Female privilege

[fast]

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.

The message that I'm getting from you is that we have an obligation to report a crime. There are a few things I need to mention. First, I may come to agree with you on this matter, but I need to make sure I'm not myself falling victim to misguided beliefs of others. I do believe there are circumstances whereby people do have a responsibility to report certain crimes, but it should be noted that many people are seemingly forever claiming responsibilities where there are none.

It's a hot button topic, but consider tipping. We do not have an obligation, a duty, nor a responsibility to tip others, yet it's spoken incorrectly that we do. Is it a custom? Sure, but there is no legal responsibility, and even if there is some other kind of responsibility, then surely that's a topic for another thread. My point begins and ends with conveying the tendency of others to say things merely because they believe it to be the case, and since you're most interested in the legal aspects of this issue, I'm all too happy to switch my position if it can be demonstrated that we do in fact have a responsibility to report a crime--and such demonstration not be limited to logical argumentation alone.

The other issue is to make sure it's indeed applicable. Even if it's true (which I'm willing to concede it is) that we do have certain responsibilities to report certain crimes, then we still need to make sure it also pertains to the reporting of an adult raping a child. Further still, we must remember that if you're imbuing the victim with having responsibilities to report, not only must it be the case that the reporting of such crimes is a responsibility, it must also be applicable to the minor in question. Finally, from where does this responsibility originate? I do hope it's a legal responsibility, for if it isn't, then you're going to have a time substantiating the claim that there is in fact a genuine responsibility.

I'll stand by what I said. If there is a responsibility to act, then not acting is a failure to act, but absent the responsibility, then no such inaction is a failure.

 

[fromderinside]

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

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

What is your problem with society choosing to do something? In our culture we make laws in accordance with what society chooses. Males deserve to be sanctioned because many consistently to overstep their rights to get what they want in sexual matters and then they whine because they didn't get what they wanted. Poor lads. I was able to navigate sexual intercourse without overstepping those bounds and come out with a 48 year marriage still flying along, three well adjusted children, and some grand kids. BTW they agree with me and we are all getting along.

No Ray Rice incidents and NFL trickery with us.

Male sexual arrogance really doesn't look good on anyone who wears it.

 

[Derec]

What is your problem with society choosing to do something? In our culture we make laws in accordance with what society chooses.

So I guess you are ok with anti-woman bias in many Islamic countries we well then? If whatever a society chooses to do is automatically ok? Or is female supremacism the only ok doctrine here?

Males deserve to be sanctioned because many consistently to overstep their rights to get what they want in sexual matters and then they whine because they didn't get what they wanted. Poor lads.

Yes, 13 year old taken advantage of by 20 year olds really "overstep their rights" in "sexual matters".
When people, regardless of gender, violate somebody else's rights they should be sanctioned. What is not ok is to punish an entire group (gender here, but race or sexual orientation works equally well) just because you harbor a personal animus against that group.

I was able to navigate sexual intercourse without overstepping those bounds and come out with a 48 year marriage still flying along, three well adjusted children, and some grand kids. BTW they agree with me and we are all getting along.

In that case I would question how well adjusted they are.

Male sexual arrogance really doesn't look good on anyone who wears it.

What about female sexual arrogance? Like when a 20 year old woman takes advantage of a 13 year old boy and then wants child support?

 

[fromderinside]

So I guess you are ok with anti-woman bias in many Islamic countries we well then? If whatever a society chooses to do is automatically ok? Or is female supremacism the only ok doctrine here?

Males deserve to be sanctioned because many consistently to overstep their rights to get what they want in sexual matters and then they whine because they didn't get what they wanted. Poor lads.

Yes, 13 year old taken advantage of by 20 year olds really "overstep their rights" in "sexual matters".
When people, regardless of gender, violate somebody else's rights they should be sanctioned. What is not ok is to punish an entire group (gender here, but race or sexual orientation works equally well) just because you harbor a personal animus against that group.

I was able to navigate sexual intercourse without overstepping those bounds and come out with a 48 year marriage still flying along, three well adjusted children, and some grand kids. BTW they agree with me and we are all getting along.

In that case I would question how well adjusted they are.

Male sexual arrogance really doesn't look good on anyone who wears it.

What about female sexual arrogance? Like when a 20 year old woman takes advantage of a 13 year old boy and then wants child support?

