Female privilege

[AthenaAwakened]

How exactly is the 14 year old "partially responsible" for the existence of the child? The entire concept of statuatory rape is that the younger person lacks the ability to consent and thus does not bear any responsibility for the act. The law cannot simultaneously say that he lacks the ability to consent to the action and is also responsible for the consequences of the action.

I must say, I was wondering that myself.

the op isn't about two grown folks and one of them is a deadbeat dad.

This is about a rape and a betrayal of trust.

Let's not confuse the two, even if some already have.

 

[Playball40]

But then, to be a female privilege, it would only be granted if the child is a daughter.
If it's applied even if she has a son, then it's the privilege of the kid.

This is about the privilege of the grown woman who fucked the 14 year old.

If charges had been pressed at the time and she was let off, then I would see priviledge. Alas, that is NOT what happened in this case, is it? NO report was ever made. NO charges ever filed.

 

[Playball40]

How exactly is the 14 year old "partially responsible" for the existence of the child? The entire concept of statuatory rape is that the younger person lacks the ability to consent and thus does not bear any responsibility for the act. The law cannot simultaneously say that he lacks the ability to consent to the action and is also responsible for the consequences of the action.

I must say, I was wondering that myself.

the op isn't about two grown folks and one of them is a deadbeat dad.

This is about a rape and a betrayal of trust.

Let's not confuse the two, even if some already have.

Because she was never charged with statutory rape. No report was ever made. Now, I don't know what the statute of limitation is for this state, but it looks like it's been 10 years now since the crime.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is about the privilege of the grown woman who fucked the 14 year old.

If charges had been pressed at the time and she was let off, then I would see priviledge. Alas, that is NOT what happened in this case, is it? NO report was ever made. NO charges ever filed.

No charges filed and she STILL walked?
What a scofflaw.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Because she was never charged with statutory rape. No report was ever made. Now, I don't know what the statute of limitation is for this state, but it looks like it's been 10 years now since the crime.

So what? That doesn't make it any less of an act of statuatory rape. He did not legally consent to any activity which resulted in this child. Given his age and the age of the child, that's not a disputable fact.

If the police had shown up the next day and arrested her, his statement of "I knew what I was doing and consented to the sex" wouldn't have made him legally responsible for his actions and she would have been charged with raping him. Ten years later, the historical situation of his not having responsibility at the time of the act hasn't changed.

There is only one person legally responsible for this child being alive and that is the mother. She should therefore be the only one assigned legal responsibility for the kid's finances. The guy should bear no more responsibility for it than you, me or anyone else who's not responsible for it being born.

 

[laughing dog]

Because she was never charged with statutory rape. No report was ever made. Now, I don't know what the statute of limitation is for this state, but it looks like it's been 10 years now since the crime.

So what? That doesn't make it any less of an act of statuatory rape. He did not legally consent to any activity which resulted in this child. Given his age and the age of the child, that's not a disputable fact.

If the police had shown up the next day and arrested her, his statement of "I knew what I was doing and consented to the sex" wouldn't have made him legally responsible for his actions and she would have been charged with raping him. Ten years later, the historical situation of his not having responsibility at the time of the act hasn't changed.

There is only one person legally responsible for this child being alive and that is the mother. She should therefore be the only one assigned legal responsibility for the kid's finances. The guy should bear no more responsibility for it than you, me or anyone else who's not responsible for it being born.

The laws of the State of Arizona are not consistent with your position. If the woman had been convicted of statutory rape then this fellow would be off the hook in Arizona (according to the article). If the woman had not filed for public assistance, then the state would not be going after this person for payment.

There is also some arithmetical inconsistencies in the article. According to the article, the man is 24 and he found out 2 years ago he had a 6 year old daughter. If those are accurate, then he was 16 when the woman became pregnant not 14.

 

[Toni]

So what? That doesn't make it any less of an act of statuatory rape. He did not legally consent to any activity which resulted in this child. Given his age and the age of the child, that's not a disputable fact.

If the police had shown up the next day and arrested her, his statement of "I knew what I was doing and consented to the sex" wouldn't have made him legally responsible for his actions and she would have been charged with raping him. Ten years later, the historical situation of his not having responsibility at the time of the act hasn't changed.

