Rape victim ordered to pay her abuser child support

[TomC]

It is entirely possible that a rape victim had sex at other times, separate from the rape. Rape is not the same thing as getting laid or having sex. Rape is an act of force.

Of course it is.

Did Abelseth have forcible sex?

Maybe. But I don't know.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really the heart of the discussion is "corrupt judge gives corrupt asshole custody of his rape baby from a grown woman as that girl becomes the same age as her mother was when she was raped.

There's no excuse giving a sick fuck who fucks kids access to a kid the age of the kids he fucked

Yup. I want more evidence before being willing to convict on statutory rape, but there's no question the judge is nuts.

I believe that the ages of both individual are a matter of record.

I get that certain men like to delude themselves that 16 year old girls are hot for middle aged men and are oh, so tricky! Just lying little underaged slits who deserve what they get. Breaking one rule ( drinking underage) means that you’re a slut if you are a girl. For guys? Raping someone just makes the man a victim, it’s not really rape after all. Not if he deluded himself that she wanted it.

I would like to remind everyone that she did not allege merely statutory rape—which it ibviousky was. She alleged forcible rape. I believe her, but it is always difficult to price forcible rape the further in the past the rape occurred.

The thing is I've seen so many contradictory claims about what happened that I'm not sure he didn't have reason to believe she was legal. I think he probably didn't care but the mess I've seen so far doesn't rise to the level of proving this beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'm very reluctant on claims of forcible rape long after the fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think they are saying deserving of it. The point that some are trying to make is she "wanted" it. And as long as she wanted it, and there are enough ambiguous signs, it is okay because no harm, no foul.

I don't think it's no-harm-no-foul, but rather not considering it enough to prove wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Toni]

It is entirely possible that a rape victim had sex at other times, separate from the rape. Rape is not the same thing as getting laid or having sex. Rape is an act of force.

Of course it is.

Did Abelseth have forcible sex?

Maybe. But I don't know.
Tom

There is no such thing as ‘forcible sex.’ The term is rape. It is indeed an ugly, violent act.

What is known with absolute certainty is that Barnes raped her.

 

[Toni]

Really the heart of the discussion is "corrupt judge gives corrupt asshole custody of his rape baby from a grown woman as that girl becomes the same age as her mother was when she was raped.

There's no excuse giving a sick fuck who fucks kids access to a kid the age of the kids he fucked

Yup. I want more evidence before being willing to convict on statutory rape, but there's no question the judge is nuts.

I believe that the ages of both individual are a matter of record.

I get that certain men like to delude themselves that 16 year old girls are hot for middle aged men and are oh, so tricky! Just lying little underaged slits who deserve what they get. Breaking one rule ( drinking underage) means that you’re a slut if you are a girl. For guys? Raping someone just makes the man a victim, it’s not really rape after all. Not if he deluded himself that she wanted it.

I would like to remind everyone that she did not allege merely statutory rape—which it ibviousky was. She alleged forcible rape. I believe her, but it is always difficult to price forcible rape the further in the past the rape occurred.

The thing is I've seen so many contradictory claims about what happened that I'm not sure he didn't have reason to believe she was legal. I think he probably didn't care but the mess I've seen so far doesn't rise to the level of proving this beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'm very reluctant on claims of forcible rape long after the fact.

It doesn’t matter whether or not he knew. It was statutory rape by definition. There is no controversy over that except fir those who think that men should be able to have sex with anyone they want whether or not the other person can legally consent.

 

[laughing dog]

So, if someone is raped, one 'got laid?'

If someone gets pregnant, they got laid.

Women who become pregnant via artificial insemination did not get laid.

Rape victims are not laid.

How hard is that to understand?

 

[Arctish]

So, if someone is raped, one 'got laid?'

If someone gets pregnant, they got laid.

Women who become pregnant via artificial insemination did not get laid.

Rape victims are not laid.

How hard is that to understand?

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Getting laid and getting raped are two different things.

Statutory rape is not always forcible but it is always non-consensual.

I think it's reasonable to believe a drunk teenager made poor choices. It is my impression Barnes offered to give her a ride home and then took her to his home, not her home. He may have been just as drunk (drunk driving, anyone?) but she had good reason to be alarmed to find herself in a stranger's home and at his mercy.

She says she did not consent to having sex. By law, she couldn't. Either way and both ways, an adult man had non-consensual sex with a minor. That's a criminal act and it's being swept under the rug by people trying to 'both sides' the discussion.

 

[Jarhyn]

Really the heart of the discussion is "corrupt judge gives corrupt asshole custody of his rape baby from a grown woman as that girl becomes the same age as her mother was when she was raped.

There's no excuse giving a sick fuck who fucks kids access to a kid the age of the kids he fucked

Yup. I want more evidence before being willing to convict on statutory rape, but there's no question the judge is nuts.

