Female privilege

[Metaphor]

If he only owes $15,000 (and that includes penalties) and the child is 8 or 9, he was NOT charged back to her birth. Perhaps he was charged from the point he turned 18.

Oh well, that's okay then. And it sets up a good incentive for people who are going to statutorily rape someone: you should delay, as long as you can, raping the child you want to rape. That way, they'll be 18 sooner and then you an send them a nice 18th birthday present -- their first garnisheed wage!

Who could object, really? The median age for the children being statutorily raped will become higher! That's an outcome nearly everyone can agree is a good compromise if you're going to ignore statutory rape and hold adults responsible for being raped as children.

 

[laughing dog]

Reversibility isn't anything like 100%.

She gets a second chance to fix a mistake, he doesn't.

But her second chance is based on her control, ownership of her body. The male also has the same right, control over his body. Where he sticks his body or if he gets snipped. There's no basis for him to be able to impose an abortion on someone else, same as no woman can impose a vasectomy on a male.

Yeah, everyone has control of their own body--but rights come with responsibilities for your choices.

Except for the ejaculators of sperm.

 

[Sabine Grant]

There is NO statute of limitations in Arizona regarding "sexual conduct with a minor who is under 15 years of age". Crimes under a 2 to 6 class felony include "sexual conduct with a minor at least 15 year of age" generally have a 7 year statute of limitations. If Olivas was indeed 14 when he had a sexual encounter with a 20 year old female, it still stands today as a class 1 felony and can result in charges being pressed by the State against the said female.

There is a serious issue here with the State which will track down Olivas, and had to obtain the information regarding his age at the time of the sexual encounter but somehow there is no communication between the State and a DA signaling that Jane Doe at the age of 20 had a sexual encounter with a minor who was then under the age of 15.

Since the entire story is out in the media, are we to expect that the "People" or the State will prosecute her?

 

[Playball40]

There is NO statute of limitations in Arizona regarding "sexual conduct with a minor who is under 15 years of age". Crimes under a 2 to 6 class felony include "sexual conduct with a minor at least 15 year of age" generally have a 7 year statute of limitations. If Olivas was indeed 14 when he had a sexual encounter with a 20 year old female, it still stands today as a class 1 felony and can result in charges being pressed by the State against the said female.

There is a serious issue here with the State which will track down Olivas, and had to obtain the information regarding his age at the time of the sexual encounter but somehow there is no communication between the State and a DA signaling that Jane Doe at the age of 20 had a sexual encounter with a minor who was then under the age of 15.

Since the entire story is out in the media, are we to expect that the "People" or the State will prosecute her?

Interesting. I wonder if there is more to this story. If he wanted his daughter why couldn't he bring charges against her for statutory rape, if in fact, he was 14. She could be prosecuted and he could potentially get custody.

- - - Updated - - -

If he only owes $15,000 (and that includes penalties) and the child is 8 or 9, he was NOT charged back to her birth. Perhaps he was charged from the point he turned 18.

Oh well, that's okay then. And it sets up a good incentive for people who are going to statutorily rape someone: you should delay, as long as you can, raping the child you want to rape. That way, they'll be 18 sooner and then you an send them a nice 18th birthday present -- their first garnisheed wage!

Who could object, really? The median age for the children being statutorily raped will become higher! That's an outcome nearly everyone can agree is a good compromise if you're going to ignore statutory rape and hold adults responsible for being raped as children.

the point being the article may not be accurate. If in fact it is not accurate, I take the whole thing with a grain of salt.

 

[Metaphor]

Interesting. I wonder if there is more to this story. If he wanted his daughter why couldn't he bring charges against her for statutory rape, if in fact, he was 14. She could be prosecuted and he could potentially get custody.

- - - Updated - - -

If he only owes $15,000 (and that includes penalties) and the child is 8 or 9, he was NOT charged back to her birth. Perhaps he was charged from the point he turned 18.

Oh well, that's okay then. And it sets up a good incentive for people who are going to statutorily rape someone: you should delay, as long as you can, raping the child you want to rape. That way, they'll be 18 sooner and then you an send them a nice 18th birthday present -- their first garnisheed wage!

Who could object, really? The median age for the children being statutorily raped will become higher! That's an outcome nearly everyone can agree is a good compromise if you're going to ignore statutory rape and hold adults responsible for being raped as children.

the point being the article may not be accurate. If in fact it is not accurate, I take the whole thing with a grain of salt.

