Female privilege

[Emily Lake]

How would they do that if Olivas never informed anyone that he had been statutorily raped?

That is one of the complications with statutory rape. People are rarely informed... because the victim rarely considers themselves to have been raped; it is third parties to the act who consider the under-age person to have been raped.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

By using their superhuman abilities to perform some trivially basic math.

How do you know they did not do the trivially basic math, noticed that Olivas was a minor at the time, and then checked the mother's record for a conviction for statutory rape, which they did not find because Olivas never reported the crime?

That would be an act of negligence on their part which would need to be corrected by the successors of the people who got fired for this.

Regardless of whether or not they had the information at the time, the courts have it now. If someone is in jail for a crime and new evidence comes to light which shows his innocence, then the judge can overturn the verdict based on the new evidence and the courts are in the wrong if they ignore the new evidence and just keep him in jail. It's the same here. They now have the evidence that he was a minor at the time of conception and should reevaluate the case based on what they currently know.

 

[KeepTalking]

How do you know they did not do the trivially basic math, noticed that Olivas was a minor at the time, and then checked the mother's record for a conviction for statutory rape, which they did not find because Olivas never reported the crime?

That would be an act of negligence on their part which would need to be corrected by the successors of the people who got fired for this.

No. The rule that is in place is that there needs to be a conviction for rape or statutory rape against the mother for Olivas to not be responsible for Child Support. Now, there is apparently not a statute of limitations in AZ when it comes to statutory rape, so there is nothing preventing Olivas from pursuing a statutory rape conviction now. Presumably, armed with that conviction, he could have the child support decision reversed. I'm not sure what is keeping him from doing so at this point, other than the apathy that he has consistently displayed with regard to this situation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Statutory Rape is usually considered a criminal matter. It is not the victim but the DA that pursues criminal charges. It is only in civil cases can the victim press charges.

If statutory rape charges aren't being pressed, it's not the victim's fault.

 

[arkirk]

Lots of men have children from women they intensely dislike and even may hate. Still, most are apt to have feeling for the children, regardless of the mother's bullshit. I have several friends like that. Something that does not escape my mind is the idea of a woman raping a male. If her reason was an attempt to get impregnated, I suppose she could hold him down and milk him, but it looks like Olivas was a willing participant...ie. he impregnated her with HIS HARDON.

I am aware of what statutory rape is and I regard sex with children to be not a good thing, but really, what about the child. Now if the guy is still too young to support his offspring, it makes no sense to try to bill him for child support. It is possible Olivas has not pursued this statutory rape charge because of his own concern for his own kid. Mary K. Latourneau (spelling uncertain) served her time and he kid lover matured and eventually married her and they had more kids. It is funny the way people choose to whom they attach and the law sometimes simply does not fit the situation.

 

[laughing dog]

Statutory Rape is usually considered a criminal matter. It is not the victim but the DA that pursues criminal charges. It is only in civil cases can the victim press charges.

If statutory rape charges aren't being pressed, it's not the victim's fault.

Wouldn't that depend on the co-operation of the victim?

 

[Metaphor]

If her reason was an attempt to get impregnated, I suppose she could hold him down and milk him, but it looks like Olivas was a willing participant...ie. he impregnated her with HIS HARDON.

Oh, I see. Well then, it wasn't rape, because he wanted the sex. I hope there aren't too many statutory rapists in prison, because they'll all have to be freed now, because there's no such thing as statutory rape.

I am aware of what statutory rape is and I regard sex with children to be not a good thing, but really, what about the child.

Which child. The one that was raped? Oh no, you didn't mean that one. You mean the one that was the result of the child's mother statutorily raping a child.

Now if the guy is still too young to support his offspring, it makes no sense to try to bill him for child support. It is possible Olivas has not pursued this statutory rape charge because of his own concern for his own kid. Mary K. Latourneau (spelling uncertain) served her time and he kid lover matured and eventually married her and they had more kids. It is funny the way people choose to whom they attach and the law sometimes simply does not fit the situation.

If he wants to provide for the child, no-one is holding a gun to his head and preventing him.

- - - Updated - - -

If her reason was an attempt to get impregnated, I suppose she could hold him down and milk him, but it looks like Olivas was a willing participant...ie. he impregnated her with HIS HARDON.

Oh, I see. Well then, it wasn't rape, because he wanted the sex. I hope there aren't too many statutory rapists in prison, because they'll all have to be freed now, because there's no such thing as statutory rape.

I am aware of what statutory rape is and I regard sex with children to be not a good thing, but really, what about the child.