Perhaps you don't understand what "statutory rape" means. If she was under the age of consent, it is statutory rape. IT really is that fucking simple.

Indeed. If a girl under the age of consent becomes pregnant, then there's no possibility in law that a statutory rape has not occurred; The only remaining possible doubt is the identity of the perpetrator. And given a suspect, it is a simple matter today to use a DNA test to determine whether or not a particular individual is that perpetrator.

The only room for doubt is where no suspect can be found (or all those found are proven not guilty by DNA testing); Or where the police and/or courts refuse to do their jobs.

And in the latter case, you not only have undeniable evidence of statutory rape, you also have undeniable evidence that the authorities are cool with statutory rape occurring and going unpunished in their jurisdiction - which should itself be a crime, and is certainly not acceptable in any polity that wishes to consider itself to be civilised.

Pregnancy before 16 indicates statutory rape for anyone. There is no question of suspect. The suspect volunteered claim as the father of the child.

There's always a question about suspects until there's hard scientific evidence.

People lie all the time, and we shouldn't believe them even if they're admitting to a crime, without corroborating evidence.

The claim was used and legally acknowledged, in a successful attempt to gain custody of a child. If someone stands on "that is my child" they necessarily stand on "I raped that person."

 

[bilby]

Really the heart of the discussion is "corrupt judge gives corrupt asshole custody of his rape baby from a grown woman as that girl becomes the same age as her mother was when she was raped.

There's no excuse giving a sick fuck who fucks kids access to a kid the age of the kids he fucked

Yup. I want more evidence before being willing to convict on statutory rape, but there's no question the judge is nuts.

Perhaps you don't understand what "statutory rape" means. If she was under the age of consent, it is statutory rape. IT really is that fucking simple.

Indeed. If a girl under the age of consent becomes pregnant, then there's no possibility in law that a statutory rape has not occurred; The only remaining possible doubt is the identity of the perpetrator. And given a suspect, it is a simple matter today to use a DNA test to determine whether or not a particular individual is that perpetrator.

The only room for doubt is where no suspect can be found (or all those found are proven not guilty by DNA testing); Or where the police and/or courts refuse to do their jobs.

And in the latter case, you not only have undeniable evidence of statutory rape, you also have undeniable evidence that the authorities are cool with statutory rape occurring and going unpunished in their jurisdiction - which should itself be a crime, and is certainly not acceptable in any polity that wishes to consider itself to be civilised.

Pregnancy before 16 indicates statutory rape for anyone. There is no question of suspect. The suspect volunteered claim as the father of the child.

There's always a question about suspects until there's hard scientific evidence.

People lie all the time, and we shouldn't believe them even if they're admitting to a crime, without corroborating evidence.

The claim was used and legally acknowledged, in a successful attempt to gain custody of a child. If someone stands on "that is my child" they necessarily stand on "I raped that person."

Sure. But as it's possible to determine (indeed, easy to determine) for sure whether or not they are lying, it would be reasonable to expect the authorities to do exactly that.

That they haven't is yet another failure of the system which seems to have handled this case so badly that it's difficult to see how it could possibly not be a deliberate perversion of the course of justice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am pretty sure there was a dna test.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can we please lock this? It doesn't stop skipping.

 

[Jarhyn]

Really the heart of the discussion is "corrupt judge gives corrupt asshole custody of his rape baby from a grown woman as that girl becomes the same age as her mother was when she was raped.

There's no excuse giving a sick fuck who fucks kids access to a kid the age of the kids he fucked

Yup. I want more evidence before being willing to convict on statutory rape, but there's no question the judge is nuts.

Perhaps you don't understand what "statutory rape" means. If she was under the age of consent, it is statutory rape. IT really is that fucking simple.

Indeed. If a girl under the age of consent becomes pregnant, then there's no possibility in law that a statutory rape has not occurred; The only remaining possible doubt is the identity of the perpetrator. And given a suspect, it is a simple matter today to use a DNA test to determine whether or not a particular individual is that perpetrator.

The only room for doubt is where no suspect can be found (or all those found are proven not guilty by DNA testing); Or where the police and/or courts refuse to do their jobs.

And in the latter case, you not only have undeniable evidence of statutory rape, you also have undeniable evidence that the authorities are cool with statutory rape occurring and going unpunished in their jurisdiction - which should itself be a crime, and is certainly not acceptable in any polity that wishes to consider itself to be civilised.

Pregnancy before 16 indicates statutory rape for anyone. There is no question of suspect. The suspect volunteered claim as the father of the child.

There's always a question about suspects until there's hard scientific evidence.

People lie all the time, and we shouldn't believe them even if they're admitting to a crime, without corroborating evidence.