Look, the circumstances of this particular case don't even matter that much. The point is, you can't suddenly become responsible for being raped as a child just because you've turned 18. It's such a monstrous moral concept it beggars belief anyone uttered it.

 

[Playball40]

I'm having trouble with the math. If the child is 8 and he is 24, then he was 22 when he found about about her (she was 6). So working backwards, if he had sex with the mother on his 14th birthday (the youngest 14 he can be) the baby would be born around October. That child would be turning six when he turned 21. Can someone please tell me how this math works? He would have had to have been at least 15 for that to work.

 

[fast]

No, a person that is guilty (legally speaking) is not therefore guilty. An innocent person that has committed no crime yet subsequently convicted is guilty (legally speaking), but we ought not therefore conclude that such a person is guilty. The lexical definition stands in strong contrast to the stipulative (hence, legal) definition.

I won't say the 20 year old is guilty, but I will say the 20 year old is guilty, where the former is legally speaking and the latter is not. Clearly, you're using the term as anyone in the legal field would, but if it's clear that she is guilty; hence, if it's clear that she committed the crime, then not being found guilty one way or the other because no charges were ever brought up has only a bearing on guilt in the legal sense--not the lexical sense.

Yes, maybe the legal sense is the only sense that matters to the courts in regards to legal issues, but we shouldn't let the convoluted different uses of words cloud our moral judgement. Outrage shouldn't be a function of a legal verdict--or lack thereof. Recall from what I said earlier, if a person has committed a crime, then that person is guilty of a crime. No differing legal usage is going to change that fact. We can presume innocence all we want.

The legal sense is the only one that matter here.

In regard to the moral issue, I noted in a previous post that from just the OP, and before reading the article, I was on Derec's side. That was my morality speaking. Morally speaking I don't feel it is right for a rape victim to have to pay child support. Unfortunately, this guy made every possible wrong decision he could have made, even after he was supposed to be all grown up and stuff. Even if there was a legal loophole in Arizona that a rape victim could not be held liable for child support (and I don't think there is) he missed his window of opportunity to take advantage of that loophole. He has no one to blame but himself for the current situation. So, any moral outrage that I may have felt is mitigated by the fact that he never once took a responsible action to attempt to right this perceived injustice.

Not acting is not a failure to act, and that distinction is important. If I have a responsibility to act then don't, then that's a failure to act responsibly, but if I can act but don't have a responsibility to, then not acting is not a failure to act responsibly.

Tell me not merely what the child could have done to prevent becoming legally bound to eventually pay support to his rapist. What obligations befell his shoulders?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In regard to the moral issue, I noted in a previous post that from just the OP, and before reading the article, I was on Derec's side. That was my morality speaking. Morally speaking I don't feel it is right for a rape victim to have to pay child support. Unfortunately, this guy made every possible wrong decision he could have made, even after he was supposed to be all grown up and stuff. Even if there was a legal loophole in Arizona that a rape victim could not be held liable for child support (and I don't think there is) he missed his window of opportunity to take advantage of that loophole. He has no one to blame but himself for the current situation. So, any moral outrage that I may have felt is mitigated by the fact that he never once took a responsible action to attempt to right this perceived injustice.

Do you feel the same way about women who are raped and don't report it?

Female rape victims are usually the ones most susceptible to end up pregnant, not male rape victims. I still fail to see why anyone would attempt to draw an analogy here and equate male and female rape victims not reporting a rape with a subsequent pregnancy. How many female rape victims with a subsequent pregnancy will be relying on the biological father to raise the child? Is that supposed to be a common phenomenon on the Northern American continent?

I don't know why you are saying what you are saying to me. I noticed that the text I quoted shows somebody losing moral outrage because a victim didn't "take a responsible action to attempt to right this perceived injustice". So I am wondering if the writer feels the same way about female rape victims who don't do anything to "right this perceived injustice". If a woman is raped, and doesn't report it to the police, does that mean the rape isn't something worthy of outrage?

 

[Toni]

There is NO statute of limitations in Arizona regarding "sexual conduct with a minor who is under 15 years of age". Crimes under a 2 to 6 class felony include "sexual conduct with a minor at least 15 year of age" generally have a 7 year statute of limitations. If Olivas was indeed 14 when he had a sexual encounter with a 20 year old female, it still stands today as a class 1 felony and can result in charges being pressed by the State against the said female.

There is a serious issue here with the State which will track down Olivas, and had to obtain the information regarding his age at the time of the sexual encounter but somehow there is no communication between the State and a DA signaling that Jane Doe at the age of 20 had a sexual encounter with a minor who was then under the age of 15.

