sad boy medical gloves 750

Legally obscene: Rape, statutory rape, and child support

Statutory rape laws have often been controversial and unequally applied to male and female victims and perpetrators. While very few believe that sexual activity with minors who have not yet reached puberty (child molestation) is acceptable, many believe that once a child has reached puberty, the child should be capable of providing consent to sexual activity. Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that persons below a specified age or who suffer from certain mental deficiencies are incapable of providing consent. These laws make it illegal for adults to coerce children into having sex.

Historically, statutory rape laws were designed to protect teenage girls from males who may take their virginity, impregnate them, and refuse to take responsibility and marry them. Thus, they served the purpose of protecting the honor of the girl and of preventing teenage pregnancy. They also helped to ensure the child would have a means of support. It wasn’t until much later that these laws began to be applied to protect boys as well. However, the application remains quite uneven.

In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.
According to the DOJ, 95% of statutory rape victims reported to law enforcement are female, yet many studies have determined that boys comprise a much higher percentage of the victims. For instance, Dorais estimates that one in six boys will be sexually abused before the age of 16.

Social attitudes are primarily responsible for the double standard. According to Miriam Denov, there is a “myth of innocence” surrounding female sexuality that frequently regards sex between a young male and an older female to be a rite of passage and that it is somehow acceptable or less harmful than when the other way around. Further, boys are taught not to view themselves as victims as this is “unmanly.”

Law enforcement may not take such complaints seriously. In a previous post (Living in a Culture of Denial), I discussed the problems with the attitude of law enforcement towards male victims. Officers and other professionals may even redefine the act so as to make it acceptable. Even the male victims may view it as a positive experience and not a crime, leading to gross underreporting. In what may be the most bizarre denial of the existence of male victims, courts have held that male victims of rape can be held responsible for child support.

In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to provide consent to the sex act, he was an admitted willing participant and therefore liable to pay support stating that he was not an “innocent victim” because he had discussed it with his rapist prior to having sex.

That this act was illegal and may have constituted coercion was apparently lost on the court. If the boy is considered legally incapable of providing consent, how can he be considered legally liable for giving that consent? Any consent or cooperation on his part should have been considered coercion and therefore not consent at all.

California is not the only state where this is the case. Kansas, Texas, Ohio, and other states also force rape victims to pay child support to their rapists. 

In Kentucky, a prosecutor stated that he would help a woman collect child support from a man who was 14 at the time she raped him while neglecting to charge the woman with statutory rape. The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman. Contrast this with the allowances made for abortion for women who are raped (including statutory rape) even from many who are opposed to abortion in other circumstances.

Mothers are also permitted to give up their children for adoption, no questions asked, should they not want their children. In no case is a woman forced to raise or pay for a child conceived during a rape.

But this is not the case with fathers. Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.

The National Legal Research Group refers to this as “a strict liability theory of sperm,” i.e. a man is liable for his sperm no matter what the circumstance. One court has attempted to justify its actions on the basis of biology rather than admit discrimination:

“[w]hile it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception. The choice available to a woman vests in her by the fact that she, and not the man, must carry the child and must undergo whatever traumas, physical and mental, may be attendant to either childbirth or abortion. Any differing treatment accorded men and women . . . is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature.”

While there may be natural differences between men and women, in this day and age, it is simply wrong to place all the rights in the hands of women and all the responsibility on the shoulders of men. Rights carry responsibilities. If a woman desires the right to choose, then the woman must be required to bear the responsibility for her decision. If, as the above court stated, the “facts were known to the father at the time of conception” then certainly they were also known to the mother. To hold her to a different standard simply because of biology is morally wrong. She should have the right to choose, but her decision should not be forced upon the father. She may have to bear the burden of either childbirth or abortion, but she also has a wide variety of options for birth control that the man simply doesn’t have. Further, in this day and age, she also has career opportunities that will permit her to support a child on her own.