The claim was used and legally acknowledged, in a successful attempt to gain custody of a child. If someone stands on "that is my child" they necessarily stand on "I raped that person."

Sure. But as it's possible to determine (indeed, easy to determine) for sure whether or not they are lying, it would be reasonable to expect the authorities to do exactly that.

That they haven't is yet another failure of the system which seems to have handled this case so badly that it's difficult to see how it could possibly not be a deliberate perversion of the course of justice.

In many cases, and I would argue this is one such, it does not matter if they are telling the truth.

They are making an admission of guilt and pleading to it in a court of law. When people plead guilty to crimes, generally the process is not to have a trial, it's to accept a verdict of guiltiness.

If he wants the acknowledgement of fatherhood unto custody, he must accept the guilt of rape.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Saying she got laid is not a fact because of the connotation of fun and consent.

What?

She got pregnant. Therefore, she got laid.

Is that a question?
Tom

And next on National Geographic History, we discuss wars in Africa and the growing use of getting laid as a weapon of war.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would like to remind everyone that she did not allege merely statutory rape—which it ibviousky was. She alleged forcible rape. I believe her, but it is always difficult to price forcible rape the further in the past the rape occurred.

Yep. She alleged forcible rape. Statutory rape is simply fact, as the ages of both parties are a matter of public record, as is the date of the rape and consequent conception.

 

[Emily Lake]

Really the heart of the discussion is "corrupt judge gives corrupt asshole custody of his rape baby from a grown woman as that girl becomes the same age as her mother was when she was raped.

There's no excuse giving a sick fuck who fucks kids access to a kid the age of the kids he fucked

Yup. I want more evidence before being willing to convict on statutory rape, but there's no question the judge is nuts.

Perhaps you don't understand what "statutory rape" means. If she was under the age of consent, it is statutory rape. IT really is that fucking simple.

Seriously, if the guy was 19, hell even 20, I'd give this some credence. But when the guy is IN HIS THIRTIES, I'm going to agree with Jarhyn's assessment that this is a sick fuck who likes to fuck kids.

 

[Emily Lake]

Except you DO seem to have decided - you've decided in favor of Barnes.

Except that I've never said that.

As far as I know, Barnes brought all this upon himself.
Even supposing that Abelseth targeted him as a baby daddy, and lied as much as she had to get his baby, the fact remains. Barnes picked it. He doesn't even have youth as an excuse for being painfully stupid, like Abelseth did.

Maybe he was tipsy, horny, and a hot girl came on to him like gangbusters. That doesn't change the fact that he put his own dick into the blender. He picked this. He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

I can't work up so much as a tear...

I'm not remotely on Barnes' side. Neither do I believe anything just because Abelseth claims it.
Tom

Then you're doing a piss-poor job of expressing that. I'm basing this on comments like the following:

He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21.
Tom

Almost none of the details are proven.
She had an alcoholic beverage in a public place, minimum drinking age 21.
The age of consent, I presume is 17 or 18. Even if she told him she was underage to buy alcohol, she'd still have been old enough to have sex legally.

Heck, she could have "admitted" to only being 18. Nobody really knows what happened, probably not even Abelseth and Barnes. It was 16 years prior and alcohol was involved.
Tom

The non-costodial parent is being required to pay child support.
I don't see that as a problem.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

You know who I feel the worst about in the Abelseth/Barnes thing? The Daughter. She didn't pick any of this, her parents did.

Well, you blamed the mom for everything because she had a fake id, so maybe the daughter had a fake id, too.

He merely ASSUMED Abelseth had a fake id. There's no actual evidence of this, but he assumed it anyway.

 

[Emily Lake]

You characterized the mother as "she got laid."

Did it happen?

Am I mischaracterizing Abelseth as "she got laid"?

Is that a fact or something else?
Tom

Seriously, bro. Conflating "she got laid" with "she got raped" is some pretty blatant disingenuousness. You know better. Just fess up, take the one-time hit, and move on. Stop digging your hole deeper and deeper, you're going to hit lava any moment now.

 

[Emily Lake]

Saying she got laid is not a fact because of the connotation of fun and consent.

What?

She got pregnant. Therefore, she got laid.

Is that a question?
Tom

Yep, she totally did it to herself. She got herself laid, and got herself preggers.

This is a level of glossing over rape that floors me.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes.

"Got laid" is an objective observation.

It's not a value judgement or a moral pronouncement. It's just a statement about reality. "Had sex" and "got laid" are the same thing.
Tom

JFC.

Imagine I were to grab you by the neck and slam your face into a doorknob, fracturing your orbital socket. Would you be so incredibly sanguine as to say "I bumped my head on a doorknob"?

If a kid shows up covered in bruises from their parent beating the crap out of them, would you say "he fell down" because it's technically true that the worst of the bruises came from falling down the stairs after having been pushed by an abusive parent?