If you're a rapist, you should not get custody of your kid. The raped parent should have the option of custody if they want it, other wise it should be placed for adoption.

Tearing a child away from the only parent it has ever known and putting it into the foster system is a very evil act in my book. Ditto with handing it over to someone who only wants it for the money. Fixing our laws on child support would be far preferable.

So Nick is not legally an adult until age of 18, he's raped at the age of 14, when he's 20 they go after him for 6 years of child support? From 14 to 18 he's a minor; being held responsible for those 4 years is assinine. Worst case, I'd say 2 years from 18 to 20 and he gets visitation and all other rights as of now.

Of course the true point is that making the victim responsible is the true tragedy, regardless the sex of the victim.

Tearing a child away from the only parent it has ever known and putting it into the foster system is a very evil act in my book.

Posted by: Ben at September 4, 2014 5:10 AM

Leaving a child in the custody of a known child-rapist is a more evil act in my book.

Sometimes all of a child's custody options are some shade of damaging:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/discarded-children-bring-checks-adoptive-parents-gave-article-1.1862778

"2 years from 18 to 20 and he gets visitation and all other rights as of now."

The problem with that, is would we require a female victim to interact with their rapist in this way. You want visitation, you have to be on your best behavior with your rapist, make arrangements with them as to when you meet if you ever want to see your child.

Joe: basically if he's on the hook for child support, he's allowed the same rights as anyone else paying child support. Visitation if he wants it.

Female victim; if her rapist is paying child support, then he can petition for visitation, the courts can then decide yea or nay. Same standard, sex of victim doesn't matter.

Worst case, I'd say 2 years from 18 to 20 and he gets primary custody if he wants that and all other rights as of now.

Fixed it for ya. Also: is there a statute of limitations on her sexual assault? if not, charge her and toss her in a cell for a while. And then make sure she's on the sexual predator list, and thus can only visit her child with court approved nannies in tow.

As we are constantly told women mature faster than men, shouldnt the penalties for having sex with underage boys be greater?

The response of the boy in this case should be to become as dependent as possible on the state, to cause the state to expend as much money as possible, not to make the state's burden as light as possible. The state must be made as financially responsible as possible.

I take it that Charlotte Allen would be ok charging me with corruption of a minor if I were to seduce a 15 year old girl?

Really?

The issue is one of consent. If you are, by legal definition, unable to consent, you can not consent no matter how much you say yes and anyone engaging in such activity with you is also guilty, by definition, of a crime of sexual assault.

As alleged adults, the adults should know better.

Charlotte seems to have a problem with the concept of "too young" - to understand the consequences, to give consent, to be anything but manipulated by the adult in the scenario.

Well, for males, anyway.

I would just LOVE to punch Charlotte Allen in the face. ...and it shouldn't be a crime because I'm a woman, right?

@IRA:

I take it that Charlotte Allen would be ok charging me with corruption of a minor if I were to seduce a 15 year old girl?

Really?

What if a minor student was really, really enthralled with his or her hot teacher? Does criminality really depend on the sex of the teacher? Back to IRA's topic of consent.

Charlotte Allen is neither witty nor wise, and should cease tweeting until she learns wit or wisdom.

Get in line, Sofar.

Charlotte Allen. Feminists 'invented' male rape? You're kidding right?

You must also believe that if a woman wore a short skirt she must have been asking for it, right? Oh wait, she must have wanted it because she didn't say no.

You are part of the problem, Charlotte. You are the reason young boys are afraid to come forward when they've been victimized by adults. You are the reason young men turn to drugs or suicide when the pain of being victimezed over and over again by not only thier violators but those who refused to believe them becomes too deep. You are the reason child molesters and rapist are free to walk the earth, victimizing more children.

I'm sure you sleep well at night assured in your views on male rape, Charlotte. I hope that you never find yourself the victim of an unwanted sexual encounter. I hope that you do not continually feel violated every time you have to tell the story to yet another male detectives who barely look at you. I hope the cops do not ask you questions like "what were you wearing?" or "had you been drinking?" or "did he hit you?" or "why didn't you run away?" or "why were you alone with him?". I hope you don't feel victimized again after the cops dismiss your claims as unfounded because "you orgasmed" or "we can't find any evidence of a struggle". I hope that your friend doesn't think you're being overdramatic and tell you "just get over it already." I hope your partner is understanding and patient when you are unable to be intimate with them only weeks afterward. I hope your victimizer isn't someone that you know so you have to see them every day, reliving your attack with every encounter. I hope that you don't fall into a deep depression and lose all sense of security and safety. I hope the pain isn't deep that you take your own life.

It's not really rape unless you're tied up and unable to fight, right?

Yes, it's a horrible double standard and needs to be stopped. Right with you, sofar.