Since the entire story is out in the media, are we to expect that the "People" or the State will prosecute her?

The real issue, aside from the one related to sexist notions about rape, is the only one the state cares about:

By pursuing the biological father, the state can recoup some money. That is all the state cares about. It is wrong. In particular, it is especially wrong because he was the victim of statutory rape but also because he does not seem to have had the requisite paternity tests so it's not certain from the article linked that he is indeed the father of the child.

He seems to see himself less as a victim of statutory rape than as a victim of a badly--wrongly--egregiously wrong policy. Suppose that it wasn't statutory rape: suppose the woman was only 14 herself or somehow, within the age spread deemed defensible by AZ: it is wrong to go after someone for child support accrued from a period of time dating back to their own child support.

As rare as this situation is (or seems to be), his isn't the worst case, which would be the boy who was sued for child support by his 34 year old convicted rapist. Or Vili Fualaau.

Everything about this case is just wrong.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Hmmm.

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/2014/09/07/few-options-for-female-sex-offender/15247919/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hmmm.

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/2014/09/07/few-options-for-female-sex-offender/15247919/

Sorry, but not having anywhere else to send her is irrelevant. They put her in jail, they have an obligation to provide a suitable place.

 

[KeepTalking]

In regard to the moral issue, I noted in a previous post that from just the OP, and before reading the article, I was on Derec's side. That was my morality speaking. Morally speaking I don't feel it is right for a rape victim to have to pay child support. Unfortunately, this guy made every possible wrong decision he could have made, even after he was supposed to be all grown up and stuff. Even if there was a legal loophole in Arizona that a rape victim could not be held liable for child support (and I don't think there is) he missed his window of opportunity to take advantage of that loophole. He has no one to blame but himself for the current situation. So, any moral outrage that I may have felt is mitigated by the fact that he never once took a responsible action to attempt to right this perceived injustice.

Do you feel the same way about women who are raped and don't report it?

I feel the same way about anyone who says they are the victim of a crime, but do not report it within the statute of limitations.

How I feel about what the person went through, however, would depend on the specifics of the unreported crime.

In this specific case, it does not seem that the person in question felt very victimized until the State came after his pocket book nearly a decade later, so I'm not going to lose any sleep wondering how bad life must have been for him during that time.

 

[KeepTalking]

He has no one to blame but himself for the current situation.

You don't seem to care about blaming the victim, so I'm sure I can't persuade you, but he does have one other person to blame.

The woman who raped him.

And you don't seem to care about understanding my position at all, because that could not be farther from the truth.

Exactly how is the woman who raped him to blame for his not reporting it?

 

[KeepTalking]

The legal sense is the only one that matter here.

In regard to the moral issue, I noted in a previous post that from just the OP, and before reading the article, I was on Derec's side. That was my morality speaking. Morally speaking I don't feel it is right for a rape victim to have to pay child support. Unfortunately, this guy made every possible wrong decision he could have made, even after he was supposed to be all grown up and stuff. Even if there was a legal loophole in Arizona that a rape victim could not be held liable for child support (and I don't think there is) he missed his window of opportunity to take advantage of that loophole. He has no one to blame but himself for the current situation. So, any moral outrage that I may have felt is mitigated by the fact that he never once took a responsible action to attempt to right this perceived injustice.

Not acting is not a failure to act, and that distinction is important. If I have a responsibility to act then don't, then that's a failure to act responsibly, but if I can act but don't have a responsibility to, then not acting is not a failure to act responsibly.

Tell me not merely what the child could have done to prevent becoming legally bound to eventually pay support to his rapist. What obligations befell his shoulders?

The obligation to report a crime. At this point, however, it seems that he may still have that option.

 

[Metaphor]

You don't seem to care about blaming the victim, so I'm sure I can't persuade you, but he does have one other person to blame.

The woman who raped him.

And you don't seem to care about understanding my position at all, because that could not be farther from the truth.

Exactly how is the woman who raped him to blame for his not reporting it?

Had he not been raped, the need to report anything at all would not have arisen.

But anyway, that's irrelevant. That a crime was perpetrated on him does not depend on whether he reported it or whether a statute of limitations prevents the State commencing a prosecution. It depends only on the fact that a crime was perpetrated against him.