Geez Your whole post just justifies my critique of males whining about how abused they are by women, how inferior women are to them, how a one to one hundred ratio is an example of why males need more latitude in sexual matters. Your Islamist poke was the topper.

Whine whine whine. How about justifying male arrogance, female subjugation, and supporting with statistics how often women versus men rape. Cut the accusations and get with the evidence.

I'll be waiting.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So I guess you are ok with anti-woman bias in many Islamic countries we well then? If whatever a society chooses to do is automatically ok? Or is female supremacism the only ok doctrine here?


Yes, 13 year old taken advantage of by 20 year olds really "overstep their rights" in "sexual matters".
When people, regardless of gender, violate somebody else's rights they should be sanctioned. What is not ok is to punish an entire group (gender here, but race or sexual orientation works equally well) just because you harbor a personal animus against that group.

I was able to navigate sexual intercourse without overstepping those bounds and come out with a 48 year marriage still flying along, three well adjusted children, and some grand kids. BTW they agree with me and we are all getting along.

In that case I would question how well adjusted they are.

Male sexual arrogance really doesn't look good on anyone who wears it.

What about female sexual arrogance? Like when a 20 year old woman takes advantage of a 13 year old boy and then wants child support?

Geez Your whole post just justifies my critique of males whining about how abused they are by women, how inferior women are to them, how a one to one hundred ratio is an example of why males need more latitude in sexual matters. Your Islamist poke was the topper.

Whine whine whine. How about justifying male arrogance, female subjugation, and supporting with statistics how often women versus men rape. Cut the accusations and get with the evidence.

I'll be waiting.

i hope you packed a lunch.

Cuz you'll be waiting a long time.

 

[Playball40]

So I guess you are ok with anti-woman bias in many Islamic countries we well then? If whatever a society chooses to do is automatically ok? Or is female supremacism the only ok doctrine here?

Males deserve to be sanctioned because many consistently to overstep their rights to get what they want in sexual matters and then they whine because they didn't get what they wanted. Poor lads.

Yes, 13 year old taken advantage of by 20 year olds really "overstep their rights" in "sexual matters".
When people, regardless of gender, violate somebody else's rights they should be sanctioned. What is not ok is to punish an entire group (gender here, but race or sexual orientation works equally well) just because you harbor a personal animus against that group.

I was able to navigate sexual intercourse without overstepping those bounds and come out with a 48 year marriage still flying along, three well adjusted children, and some grand kids. BTW they agree with me and we are all getting along.

In that case I would question how well adjusted they are.

Male sexual arrogance really doesn't look good on anyone who wears it.

What about female sexual arrogance? Like when a 20 year old woman takes advantage of a 13 year old boy and then wants child support?

So...now he's 13? really!

 

[Derec]

So...now he's 13? really!

So he was 14. Hardly much of a difference. Hardly justifying fromderinside's sexist assertion that he was just an "entitled male" "overstepping his rights" and thus deserves to be punished. In reality fromderinside wants him punished because he was born with the wrong set of genitals!
But the boy from OP is hardly the only one to whom this has happened. Here's a genuine thirteen year old for you.

In Kansas, the courts said the same thing about a 13-year-old boy raped by his 17-year-old babysitter.

How the law punishes boys who are raped

- - - Updated - - -

i hope you packed a lunch.

Cuz you'll be waiting a long time.

Probably. I have no time for those that see nothing wrong with their overt, unabashed misandry and female supremacism.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The boy from OP is hardly the only one to whom this has happened.

In Kansas, the courts said the same thing about a 13-year-old boy raped by his 17-year-old babysitter.

How the law punishes boys who are raped

- - - Updated - - -

i hope you packed a lunch.

Cuz you'll be waiting a long time.

Probably. I have no time for those that see nothing wrong with their overt, unabashed misandry and female supremacism.

and yet you keep casting your pearls of wisdom before swine.

We really aren't worthy.

No, we really aren't.

Seriously, we're not.

Free feel to feel triumpant and drop the mic.

Like now.

Please.

 

[Derec]

Like now.

Please.

Not going to give you the satisfaction.

But should I understand your recent posts as you agreeing with fromderinside's overt anti-male sexism and his support of male rape victims being punished for it with child support?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

and yet you keep casting your pearls of wisdom before swine.

We really aren't worthy.

No, we really aren't.

Seriously, we're not.

Free feel to feel triumpant and drop the mic.

Like now.

Please.

Not going to give you the satisfaction.