However, regarding those statutory rape cases when NO baby exists, I only wish that MRAs were as hard on men who commit the crime as they are on women - but they never are. Either they argue, in effect, that a man's right to have casual sex with practical strangers is so important that it's too much "work" for men to find out just how young the girl is (preferably by asking a third party) - or, if a man already KNOWS her age and the laws, MRAs talk as if adult males should have no restrictions on their behavior, because "consent" is all that matters. In short, they argue that such laws should be abolished. Not nice.

I know a lot of people, male and female, who say they had sex with adults when they themselves were minors. The elder partners were coaches, babysitters, friends' older siblings, and parents' friends.

I actually tend to agree with Charlotte that a boy in this situation is not being victimized in quite the same way a girl is, and I would say he is less likely to suffer emotional damage, UNTIL you factor in STDs and pregnancy. Now you're saddling a kid with risks and responsibilities that, by law, he's too young to accept from you.

If a pregnancy results from an illegal sexual union, the "victimized" party should have the option of bowing out financially.

In more general terms, if a rape (male on female, violent) results in a pregnancy, does the rapist have any right to access to his child? anyone know?

Charlotte Allen is being purposely provocative. Either that or she is both willfully ignorant and downright cruel.

I've found some relevant linkies:

Allegations of sexual misconduct by teachers: Is there a gender bias?

Second one:

Ex-ND teacher gets 60 days in jail for sex crime

Pull quote Judge Bruce Romanick has ruled that 35-year-old Susan Duursma won't have to register as a sex offender.

What did she do? Duursma was charged in September with three counts of felony corruption or solicitation of a minor. Authorities say she had sexual contact with the then-15-year-old male student from March 2013 to July 2013.

This moron Allen brings up 'agency'.. Newsflash, underage persons don't have legal agency! They legally cannot consent to sex, therefore they don't have agency, therefore you are a misandrist c--t Mizz Allen.

In more general terms, if a rape (male on female, violent) results in a pregnancy, does the rapist have any right to access to his child? anyone know?

Posted by: Insufficient Poison at September 4, 2014 9:42 AM
______________________________

20 years ago, at least, yes, a man convicted of rape DID have certain rights to the resulting child. Not sure how the laws have changed, if at all.

I remember back a couple of years ago, the story of a minor teenager being raped by his teacher and his parents prosecuting full throttle. Even though the consensus may be that boys handle this differently than girls, the parents of that boy knew without a doubt that a crime had occurred. They knew their kid, knew his former and current state of mind, and were able to see that he had been harmed by the relationship. I get that some minors are not that harmed, but these laws are in place to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Boy or girl, you can be victimized.

You can't rape a boy because it requires agency on his part?

Doesn't she know teenage girls are equally aggresive in that regard? Or does "agency" only apply to boners?

What about female teacher to female student rape? No cock involved so is it rape?

The whole point of these laws is that minors can't give consent no mater how aroused they might be.

Tell Charlotte Allen she's a fucking moron, and you can tell her I said that.

Statutory rape has nothing to do with consent. It has to do with having sex with a minor, even if the minor apparently consents. And if an of-age woman is having sex with an underage male, she's a rapist. Not because the boy didn't consent, but because in the eyes of the law, he's too young to give his consent.

Statutory rape is one of the few "strict liability" crimes. To explain what that is, most crimes require "mens rea [Latin for 'guilty mind']," meaning that you have to be aware of what you're doing. You cannot "unknowingly" or "accidentally" murder someone. Because without mens rea, it's not murder.

Strict liability doesn't require mens rea. Drunk driving is a good example. Doesn't matter if you know what you're doing or not. You're doing it, you're guilty.

Arguably the worst (and most dangerous) of all strict liability crimes is statutory rape. Here's how most of them work. Doesn't matter if you have consent or not; if you're having sex with a minor, you're guilty of statutory rape. If you don't even know that the minor is under age -- for instance, if they present a convincing fake I.D. that's so good, they can buy booze with it, and you're utterly convinced that they are of age -- you're still guilty.

(Any unintentional misinformation can be corrected by Isab.)

But the point is, contrary to what Charlotte believes, you don't have to tie up an underage male to be guilty of rape. Just have sex. Did I mention Charlotte is a fucking moron?

Ben: Tearing a child away from the only parent it has ever known and putting it into the foster system is a very evil act in my book.

That's a bit of an overstatement. If the parent is an abuser or a child molester, as harsh as it sounds, the child is better off without that particular parent.

Ben, you take away the kid from the rapist at birth, not when they're 6 years old.

NicoleK,

By the time this came to light the child was 6. He did not press charges at the time. Unfortunately for him he did not respond when the court first sent him legal documents covering the child support claim. By now the statute of limitations on this crime has passed. The law is quite clear that he is responsible for child support payments because 'it is in the interests of the child'. A cop out if I ever heard one. The money is not paid to the child, it is paid to the custodial parent. That parent has full discretion on how to spend that money. So 'for the kid' arguments ring hollow to me. Even more so in a case like this where the state is trying to recoup lost welfare money. 'For the kid' is actually 'for the government'.