This is especially true in circumstances where the father was a victim of rape or statutory rape. Ordering a victim of rape (even statutory rape) to pay child support to his rapist is tantamount to allowing the rapist to rape him over and over again. Not only is it a constant reminder, it is like he is being punished for being a victim of a crime. It is unthinkable that our court system not only condones, but has legalized this draconian practice. It is not only an injustice, it is an obscenity that is being perpetrated on male victims. It needs to end.


[1] Child Abuse Effects, Male victims of child abuse. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from:

[2]  Divorce Source. Its ten o’clock: Do you know where your sperm are? Retrieved 10/03/2010 from:

[3] Dorais, M. (2002). Don’t tell: The sexual abuse of boys. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

[4] Troup-Leasure, Karyl and Snyder, Howard N. Statutory rape known to law enforcement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, August 2005.

[5] Wikipedia. Statutory Rape. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from:,dc60d545


About Walter Romans (TDOM)

I'm a chef. I'm a shrink. For better or for worse, I'm married with 4 grandkids (that's the better part). Over the last few years I have come to believe that feminism is a hate movement, not the benevolent force I used to understand it to be.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Pingback: Female Sexual Predators | The Moderate Voice()

  • Pingback: Craigs List sperm doner forced to pay support - Christian Forums()

  • bruce_loco

    What about “follow the money”?

    The state has a vested interest in keeping men paying for children no matter what.
    If a men is not held liable, then the state would have to intervene and support the newborn child and attached parasite.
    Because the state as already placed the support laws in place for women and children, it needs to cover it’s ass by forcing men to pay for it somehow, otherwise the taxpayer shares the burden.

    The only way to address this, is in the same what that the NCFM is addressing the draft issue, by suing the government. And this can only be addressed from a constitutional and gender equality perspective, leaving biology and family courts outside of this.
    Women socialize/nationalize their debt and privatize their income, it has always been like this.

  • Fredrik

    I look forward to the decade when a future analogue of Robert St. Estephe will reprint this article for a disbelieving audience. “But that’s barbaric! No society with even a pretense of fairness would do such a thing,” the readers will say. “Exactly,” the gonzo historian will reply, nodding sagely. “And early 21st-century America did not even try to pretend.”

  • Groot

    An interesting note is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduced the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act back in July of this year. It is described as:

    Rape Survivor Child Custody Act – Directs the Attorney General to make grants to states that have in place a law that allows the mother of any child that was conceived through rape to seek court-ordered termination of the parental rights of her rapist with regard to that child, which the court shall grant upon clear and convincing evidence of rape.

    31 states currently have no actual laws preventing male rapists from seeking parental rights with regard to children they fathered by rape (though that doesn’t mean that they actually award such parental rights). The fact that there is actually a bill that has been introduced seeking to terminate such rights nationwide while no such effort has been made to keep male rape victims from being financially responsible for the offspring resulting from being raped is quite telling.

    And of course Amanda Marcotte chimed in on this:

    • Paul

      How long before a woman falsely accuses a man of rape so that she can deny him his parental rights. “Clear and convincing” to whom?

  • Groot

    Not sure if my first post went through, but Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduced the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act in late July of this year to prevent male rapists from asserting parental rights regarding the children conceived by their crimes.. Where is the bill to prevent male victims of rape from being legally obligated to support the children resulting from their rapes?

  • Groot

    Interestingly enough, this past July, Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduced the “Rape Survivor Child Custody Act” which “Directs the Attorney General to make grants to states that have in place a law that allows the mother of any child that was conceived through rape to seek court-ordered termination of the parental rights of her rapist with regard to that child, which the court shall grant upon clear and convincing evidence of rape.”

    It’s interesting that a bill can be introduced to congress preventing “rapists” from asserting parental rights when pregnancy results from the alleged rape, yet one would never see such a bill introduced to protect male victims from having to pay child support to their rapists.

    • cvxxx

      Simple contact Debbie Wasserman Schultz to add male rape victims to the list.