But should I understand your recent posts as you agreeing with fromderinside's overt anti-male sexism and his support of male rape victims being punished for it with child support?

First, I fixed where you quoted me.

No need to thank me, just another service I provide.

Second, I do not now, nor have I ever, nor will I ever support the rape of anyone and certainly not children, regardless of gender.

Third, as long as you use words incorrectly (like privilege) or made up concepts with no basis in history or current reality (female supremacism) I will, as will others, point these mistakes out to you and to the rest of the world.

Now I realize that nuance, subtlety and complexity of thought, and ideas not based in reationary rhetoric are not your strong suits, but you do need to at least try to keep up, to somehow support what you post. If you can't, you really should just claim whatever victory you think you've won and retreat the field.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Going back to this specific case which in no way is a reflection of any male "sexual arrogance". As I had mentioned previously, what strikes me as greatly inconsistent is that this 14 year old juvenile is deemed by law to be unable to consent yet he is now expected( as an adult) to bear responsibilities regarding any subsequent consequence from his deemed non consensual sexual encounter with a 20 year old adult female.

Let's test what our response would be to this scenario :

- 2 legal adults, the male adult being highly intoxicated and deemed unable to consent. A pregnancy results from their sexual encounter. The female adult having been deemed fully conscious and in full possession of her mental capacities. Would it be a rationally supported course to conclude that he is to bear any responsibilities for any subsequent consequence to a sexual activity he could not have consented to?

Other scenario :

- 2 legal adults (by age determination), the male party being affected by a mental handicap which places him in the category of unable to consent. The female adult having been deemed to be in full possession of her mental capacities. Would it be a rationally supported course to conclude that he is to bear any responsibilities for any subsequent consequence to a sexual activity he could not have consented to?


My opinion on both scenarios is that under no circumstance should the male parties bear any responsibilities for any subsequent consequences resulting from sexual activities they could not have consented to.

A detail which was not discussed yet : in the OP presented specific case, which of the 2 parties was to be deemed able to weigh pros and cons regarding using protection during the said sexual activity? The party deemed unable to consent to the said sexual activity? If deemed unable to consent, why would there be any expectation that the juvenile party would be able to process any decision regarding the use of protection?

 

[KeepTalking]

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

The message that I'm getting from you is that we have an obligation to report a crime. There are a few things I need to mention. First, I may come to agree with you on this matter, but I need to make sure I'm not myself falling victim to misguided beliefs of others. I do believe there are circumstances whereby people do have a responsibility to report certain crimes, but it should be noted that many people are seemingly forever claiming responsibilities where there are none.

It's a hot button topic, but consider tipping. We do not have an obligation, a duty, nor a responsibility to tip others, yet it's spoken incorrectly that we do. Is it a custom? Sure, but there is no legal responsibility, and even if there is some other kind of responsibility, then surely that's a topic for another thread. My point begins and ends with conveying the tendency of others to say things merely because they believe it to be the case, and since you're most interested in the legal aspects of this issue, I'm all too happy to switch my position if it can be demonstrated that we do in fact have a responsibility to report a crime--and such demonstration not be limited to logical argumentation alone.

The other issue is to make sure it's indeed applicable. Even if it's true (which I'm willing to concede it is) that we do have certain responsibilities to report certain crimes, then we still need to make sure it also pertains to the reporting of an adult raping a child. Further still, we must remember that if you're imbuing the victim with having responsibilities to report, not only must it be the case that the reporting of such crimes is a responsibility, it must also be applicable to the minor in question. Finally, from where does this responsibility originate? I do hope it's a legal responsibility, for if it isn't, then you're going to have a time substantiating the claim that there is in fact a genuine responsibility.

I'll stand by what I said. If there is a responsibility to act, then not acting is a failure to act, but absent the responsibility, then no such inaction is a failure.

My comments regarding the male's responsibility to report the crime has always been with regard to the legal aspects of this specific case. If he expects to be legally absolved of any responsibility, then he has the responsibility to report the crime within the time period proscribed by law. Further, in this specific case, if he was initially unaware of any legal responsibility, he certainly became aware when the State first informed him of the situation. At that point they also informed him that he had 90 days to contest the paternity, and by that time he was apparently 20 years old, a legal adult. Instead of taking the responsibility, he chose to ignore the situation. Legally speaking, he is now on the hook for child support. Had he taken any responsible action at any point, my take on this specific case would be quite different.