There is only one person legally responsible for this child being alive and that is the mother. She should therefore be the only one assigned legal responsibility for the kid's finances. The guy should bear no more responsibility for it than you, me or anyone else who's not responsible for it being born.

The laws of the State of Arizona are not consistent with your position. If the woman had been convicted of statutory rape then this fellow would be off the hook in Arizona (according to the article). If the woman had not filed for public assistance, then the state would not be going after this person for payment.

There is also some arithmetical inconsistencies in the article. According to the article, the man is 24 and he found out 2 years ago he had a 6 year old daughter. If those are accurate, then he was 16 when the woman became pregnant not 14.

Thanks for pointing out the time inconsistency: I wondered about that myself.

Be that as it may, if he was 14 when the child was conceived, and under AZ statute it was statutory rape (as I think it should be), then I believe that AZ law is wrong and he should not be required to pay child support.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So what? That doesn't make it any less of an act of statuatory rape. He did not legally consent to any activity which resulted in this child. Given his age and the age of the child, that's not a disputable fact.

If the police had shown up the next day and arrested her, his statement of "I knew what I was doing and consented to the sex" wouldn't have made him legally responsible for his actions and she would have been charged with raping him. Ten years later, the historical situation of his not having responsibility at the time of the act hasn't changed.

There is only one person legally responsible for this child being alive and that is the mother. She should therefore be the only one assigned legal responsibility for the kid's finances. The guy should bear no more responsibility for it than you, me or anyone else who's not responsible for it being born.

The laws of the State of Arizona are not consistent with your position. If the woman had been convicted of statutory rape then this fellow would be off the hook in Arizona (according to the article). If the woman had not filed for public assistance, then the state would not be going after this person for payment.

There is also some arithmetical inconsistencies in the article. According to the article, the man is 24 and he found out 2 years ago he had a 6 year old daughter. If those are accurate, then he was 16 when the woman became pregnant not 14.

Ya, I know that the law isn't consistent with my position. That's pretty much 100% of the reason that I'm arguing against the legal decision that was made.

It's wrong that the courts are assigning legal paternity here. Victims of rape should not be forced to bear financial liability for the results of that rape. Parsing that out to say that it's about the child as opposed to about the rape shouldn't change it in this case. From a legal standpoint, this man was uninvolved in the decision to create the child and should therefore be similarly uninvolved in any type of responsibility for the child.

 

[laughing dog]

The laws of the State of Arizona are not consistent with your position. If the woman had been convicted of statutory rape then this fellow would be off the hook in Arizona (according to the article). If the woman had not filed for public assistance, then the state would not be going after this person for payment.

There is also some arithmetical inconsistencies in the article. According to the article, the man is 24 and he found out 2 years ago he had a 6 year old daughter. If those are accurate, then he was 16 when the woman became pregnant not 14.

Ya, I know that the law isn't consistent with my position. That's pretty much 100% of the reason that I'm arguing against the legal decision that was made.

It's wrong that the courts are assigning legal paternity here. Victims of rape should not be forced to bear financial liability for the results of that rape. Parsing that out to say that it's about the child as opposed to about the rape shouldn't change it in this case. From a legal standpoint, this man was uninvolved in the decision to create the child and should therefore be similarly uninvolved in any type of responsibility for the child.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Given the seeming inconsistencies in the article, it may be the case that there was no statutory rape at all. If there wasn't, we don't know if he legally consented or not.

Regardless, given that no rape was reported nor charged nor was there a conviction, the court cannot be expected to act as if there was a rape.

 

[Rhea]

There is also some arithmetical inconsistencies in the article. According to the article, the man is 24 and he found out 2 years ago he had a 6 year old daughter. If those are accurate, then he was 16 when the woman became pregnant not 14.

Maybe it's rounding errors.
24 now
22 when he found out he had a 6yo
16 when child was born
15 when child was conceived

Any round in the times such as "about 2 years ago" could make him 14yo at conception. Or perhaps 14yo at the start of the sexual encounters and pregnancy happened later on? So it could be accurate.

