Court Rules Boy Must Pay Child Support to His Rapist

I met my partner when he was 16. I was 32.

Had we been in the US I might have been classed as a "rapist".

I think that's wrong. There comes time in a person's life when he or she is mature enough to make decisons about their lives - For some that age is 15, for some it is 18, for some it is even older.

I'm torn because I can admit that I feel different when the "victim" is female. A double standard I know, but I can't help it.

I actually worried about my own sexuality after we met and I knew I wanted to be with him. I wondered if I was preying on him, if I was a predator - the very people I and society hate.

He's 20 now and we are still going strong, to those who might think it was purely a physical thing.

The point I am making is that though law might have to be absolute, real life isn't.

You are a predator, there is no excemption from the law, and you just admitted yourself to rape, pedophilia, and child molestation. I hope abovetopsecret turns your info over to the law, and you are persecuted to the extreme. I am a man, and I believe strongly in equality. if I was a 39yr man, and had sex with a 16yr woman, its rape, and child molestation. It doesn't matter if she consented, nor does it matter that your victim consented. You should be in jail, and the 19yr girl should too.

Camain

reply to post by camain


LoL.

And of course there are people who are also absolute in their thinking.

Thankfully, in the UK, the age of consent is 16 - Does that still make me criminal, even if the law says I'm not?

Of course you have the right to your opinion.

reply to post by WyrdeOne


That girl is a rapist and a paedofile. thats what the law says and that is what she is - a convicted child molestor

she raped him and now stands to gain from the crime she commited

if you are in the U.K. and the laws are different, then you are subject to those laws. All I can say is that if you are in the U.S. then you would have broken the law. I would be glad that you live in U.K. then if I were you, as if you lived in the U.S. you would be in jail for 5-20.

I am not trying to personally attack you. My point is that woman beg, whine, bitch, and complain about equality. They want all the equality out there, just as long as they get preferential treatment because there women. I disagree. Equality is Equality, through and through, until we have equality in the judicial, they can't expect to make as much as a man, or have equality in anything else.

Camain

reply to post by camain


I agreee. The inequality between the sexes is wrong. It is one reason I was so conflicted - Having grown up in the states I knew what the law was there and I almost felt guilty because the law was different here. If my niece who is 15 brought home a man of 35 I'd be angry at the man - I'd think it was a crime and want him persecuted - That seems irrational I know considering my own cirumstances but alas I struggle regularly with the fact that emotions are something I most often cannot control.

Had I been in the US when I met my partner I would not have consumated the relationship until he turned of age.

Law by it's nature probably should be absolute but in scenarios such as one outlined by the OP law isn't always just.

It's a dilema, that's for sure.

As far as the statuatory rape concept, I think everyone has things backwards.

When if comes to consensual sex, the females have the control most of the time, at least in these modern time. An attractive fifteen year old girl, or nineteen year old girl, or thirteen year old girl, can seduce a boy or a man far easier than the other way around. People want to pretend that girls are not sexually attracted to men, but that is nonsense. A great many teenage girls lust after men older than 18, even as old as their forties and more considering on the male. When a nineteen year old girl, or thirty year old woman has sex with an underage boy, she is most likely far more guilty of intitiating the sex. Where as in modern society, when a girl has consensual sex with a man, chances are good that she initiated the act, that she seduced him.

Unless there is some evidence of coersion, if a teenage girl has sex with a man, or a man/boy, because many nineteen year olds are emotionally boys, chances are that the girl initiated the seduction. The courts have given far too much power to women in these matters. In fact, the position of most people on this matter is horribly hypocritical.

Historically it has been more common for young girls to date older men, and in the past, a fifteen year old girl marrying a twenty something man was not unusual. Our sexual hormones are wired that way.

If I had a nineteen year old boy who got a fifteen year old girl pregnant, and I found our her father was coming after my boy, I'd take him out first. Maybe his daughter has already made the rounds, if you know what I mean. Don't blame others because you failed as a father.
If we aren't going to prosecute women with equal force of the law, then the law should be eliminated. The fourteenth amendment should apply to everyone.

As far as the custody situation goes, the boy should be given joint legal and physical custody of the child, and equal time with the child. If the best interest of the child are to be taken into consideration, the child has a right to a father. This should be the standard circumstances. The roles of fathers are every bit as important in the upbringing of a child as they are a mother.

Notice the girl has a step father? Chances are she never had a real father figure in her life. This is one of the biggest problems in our society today. Child custody should always be shared, unless one of the parents is unwilling to raise the child. Children need both parents active in their lives, and one day of a week is not adequate to fulfill the role.