Which child. The one that was raped? Oh no, you didn't mean that one. You mean the one that was the result of the child's mother statutorily raping a child.

Now if the guy is still too young to support his offspring, it makes no sense to try to bill him for child support. It is possible Olivas has not pursued this statutory rape charge because of his own concern for his own kid. Mary K. Latourneau (spelling uncertain) served her time and he kid lover matured and eventually married her and they had more kids. It is funny the way people choose to whom they attach and the law sometimes simply does not fit the situation.

If he wants to provide for the child, no-one is holding a gun to his head and preventing him.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Statutory Rape is usually considered a criminal matter. It is not the victim but the DA that pursues criminal charges. It is only in civil cases can the victim press charges.

If statutory rape charges aren't being pressed, it's not the victim's fault.

Wouldn't that depend on the co-operation of the victim?

Usually. But there have been cases where a victim has been compelled to testify. Not often, but it does happen.

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh, I see. Well then, it wasn't rape, because he wanted the sex. I hope there aren't too many statutory rapists in prison, because they'll all have to be freed now, because there's no such thing as statutory rape.

I don't think anyone claimed that there's no such thing, Metaphor.

I do, however, think that statutory cases are not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to believe they are.

For one of my earlier sexual experiences, I was 15 and my partner was 19. By the laws of the state I was in, it was clearly statutory rape. But speaking personally, I did the pursuing, I instigated the contact, and I most assuredly knew exactly what I was doing. To treat my experience as "rape" would be wholly inappropriate. I was quite certainly NOT a victim.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh, I see. Well then, it wasn't rape, because he wanted the sex. I hope there aren't too many statutory rapists in prison, because they'll all have to be freed now, because there's no such thing as statutory rape.

I don't think anyone claimed that there's no such thing, Metaphor.

I do, however, think that statutory cases are not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to believe they are.

For one of my earlier sexual experiences, I was 15 and my partner was 19. By the laws of the state I was in, it was clearly statutory rape. But speaking personally, I did the pursuing, I instigated the contact, and I most assuredly knew exactly what I was doing. To treat my experience as "rape" would be wholly inappropriate. I was quite certainly NOT a victim.

The law has to draw a line somewhere. Since it cannot (until we have some kind of far-future sci-fi universe) look into everyone's brain and evaluate whether a certain young person has reached the maturity necessary to consent to sex, it draws the line on as close to objective criteria as possible (chronological age in years).

 

[Underseer]

...but it looks like Olivas was a willing participant...ie. he impregnated her with HIS HARDON. [...]

Ah yes, the old "your lips say 'no,' but your body says 'yes'" argument.

Here's the thing, women can also exhibit physiological signs of sexual arousal during rape even if they really, really don't want to have sex. The presence of those physiological responses does not in and of itself prove that rape did not occur.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

...but it looks like Olivas was a willing participant...ie. he impregnated her with HIS HARDON. [...]

Ah yes, the old "your lips say 'no,' but your body says 'yes'" argument.

Here's the thing, women can also exhibit physiological signs of sexual arousal during rape even if they really, really don't want to have sex. The presence of those physiological responses does not in and of itself prove that rape did not occur.

Olivas, the rape victim, is a guy.

 

[bigfield]

Ah yes, the old "your lips say 'no,' but your body says 'yes'" argument.

Here's the thing, women can also exhibit physiological signs of sexual arousal during rape even if they really, really don't want to have sex. The presence of those physiological responses does not in and of itself prove that rape did not occur.

Olivas, the rape victim, is a guy.

That's why he said 'also'.

As in: if arkirk also applied that standard to women then any woman who became physically aroused when raped was not legitimately raped.

 

[Toni]

Ah yes, the old "your lips say 'no,' but your body says 'yes'" argument.

Here's the thing, women can also exhibit physiological signs of sexual arousal during rape even if they really, really don't want to have sex. The presence of those physiological responses does not in and of itself prove that rape did not occur.

Olivas, the rape victim, is a guy.

But it doesn't matter if Olivas was a willing, enthusiastic participant: he was 14 and she was 20. Legally, it was rape. I would argue that morally, it was also rape because at 14 and 20, the age disparity leads to too great a difference in understanding the consequences and implications of sex as well as too great an inequality in power and control in any such relationship or acts.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wouldn't that depend on the co-operation of the victim?

Usually. But there have been cases where a victim has been compelled to testify. Not often, but it does happen.

Why would he need to testify? A paternity test and the three birth certificates are the objective evidence of the rape. The DA shouldn't need him for the case.