 

[laughing dog]

There is also some arithmetical inconsistencies in the article. According to the article, the man is 24 and he found out 2 years ago he had a 6 year old daughter. If those are accurate, then he was 16 when the woman became pregnant not 14.

Maybe it's rounding errors.
24 now
22 when he found out he had a 6yo
16 when child was born
15 when child was conceived

Any round in the times such as "about 2 years ago" could make him 14yo at conception. Or perhaps 14yo at the start of the sexual encounters and pregnancy happened later on? So it could be accurate.

It could be accurate. Then again, it might not be. Given that his age at conception is important, it would be nice to have a clearer account. After all, this article is based solely on his version of the timeline of events.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Regardless, given that no rape was reported nor charged nor was there a conviction, the court cannot be expected to act as if there was a rape.

Of course they can. They take the age of the child and the age of the man and see what age he would have been when the child was conceived. It's not difficult math - even for Arizonians. Then, based on the results of that equation, they determine whether there were one or two people involved in the decision to have the sex which led to the child. If there's only one, then only one person should have a legal requirement to support the child.

 

[Toni]

There is also some arithmetical inconsistencies in the article. According to the article, the man is 24 and he found out 2 years ago he had a 6 year old daughter. If those are accurate, then he was 16 when the woman became pregnant not 14.

Maybe it's rounding errors.
24 now
22 when he found out he had a 6yo
16 when child was born
15 when child was conceived

Any round in the times such as "about 2 years ago" could make him 14yo at conception. Or perhaps 14yo at the start of the sexual encounters and pregnancy happened later on? So it could be accurate.

The age of the bio father at the conception of the child does matter, even if no charges were ever filed. If under the law, he was not able to give consent and was not legally responsible for the actions which resulted in the conception of the child, then it seems very wrong to hold him responsible for the financial support of the resulting child. After all, one of the reasons that statutory rape laws exist is because very young people are not able to appreciate the potential consequences for their actions.

AZ has particularly high age of consent with no close in age exception; instead, if the victim is at least 15, there are some close in age defenses allowed.

Arizona

The age of consent in Arizona is 18. However there exist in the legislation defenses to prosecution if the defendant is close-in-age to the "victim" or a spouse of the "victim". Note: these are not close-in-age exceptions but defenses in court. Arizona Revised Statute 13-1405(A)

13-1407 (Defenses)

B. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to sections 13-1404 and 13-1405 in which the victim's lack of consent is based on incapacity to consent because the victim was fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age if at the time the defendant engaged in the conduct constituting the offence the defendant did not know and could not reasonably have known the age of the victim.
D. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1404 or 13-1405 that the person was the spouse (legally married AND cohabiting) of the other person at the time of commission of the act...
F. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1405 if the victim is fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age, the defendant is under nineteen years of age or attending high school and is no more than twenty-four months older than the victim and the conduct is consensual.

It appears that under the law, even if he was 16 at the conception of the child, it would still constitute statutory rape if the woman was 20.

Unfortunately, this is not the only such case. As I googled this case, I ran across a number of other cases, one of which is even more egregious: the 34 year old woman was convicted of statutory rape and then later the underaged father was taken to court for child support of the resulting child.

I was sickened by the jokes made about the Mary Kay LeTourneau case--and still am. The law still hasn't caught up with what we know and understand today about brain development, social development, etc.

 

[laughing dog]

Regardless, given that no rape was reported nor charged nor was there a conviction, the court cannot be expected to act as if there was a rape.

Of course they can. They take the age of the child and the age of the man and see what age he would have been when the child was conceived. It's not difficult math - even for Arizonians.

Apparently it is, because the reported numbers make him anywhere from 14 to 16 years old.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Of course they can. They take the age of the child and the age of the man and see what age he would have been when the child was conceived. It's not difficult math - even for Arizonians.

Apparently it is, because the reported numbers make him anywhere from 14 to 16 years old.

What are you talking about? It's explicitly stated that he became a father at 14 right before it talks about how under 15 is statuatory rape. That's the entirety of the discussion.

If it turns out that it's not a case of stautatory rape, then of course all opinions made on the matter change. Right now, I'm proceeding on the assumption that this discussion about statuatory rape somehow involves statuatory rape.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is also some arithmetical inconsistencies in the article. According to the article, the man is 24 and he found out 2 years ago he had a 6 year old daughter. If those are accurate, then he was 16 when the woman became pregnant not 14.