You also say that there's appears to be no 'loophole' in Arizona law that a rape victim cannot be held liable for child support. First, I don't think you know what a loophole is. It's an unintended aspect of a piece of legislation, wherein legislation is exploited or used in a way that was not foreseen by the legislators. If legislators had made legislation saying 'rape victims must not be compelled to pay child support', that wouldn't be a loophole. It'd be legislation.

You also say, that, 'morally speaking', you don't think it's right for a rape victim to have to pay child support, yet your moral largesse extends only to rape victims who report their crime within the statute of limitations and act 'all grown up and stuff', so I feel that you should be adding this important qualifier to mark the limits of your sphere of moral concern.

 

[fromderinside]

NO CHOICE? Really? He chose to schlep her, he chose to potentially become a dad.

Once a pregnancy takes hold the woman has all the choice, the man has none. That should mean that the responsibility, financial or otherwise, should fall on the woman unless the man agrees to parenthood.

Responsibility should be a function of the choice people have in the matter. Currently the law doesn't reflect that as women have vast majority of the choice (in fact they are the only ones with any choice post-ejaculation) while men carry most of the financial burden (in Georgia child support can be up to 40% of a man's gross pay).

We need to dye you black and equip you with a womb. Then, perhaps, probably not, you might begin to get a hint of just how screwed up your penis enabled points of view are seen by others. The only one who can, with no more cost than getting whatever positive response society allows, impregnate is the male who, after that event and pleasure for him, has nothing to do with the production of a baby. There is no way the roles of the two parties can be equated.

Whatever punishment society chooses to hand out males deserve.

You and your precious little penis and wailing about poor me whenever you don't get your way, are getting to this oldtimer's goat. I'm thinking a little bit of "grow up and take responsibility for your actions dude" is in order.

Maybe I should have put this in rants.

 

[KeepTalking]

And you don't seem to care about understanding my position at all, because that could not be farther from the truth.

Exactly how is the woman who raped him to blame for his not reporting it?

Had he not been raped, the need to report anything at all would not have arisen.

So, she is to blame for his need to report the crime, but not for his failure to report the crime.

But anyway, that's irrelevant. That a crime was perpetrated on him does not depend on whether he reported it or whether a statute of limitations prevents the State commencing a prosecution.

But any future legal action on the part of the State, or any other party for that matter, does depend on his reporting the crime within the statute of limitations. Anyway, if Sabine is correct and there is no statute of limitations for statutory rape in Arizone, this is irrelevant as well.

You also say that there's appears to be no 'loophole' in Arizona law that a rape victim cannot be held liable for child support. First, I don't think you know what a loophole is. It's an unintended aspect of a piece of legislation, wherein legislation is exploited or used in a way that was not foreseen by the legislators. If legislators had made legislation saying 'rape victims must not be compelled to pay child support', that wouldn't be a loophole. It'd be legislation.

Also, if the sole intent of the legislation was for the State to recoup welfare costs for a single mother by going after the father for child support, this could be seen as a loophole. Perhaps a better choice of words would have been 'provision', but I don't always have the time to that precise when posting a response.

You also say, that, 'morally speaking', you don't think it's right for a rape victim to have to pay child support, yet your moral largesse extends only to rape victims who report their crime within the statute of limitations and act 'all grown up and stuff', so I feel that you should be adding this important qualifier to mark the limits of your sphere of moral concern.

Wrong. You still don't understand my argument, or you are intentionally misconstruing it, but thanks for playing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Whatever punishment society chooses to hand out males deserve.

And with that line, you have officially gone over the edge.

 

[Toni]

You don't seem to care about blaming the victim, so I'm sure I can't persuade you, but he does have one other person to blame.

The woman who raped him.

And you don't seem to care about understanding my position at all, because that could not be farther from the truth.

Exactly how is the woman who raped him to blame for his not reporting it?

Reporting a rape is difficult for any victim. Because in this case, the victim was male, there are even more barriers as rape of males by females has only been recognized as rape fairly recently. The FBI only changed their definition of rape to include the possibility of male victims of female assailants in 2012. Add in his young age and you have a perfect scenario where a victim may not realize he could report the crime. In fact, at the time of his assault, there were plenty of 'jokes' in popular media about how lucky Vili Fualaau was.

But short answer is that her rape of the victim in this case traumatized and emotionally compromised her victim to the extent that he was unable to perceive that he had been the victim of a crime or that he had any legal recourse.

 

[Derec]

Whatever punishment society chooses to hand out males deserve.

You are not even trying to pretend you are not a misandrist anymore, do you?