  • Fighting4myBoys

    I am the mother of a 17 year-old boy who has 4.0 gpa but was lured with half naked pictures of his 19 girlfriend into having sex.
    She was born in another country and her and her family failed to inform my husband and me that she is 18 weeks pregnant. Our son said they didn’t want her to get in trouble since she is an adult. I am greatly concerned for my son’s future. Just a few months ago he had shared his great interest in attending Michigan University but now he feels he has to attend our local university.
    Her parents have told him he doesn’t have to be responsible and have told him he can move in with them. I have done some online research and is very discouraging to learn how the system does nothing for a minor who is the victim of statutory rape. This is a trap. My son was manipulated by a woman who acts to religious to have an abortion but had no problem sinning by having sex with a minor. Please help me help my son. San Bernardino, CA

    • Larkhall

      Your son is 17. The girl is 19. In nearly every country in the world 17 is over the age of consent, and in a lot of US states too. 17 isn’t a baby. If she’s a woman at 19, he’s a man at 17. At 18 he could join the army. Two years age difference doesn’t scream predator to me.

      I’m posting from the UK, where the age of consent is 16. I’ve little sympathy for your son. He got her pregnant: they share the responsibility. One of them has got to care for an infant. The other needs to provide financial support. That’s fair. Blaming her is unjust.

      If you don’t want to father a child you need to take responsibility for birth control and show a little judgement in who you have sex with.

      • cvxxx

        There is no such birth control on the US market. 2nd He is trapped into a situation he did not want. I have sympathy an he should forget this woman and go to the best school he can. If she gave birth out side the US the legalities are long he could be out of school before that happens.

      • PoeTentiate

        You’re absolving the girl of responsibility which reeks of the misogyny which is what got us into this mess in the first place. That men must always be held responsible for the actions of women, because they are less capable of making good decisions is misogyny.

      • Kronk

        “One of them has got to care for an infant. The other needs to provide financial support. That’s fair”

        OK fine. Give the child to the man, and let the female pay support.

        WHAT? This is never allowed?

        Why does that make everyone uncomfortable?

        Think about how preposterous your position is here friend.

    • white_day_black_river

      Personally I don’t think the age difference is too problematic *but* as has been observed here statutory rape *is* absolutely rape and your son at 17 was a child and legally unable to consent to sex (since you are posting from California which has an age of consent of 18) or pornographic images of an adult. So, if you choose to pursue a legal case, you’re totally within your legal rights to do so.

      • ManYunSoo

        Does California not have Romeo&Juliet laws?

        • white_day_black_river

          Nope! Sentencing will vary of course but it’s one of the states that doesn’t have R&J laws.

          Personally, I think this stuff needs to be standardized. I’m absolutely in favour of statutory rape laws, but I don’t think it makes sense for something to be seen as perfectly healthy, normal behaviour in one state, and an incarnation of Absolute Evil in another. That’s odd and it isn’t true of any other crime I can think of.

  • A.Z

    I’m horrified, absolutely horrified reading this. Some of the people commenting on here saying that teenagers just want to have sex. Does that mean we shoud do away with age limits altogether? A female babysitter can rape a 13/14 year old. He may have liked to do it with a gir his age or older but not necessarily the sitter. Imagine 15 year old with 19 year old. You CAN manipulate kids if you’re older and female pedos do exist. We need to protect children from adults but we also need to adjust the law to allow relaxation for teenagers who want to engage together. We really need to recognise when someone was consenting or manipulated.

    • cvxxx

      You are over projecting. There is not difference in the act. What the fear is that you are ranting about makes no sense. A 14 year of female with false ID can get into a bar enjoy sex and the angry parents want their “honor” restored by destroying the life of some man. A 15 year old female has the maturity level of a 20 year old male. Depending on birthdays a 19 year old senior in high school is no unusual.
      We need to go to the wiser of a set age say 14 as the age of consent. That might spur adoption to effective sex ed like that in Denmark. The afe of 1st intercourse rose after the implementation. One further item failure to enroll one’s kid in sex ed the parents then become responsible for any pregnancies.