Maybe it's rounding errors.
24 now
22 when he found out he had a 6yo
16 when child was born
15 when child was conceived

Any round in the times such as "about 2 years ago" could make him 14yo at conception. Or perhaps 14yo at the start of the sexual encounters and pregnancy happened later on? So it could be accurate.

Where is Solomon when you need him?

Child support laws are a fairly new idea in human legal systems. The main point is to make people be responsible for the children they create, so the rest of us will not be called to feed and clothe the child.

The part where children create more children is a little vague. We aren't quite sure how to handle that. When a girl has a baby, we pretty much declare her to be an adult, complete with adult responsibilities and decisions. If the father happens to be a boy, it's very murky. The thing to remember is, the parents needs are secondary. If a fourteen year old mother says, "But I wanted to spend this summer at the beach, not changing diapers," we say, "Sorry, you have a baby now, and that's more important. Her choices are to either take responsibility, or hand the baby over to someone who is willing to step in.

The case of the child father and the adult mother takes murky to the opaque. A boy can't be held responsible in the same manner as a man, but there is still a child to consider. Remember him? Now is the time for Solomonic wisdom. We wait for the boy to become man, then we give him the man's responsibilities. I think that works out well for all of us.

One thought about "female privilege" as it applies to babies and their welfare, came to me. There is a counterpart to female privilege, which greatly outweighs the advantage women might have in custody and support cases. If a woman neglects or abuses the child of an absentee father, she may be sentenced to prison. No one has ever tracked down the father and asked why he was not there to protect his child, or held him equally responsible for the child's physical safety. We'll call that the "male privilege", which a man enjoys, whether he pays his child support on time, or not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Maybe it's rounding errors.
24 now
22 when he found out he had a 6yo
16 when child was born
15 when child was conceived

Any round in the times such as "about 2 years ago" could make him 14yo at conception. Or perhaps 14yo at the start of the sexual encounters and pregnancy happened later on? So it could be accurate.

Where is Solomon when you need him?

Child support laws are a fairly new idea in human legal systems. The main point is to make people be responsible for the children they create, so the rest of us will not be called to feed and clothe the child.

The part where children create more children is a little vague. We aren't quite sure how to handle that. When a girl has a baby, we pretty much declare her to be an adult, complete with adult responsibilities and decisions. If the father happens to be a boy, it's very murky. The thing to remember is, the parents needs are secondary. If a fourteen year old mother says, "But I wanted to spend this summer at the beach, not changing diapers," we say, "Sorry, you have a baby now, and that's more important. Her choices are to either take responsibility, or hand the baby over to someone who is willing to step in.

The case of the child father and the adult mother takes murky to the opaque. A boy can't be held responsible in the same manner as a man, but there is still a child to consider. Remember him? Now is the time for Solomonic wisdom. We wait for the boy to become man, then we give him the man's responsibilities. I think that works out well for all of us.

One thought about "female privilege" as it applies to babies and their welfare, came to me. There is a counterpart to female privilege, which greatly outweighs the advantage women might have in custody and support cases. If a woman neglects or abuses the child of an absentee father, she may be sentenced to prison. No one has ever tracked down the father and asked why he was not there to protect his child, or held him equally responsible for the child's physical safety. We'll call that the "male privilege", which a man enjoys, whether he pays his child support on time, or not.

That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that if an eight year old signs a contract where he'll pay you $1000/month for life in exchange for three lollipops, then once he turns eighteen, he needs to start paying the $1000. If he couldn't consent to the contract when it was signed, then it's not a valid contract period. It's the same thing here. If he couldn't consent to the sex when it was had, then he's shouldn't become responsible for the consequences of the sex at a later date when he reaches adulthood.

And no, there's no need to remember the child. This is because the man shouldn't be considered the child's parent in regards to this situation. The woman decided to become a single mother and none of the other non-parents of the child in the world should have any more responsibility for it than any other.

 

[Toni]

Apparently it is, because the reported numbers make him anywhere from 14 to 16 years old.