Joint/equal custody of children should be the legal standard in this country. A hundred years ago, in any divorce case, the father usually got the children because the mother was unable to support them. When most people lived on farms, the role of the father was always very central in the upbringing of children, and we need to return to that arrangement.

If women couldn't get divorced and get everything they wanted, you can bet there would be a whole lot less divorce in this country. The current legal attitude on this is a disaster and an abomination.

reply to post by poet1b


I respect your opinion. But I humbly disagree.

The law cannot distinguish the intent in these cases when one of the parties is a minor. It's simply a matter of a standard adopted by the law. Initiatives to address this issue can be carried out via legislative means, but until such time as it is, you are sexually a 'child' until your reach your 18th year of life, here in the US.

There is no arguing with a stop sign. That's what the age limit is meant to be.

reply to post by Maxmars


depends on the state you live in actually - the age of consent varies from 18 in Calif to 13 in PA (4 years or less age difference)

was involved in a discussion about this a few years ago hence why i know about the different states in the US

the average age of consent is 16 within the USA.

reply to post by Harlequin


Thank you for that correction. My bad. Each state legislates it's own threshold.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was only referring to what I know locally.

of course - but thats the misnomer - whilst you of course know your own state - you might scream and shout if some 14 year olds were `at it all ngiht` in PA , where that is perfectly legal , and yet the same in TN would land them in jail for a long long time.

I find it amazing how far from the natural order of things we’ve gotten with our laws. Every one of us have in our quite recent past a relative who married young. My mother was 16 when she married, and there was no scandal. Men are by nature attracted to the young; it’s a matter of procreation. Likewise, women are attracted to men of means, which often is an older man. It’s nature at work. Men are instinctually driven to a mate that will bear him many offspring. Women are instinctually driven to a mate that can best support and care for those children. It’s true that young folk are far more easily taken advantage of by those older and wiser, but that’s where the parents come in. If the parents are concerned and involved (an unfortunate rarity today), then they will vet any potential suitor and see that their child is given the best possible opportunity. As always, the parents will do better for their own children than the gov and their laws ever could. There are bad parents to be sure, and no law will ever change that. Government however, has a far greater potential for evil IMO, and any error should be on the side of individual choice. If a minor and their parents think that marriage or it’s modern equivalent is a good idea, who am I to object?

reply to post by camain


Actually no she would not get 5-20. You apparently don't have a clue. I've seen severe child predators (true child molesters where the children are under 12!) get probation as long as they do "counseling"!!! And most of them not a select few. We'd rather fill our prisons with pot heads and addicts who truly need the counseling.

And she wouldn't have got in trouble in every state, a lot of states legal consent is 16. Hell just a few years ago Utah had a legal consent of 14! Look into the law before you start preaching ignorance.

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by camain

 

Hell just a few years ago Utah had a legal consent of 14! Look into the law before you start preaching ignorance.

I think if they had their way, Utah would probably set the age of consent at the first onset of menses. Possibly not the best state to point at as having a "surprisingly" low AoC.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Well apparently it's still 14 in PA, so.....

I say that she would be in jail for 5 - 20 because it really depends on what the prosecutor decides to nail her with, if she goes to trial, or if she takes a settlement. She could get 5 years, that being 1 yr served, 4 years probation, and counseling, but I'm not the prosecutor and I really don't know. Please try to keep your posts civil toward me, as I didn't do anything to warrant your attack, as thats what I percieved anyway. I have had friends locked up for alot of b.s. charges, and it all comes down to how hard the prosecution wants to push it, and how much are you willing to confess. In the justice system you are the one that puts the nails in your own coffin most of the time.

Cheers,

Camain

"He has nightmares, he is stressed out," she said. "He is a father, even though it was a crime for him to be a father. His life is changed forever."

From his mothers statement it doesn't sound like he was bragging about his getting laid and the fruit of his majestic loins. Sounds more like a young kid struggling with bigger issues than he should at that age. Family court is hard enough on adults let alone children.

reply to post by Maxmars


Agree. This is a case of law, not of public sentiment.

The decision will get overturned on appeal, no question.

Originally posted by Shere Khaan

"He has nightmares, he is stressed out," she said. "He is a father, even though it was a crime for him to be a father. His life is changed forever."

From his mothers statement it doesn't sound like he was bragging about his getting laid and the fruit of his majestic loins. Sounds more like a young kid struggling with bigger issues than he should at that age. Family court is hard enough on adults let alone children.

Of course he's stressed out.. hes 15 with a child on the way and he has to pay $200 a month child support. That may be no large amount for you or me, but for a 15 year old thats quite a bit, and you can bet your bottom dollar the child support will get higher as he gets older.

I'd be having nightmares as well if I were in a situation like this.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by ben420]