      • driversuz

        You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy. [Ref: 1723]

        Additional remarks:

        age-of-consent bullshit.

  • George

    Men have the option to wear condoms and take the condoms with them or be responsible for thier actions. It is a womans choice and responsibilty and right to choose. Men can wear condoms or be real men like they all sy they are and take care of the child and its mother. Men always like to point out how much ‘snater they are then women, they shoukd act like it tyen tp back it up just sayin

    • librtee_dot_com

      Don’t worry, nobody is saying you’re ‘snater’ than anyone, George.

    • Uno Hu


  • ianb

    This article seems to have things the wrong way around. It starts off well enough, apparently recognising that the only meaningful distinction between a child and an adult in sexual terms is puberty, and that the age of consent is artificial and arbitrary. But then, bizarrely, it goes on to argue that boys above puberty but below the AoC are abuse victims, rather than the logical conclusion that girls of those ages are not abused. That is, although any sexual act at any age may be abusive in any number of ways, that there is no reason to consider the act itself between biologically mature persons abusive just because it is below an arbitrary age invented by feminist campaigners.

    I cannot see any merit in this approach. All it can do is demonise and denormalise the normal feelings and behaviours of teenagers, and of course throw innocent older people into jail and life ruin when they have consensual sex with somebody in this age band; as for instance with the groteseque injustice of the Megan Stammers/Jeremy Forrest case here in Britain.

    Rape is rape. When you have to bolt a qualifier like “statutory” on the front, it’s not rape any more. It’s just transressing the Feminists’ rules, which is a different thing; it is artificially prohibiting a normal sexual activity and no more “rape” than if a racist movement got sex between different races prohibited and declared to be “statutorily” rape.

    A rethink is needed on this, I think.

    • Larkhall

      The age of consent is not “an arbitrary age invented by feminist campaigners.” The original age of consent laws go back a long time, in some cases centuries. These laws were enacted before women even got the vote. They were entirely man made.

      In the UK the laws were changed in the time of Queen Victoria after a campaigning journalist bought a 13 year old girl, had her drugged and delivered to a brothel. He then wrote a series of articles exposing a big underground trade in young virgins. Men believed that sex with a prepubescent virgin would cure them of syphilis. Girls were being kidnapped and trafficked for this purpose.

      A version of this belief, that sex with a virgin cures HIV/AIDs, is popular in Africa. The level of sexual violence in the South African slums is horrific, with babies and toddlers frequently among the victims as a result of this belief. Surgery may be required to repair the damage done by men to very young girls.

      See: – it’s not pleasant reading.

  • economicsguy

    From our side, I’m worried a little bit about one specific element of this article.

    Particularly that last line. Dorais’ citation is a book which I do not have immediate access to. Nor can I find any articles by that name published in an academic refereed journal. This concerns me greatly as I liken it mentally to the ‘1 in 4′ tag-lines coming from the feminist camps where the source is nebulous, but upon further inspection turns out to be subject to very generous and unverifiable assumptions (or is just made up.) Personally I refrain from using numbers like these, but worry that others may not. 1 in 6 seems pretty high to me, almost like the definitions being used to generate the number is not consistent with what a normal person would consider abuse.

  • inocencia321

    Great article, it is really an eye opener..than you for posting..

  • LF

    It maybe said that a teenage boy will just want to have sex. I know, I was one once. However, the real issue here is whether it is consensual. You cannot expect a teenage boy to be able to make rational decisions regarding child rearing and the financial slavery he is committing. We have to protect these young men from their rapists. Let’s be clear, it isn’t just statutory rape, in these situations, it is financial rape.

    Furthermore, men suffer much stiffer consequences for statutory rape (even if the teenage girl consents). How is it even conceivably fair that women get little to no punishment for their crimes?