Morally speaking, I do not think the State should be going after rape victims for child support. I would be fully behind any initiative that would correct such a moral failing in the law. Even were such a provision enacted, however, there would need to be a conviction for rape against the female in this case for the State to take action in furtherance of that provision.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Morally speaking, I do not think the State should be going after rape victims for child support. I would be fully behind any initiative that would correct such a moral failing in the law. Even were such a provision enacted, however, there would need to be a conviction for rape against the female in this case for the State to take action in furtherance of that provision.

A conviction for rape, or just proof he was under age at the time? There are a number of reasons why she may escape a conviction even if he was under age at the time and thus legally incapable of consent. And if he never consented, then why should he be held responsible? I am not seeing that logic.

 

[KeepTalking]

Morally speaking, I do not think the State should be going after rape victims for child support. I would be fully behind any initiative that would correct such a moral failing in the law. Even were such a provision enacted, however, there would need to be a conviction for rape against the female in this case for the State to take action in furtherance of that provision.

A conviction for rape, or just proof he was under age at the time? There are a number of reasons why she may escape a conviction even if he was under age at the time and thus legally incapable of consent. And if he never consented, then why should he be held responsible? I am not seeing that logic.

For it to be applied in a legal setting (i.e. a paternity suit), it would need to be a conviction for rape. Otherwise, anyone could simply claim rape, not prove a thing, and be done with it. No male who did not want to pay for child support would ever pay child support again.

 

[Metaphor]

A conviction for rape, or just proof he was under age at the time? There are a number of reasons why she may escape a conviction even if he was under age at the time and thus legally incapable of consent. And if he never consented, then why should he be held responsible? I am not seeing that logic.

For it to be applied in a legal setting (i.e. a paternity suit), it would need to be a conviction for rape. Otherwise, anyone could simply claim rape, not prove a thing, and be done with it. No male who did not want to pay for child support would ever pay child support again.

Since the sex act is not in dispute, and the age of the victim at the time is known, all the elements for unconsented sex are proved, conviction or no.

I don't need a conviction to state with certainty that a 12 year old girl with a newborn did not consent to the sex that caused her pregnancy.

 

[KeepTalking]

For it to be applied in a legal setting (i.e. a paternity suit), it would need to be a conviction for rape. Otherwise, anyone could simply claim rape, not prove a thing, and be done with it. No male who did not want to pay for child support would ever pay child support again.

Since the sex act is not in dispute, and the age of the victim at the time is known, all the elements for unconsented sex are proved, conviction or no.

I don't need a conviction to state with certainty that a 12 year old girl with a newborn did not consent to the sex that caused her pregnancy.

But you do need a conviction to imprison or fine the person who raped her.

How does your certainty with regard to the case described in the OP in any way help the male in this case? Your certainty is not in any way a legal standing, so the State cannot base any legal action on that certainty, no matter how certain you are. Certainly you can understand that.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

It's also complicated by the fact that in very many cases of statutory rape, the victim doesn't consider themselves to have been assaulted, nor even to be a victim, but to have been an active participant. It is often someone else who considers them to have been a victim by reason of their age.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How does your certainty with regard to the case described in the OP in any way help the male in this case? Your certainty is not in any way a legal standing, so the State cannot base any legal action on that certainty, no matter how certain you are. Certainly you can understand that.

Why is the onus on him? That seems backwards. Isn't it the state coming after him for child support? Shouldn't the onus be on them for proving he is the consensual father?

 

[KeepTalking]

How does your certainty with regard to the case described in the OP in any way help the male in this case? Your certainty is not in any way a legal standing, so the State cannot base any legal action on that certainty, no matter how certain you are. Certainly you can understand that.

Why is the onus on him? That seems backwards. Isn't it the state coming after him for child support? Shouldn't the onus be on them for proving he is the consensual father?

Because in the vast majority of disputed paternity cases it is the identified father who can prove or disprove the paternity. They normally do this by consenting to a paternity test. The state does not keep blood samples for every male in their jurisdiction, nor should they, so it is going to be exceedingly difficult for the State to prove paternity in the vast majority of cases without some of the onus falling on the male in question.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It seems to me the emphasis should be on the young man's age at the time of conception. All parties stipulate to the paternity of the child in question, but at the time of conception the father was also a child. And if we are to have consistency not just in the law, but in the principles on which we base that law, then a child at fourteen is a child at fourteen regardless of gender.