getting off too easily. She should have made sure the young man she wanted to have sex with wasn't still a boy.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that it's usually the mother that provided the majority of the child care and thus is normally considered the "best" parent. Also ignoring the fact that the courts do basically nothing about withheld visitation.