    Regarding shouldering all the responsibility, I agree 100%. Why shouldn’t a man be able to say: I am not emotionally or financially ready to have a child, I will give it up for adoption to the mother should she choose to keep it. The saying is, you play, you pay, but that doesn’t hold if the pregnant woman aborts the child and the man wants the child. She played? You could state she has to go through the trauma of child birth so she should have the choice, but, she played…

    Even the welfare system is set against men. The woman should have to pay 50% of that child’s financial requirements. Which, the states happily pay on the behalf of the woman. If the man, whom can be even more poor than the mother, cannot pay, the state doesn’t pay on behalf of the man. They accrue his 50% and put him in jail every opportunity. The woman never has to pay her 50% responsibility back to the state…

    • Ian B

      Neither “statutory” rape nor “financial” rape are actually rape. Rape is forced sex. It is entirely wrong to use the wrong word to describe such situations. If there is a problem with the child support laws- which there is, a huge one- focus on that. Don’t start using words like “rape” for things that are not rape.

      Furthermore, men suffer much stiffer consequences for statutory rape (even if the teenage girl consents). How is it even conceivably fair that women get little to no punishment for their crimes?

      The problem is not that women are not punished. It is that men are. You cannot correct one injustice with another.

      • LF

        That depends on how you look at it Ian. Rape can be defined as: an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. Which correlates exactly to my use when referring to financial rape.

        Statutory rape is rape by definition. The law makes assumption that the minor cannot consent to sex with an adult prior to majority thereby making the act forced, in a broad sense of course.

      • Peadair

        Ian you have defined rape as “forced sex”, is an unconscious woman unable to be raped? No force is required!

        Rape is sex without consent. Forced or unconscious, anyone can be raped.
        Statutory rape is sex with some who society believes cannot legally consent. They can “want” it, they can be coerced into it, but society has said that they cannot legally consent.

        Why has society decided that teens and the mentally retarded cannot legally consent? For their protection from unscrupulous adults. Why is the age of consent different in different places? fuck knows.

        • Ian B

          Who is this “society” of which you speak? You mean a handful of legislators dominated by a handful of pressure groups? That’s “society” is it?

          Do you realise how absurd it is to say that somebody who actively wants something is not consenting? Do you realise how utterly that destroys the very concept of consent?

          • Peadair

            Ian, societies exists. You know they do. I get the feeling that you are ok with sex between Adults and Children. I do not think it is moral for an adult and a child to have sex. You are not going to change my mind.

            “Do you realise how absurd it is to say that somebody who actively wants
            something is not consenting?”

            Actively wanting something does not matter if the person who wants it is not mentally cable of understanding the outcomes. So you are ok with sex with someone who is three? The can talk and give consent! Three year olds also want pet tigers, society and parents try to protect children from choices they are not ready to make. Ian, you are arguing around a subject that has been argued around for thousands of years, even the Ancient Greeks argued about this. Where is the line drawn between Child and Adult? The line is drawn where the society decides it is drawn. Difference societies have drawn different lines.

            “Do you realise how utterly that destroys
            the very concept of consent?” No, Ian it doesn’t. You have accepted my assertion that an unconscious or mentally retarded person cannot give consent. Society has decided that children also cannot give consent. That does not destroy the concept, it merely says that only fully functioning adults can consent.

            This discussion is pointless. I will not be continuing my end.

          • white_day_black_river

            You are correct… although, at the same time, I do think it’s absurd that an 18-year-old who has willing “sex” with a 17-year-old in California is absolutely a child rapist and thus Evil Incarnate, while the same 18-year-old in Oklahoma would be just a healthy young person with an age appropriate partner. Obviously it makes sense that this differs between countries due to significant cultural differences, but it seems off that while what constitutes murder and other heinous crimes in America can be generalized across the nation, the same is not true whatsoever for child rape, probably the mot heinous of crimes.

            Like, I understand your position… the hypothetical 18-year-old Californian (male or female) is just as much a rapist as any other (legally this just can’t be denied) and so will presumably be just as likely to be infinitely tortured in Hell (if it exists) as any other rapist and treated with scorn and derision by society (including yourself?)