As for taking a child from a parent who happens to be a rapist and putting them into the foster system, if there is no risk of them assaulting the child you are causing significant harm without cause.

I still feel the solution is to reform our bass ackwards child support laws.

@lenona:

Citation needed. I've never heard any MRA I've read make the claim you say they have. So like those people who all say "Google it" need to cite chapter and verse, so do you.

Depending on the state, it might not be too late to file charges against the sexual predator (woman). My state has no statute of limitations for any felony, which has caught more than a few people by surprise.

To Sam: I admit, it's been a few years since I saw those claims - the first was by a commentator at the Glenn Sacks website, which got re-vamped, and I regret to say that I can't dig up either comment. I DO know that neither person was a truly famous MRA, per se (that is, I don't think either posted under a real name), so you could argue that neither one would count even if I could provide the links. I also can't remember ANY occasion where an MRA firmly said, just as an example, that if the victim is under 17 and the offender is four years older, that should automatically be statutory rape, regardless of gender.

But abolishing statutory rape laws for adult males is hardly a more outrageous suggestion than a few other ones MRAs make - in 2013, JudgyBitch suggested something that Amy (I assume) never would - that what happened in Steubenville should not count as rape, even though she was passed out(!) (If it had been a baseball bat - as in Glen Ridge, New Jersey - I wonder if she would have said the same. Yes, I know the details of THAT case were different - the victim wasn't drunk, IIRC, but her IQ was 64.)

http://judgybitch.com/2013/03/18/why-dont-we-have-a-dumb-fucking-whore-registry-now-that-would-be-justice/

Just to clarify: We have to draw the line somewhere, so if you're female, 20, and can't control yourself around 16-year-old boys, stay away from them; if you're a boy who can't control yourself around unconscious girls or mentally handicapped girls, stay away from them.

More on the 1989 Glen Ridge case, from 1997:

"A Whole Lot of Poor Judgment"
By RUSSELL BANKS

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/reviews/970803.03bankst.html

Depending on the state, it might not be too late to file charges against the sexual predator (woman). My state has no statute of limitations for any felony, which has caught more than a few people by surprise.

Posted by: K-Man at September 4, 2014 3:26 PM

I think a statue of limitations is a very useful thing. It prevents he said she said cases from going to trial twenty years after the supposed event, when someone has gotten a case of the ass or has been seeing a batty psychiatrist who has encouraged them to ascribe all their problems to things that may or may not have happened to them that they *remember* under hypnosis.

It is hard enough to compile good admissable evidence for a crime that occured six months ago.

I don't know which state you live in. Please tell me, so I can warn everyone I know not to date anyone who lives there.

Female-on-male statutory rape is an invention, perhaps not of feminism, but certainly of the hyper-egalitarian notion that men and women are the same. At 14, I should have been so lucky as to be the "victim" of a 20-year-old girl.

(Male-on-male statutory rape should be a criminal offense. I'll let the women decide about female-on-female.)

That said, of course it's ridiculous to saddle the boy with child support. The legal position should be the same as if the woman had gotten artificial insemination: she alone is responsible for the child.

Female-on-male statutory rape is an invention, perhaps not of feminism, but certainly of the hyper-egalitarian notion that men and women are the same.

True.

As female develop emotional maturity faster than boys they are more capable of giving consent.

Therefore the statutory rape of a boy should carry harsher punishments.

"I think a statue of limitations is a very useful thing."
I concur, for when a crime is reported, but not for when someone is apprehended. By which I mean, If I am robbed and I report it now, but they don't find the accused for 10 yrs still active, but if I get robbed and wait 10 yrs to report it, sorry nope.

Evidence generally degrades over time, memories, witnesses. People may remember what they ate for dinner last night, but what you had on March 3rd, 2001, nope.

If I wait 10 yrs, I could just be waiting for someones alibi to die, or paperwork to be destroyed.

As female develop emotional maturity faster than boys they are more capable of giving consent.

True, but irrelevant to my point. Statutory rape is a crime not simply because of the consent issue, but because the underage party is presumptively harmed, or at least put at risk, by the act. (It's not a crime to hand a kid a dollar bill, even if he's too young to consent to receiving it.) If you really believe that this is the case for a 14-year-old boy the same as for a girl that age, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

(I do think that the age of consent could be lowered to maybe 16 without doing any harm, but I'll defer to the opinions of women on that question.)

"I think a statue of limitations is a very useful thing."
I concur, for when a crime is reported, but not for when someone is apprehended."

That is how a statute of limitations works. The time starts tolling at the time the crime is discovered or reported.

If that wasn't the case, you could kidnap someone, hold them until the statute of limitations expired, let them go, and get off scott free.

MRAs or PUAs? The PUAs are usually the ones going on about how there shouldn't be age limits on sex...

We will definitely have to disagree Rex Little. I fail to see the extra harm caused to a woman who has voluntary sex than to a man who has voluntary sex irrespective of age.