What are you talking about? It's explicitly stated that he became a father at 14 right before it talks about how under 15 is statuatory rape. That's the entirety of the discussion.

If it turns out that it's not a case of stautatory rape, then of course all opinions made on the matter change. Right now, I'm proceeding on the assumption that this discussion about statuatory rape somehow involves statuatory rape.

Yes: but if you look at the ages given, it doesn't add up to him being 14 at the age of the conception of the child unless, as Rhea stated, it's just rounding errors).

It does matter if it was statutory rape or not. If it was legal sex, then I think he may be on the hook, although since there was no avoidance on his part, it shouldn't be retroactive.

If it was statutory rape, then of course he should not be on the hook.

 

[Bronzeage]

Where is Solomon when you need him?

Child support laws are a fairly new idea in human legal systems. The main point is to make people be responsible for the children they create, so the rest of us will not be called to feed and clothe the child.

The part where children create more children is a little vague. We aren't quite sure how to handle that. When a girl has a baby, we pretty much declare her to be an adult, complete with adult responsibilities and decisions. If the father happens to be a boy, it's very murky. The thing to remember is, the parents needs are secondary. If a fourteen year old mother says, "But I wanted to spend this summer at the beach, not changing diapers," we say, "Sorry, you have a baby now, and that's more important. Her choices are to either take responsibility, or hand the baby over to someone who is willing to step in.

The case of the child father and the adult mother takes murky to the opaque. A boy can't be held responsible in the same manner as a man, but there is still a child to consider. Remember him? Now is the time for Solomonic wisdom. We wait for the boy to become man, then we give him the man's responsibilities. I think that works out well for all of us.

One thought about "female privilege" as it applies to babies and their welfare, came to me. There is a counterpart to female privilege, which greatly outweighs the advantage women might have in custody and support cases. If a woman neglects or abuses the child of an absentee father, she may be sentenced to prison. No one has ever tracked down the father and asked why he was not there to protect his child, or held him equally responsible for the child's physical safety. We'll call that the "male privilege", which a man enjoys, whether he pays his child support on time, or not.

That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that if an eight year old signs a contract where he'll pay you $1000/month for life in exchange for three lollipops, then once he turns eighteen, he needs to start paying the $1000. If he couldn't consent to the contract when it was signed, then it's not a valid contract period. It's the same thing here. If he couldn't consent to the sex when it was had, then he's shouldn't become responsible for the consequences of the sex at a later date when he reaches adulthood.

And no, there's no need to remember the child. This is because the man shouldn't be considered the child's parent in regards to this situation. The woman decided to become a single mother and none of the other non-parents of the child in the world should have any more responsibility for it than any other.

That's a valid argument and it would be the one to make if an eight year old signs up for the Columbia Record Club.

In this case, there is another child to consider and the rights of the man who once was a child are secondary. As a generally loose knit bunch of people, we have decided that children will not be allowed to suffer because their parents are impaired in someway. This is why we have orphanages, child protection government offices, etc. We do have responsibility for children which are not our own. Part of this responsibility is forcing people to shoulder the burden of their children, whether they intended to create said child or not.

It sucks to be this guy, but it sucks even worse to be his child. Unless someone steps up, raises their hand and says, "This child is mine, until he is no longer a child," our former 14 year old father is on the hook.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently it is, because the reported numbers make him anywhere from 14 to 16 years old.

What are you talking about? It's explicitly stated that he became a father at 14 right before it talks about how under 15 is statuatory rape. That's the entirety of the discussion.

If it turns out that it's not a case of stautatory rape, then of course all opinions made on the matter change. Right now, I'm proceeding on the assumption that this discussion about statuatory rape somehow involves statuatory rape.

I find it hard to believe any experienced moderator would make such an assumption. Especially when the reported ages make it possible he was 14 or 15 or 16 years of age.

I also find this part of the report fascinating:

He wants to be in his daughter's life and is willing to pay child support going forward. But he doesn't think it's right for the state to charge him for fees incurred when he was still a child himself or for the years he didn't know the girl existed.

So, he is willing to pay child support if he gets to part of his daughter's life. One could conclude he is not at all interested in the welfare of the child per se, but only in his interaction with the child.