            But this also makes me wonder what percentage of Californian males (and it probably will be mostly males as there is a tendency for young men to date partners a year or two younger than themselves) are child rapists… is it, therefore, a state of singular and unique evil? Worthy, even, of being bombed or obliterated due to its statistical freakiness indicative, presumably, of a specific cultural sickness indigenous to the area.

          • Peadair

            In my country the age of consent is 16, but there is a qualification on that, “it is an offence for a person to have a sexual connection with a person under the age of 18 if the defendant is in a guardianship role (parent, stepparent, foster parent, guardian, uncle, aunt or other members of extended family, whanau or other power or authority or responsibility for care or upbringing)”. So teachers having sex with their students is right out. Also the likelihood of being prosecuted as a minor (someone under 18) for having sex with someone below the age of consent varies based on the age of the victim. It is unlikely for a 16 year old who has sex with a 15 year old to be charged, they are most likely to be “discharged without conviction” if it makes it to court.

            Sex between age-peers should not be punished in the same way as sex between adults and children. However, if you knowingly break the law, you are a criminal. The Law itself is not a bad law, it is there to protect those who we deem to be unable to really think for themselves. If an 18 year old boy or girl cannot wait the months required to have sex with their 17 year old girl/boyfriend, maybe they shouldn’t be in the relationship.

            “But this also makes me wonder what percentage of Californian males (and it probably will be mostly males as there is a tendency for young men to date partners a year or two younger than themselves) are child rapists.” First off, that tendency you describe is a two-way street, most girls and women tend to “go for” older boys and men. Legally those boys you describe as child rapists, are. That does not mean I believe that should be on any kind of sex offenders registry, as the punishment should fit the crime or do any time, and a sex offenders registry listing for having sex with your girlfriend, does not fit the crime. Maybe having to attend a set of “planned parenthood” lectures and watching some STD prevention films (in full gory detail, ah blue waffles), as well as some community service.

            As for bombing California, I don’t believe in collective punishment. That seems to be a US thing.

          • white_day_black_river

            Personally, I think 16 is about right… or 18 with a close-in-age exemption for those within a few years. But then again, I’m biased. I also come from a place where the age of consent is 16… however my partner didn’t. It’s clearly true that close-in-age cases don’t often get prosecuted … but, at the same time, lack of prosecution does not equal lack of guilt. In truth, having to self-label as a child rapist for behaviour that would have been perfectly morally and socially acceptable in 90% of the states is pretty galling, but it also is what it is. It is weird when the victim does not consider themselves to have been a victim (and wouldn’t have been if they had lived almost anywhere else on the globe) … I don’t know, I think it’s easy enough to live with regret and see one’s actions are wrong – you are right in saying that the law should be respected and if 16 / 17-year-olds cannot legally consent, then they cannot consent. At the same time, it is horrifying and also quite kind of weird to think that your actions, which wouldn’t seem horrendous on film (if the viewer didn’t know exactly in which state they were occurring) make you morally equivalent to some middle-aged bloke molesting a tiny child and that, if Hell exists, you’re going to be right in the same circle suffering alongside them forever. Obviously the law has different degrees (and different lengths of sentence) and ‘statutory rape’ is often listed as ‘inappropriate relations with a child’ or ‘sexual assault’ or several other things designed seemingly to soften the word ‘rape’… however I know that legally and objectively, what I did is just as bad as any other form of non-consensual sex, even though the victim does not identify herself as such and has never had even the slightest intention of bringing charges.

            I guess I think it would be preferable if scientists and academics who specialise in developmental and child psychology could come together to decide whether 16 and 17-year-olds are capable of consenting – at least, with peers who are not in a position of authority over them. I also think that the sex offenders register should probably not be a life-long registration for such cases… though, in fairness, that is the case in many states.

            I just think there’s a weird cognitive dissonance. Obviously, no-one would seriously advocate bombing California… but it would be interesting to know the percentage of child rapists who live there since it is going to be much higher than the number in most states, due to the age of consent being set at 18, with no close in age exemption. It seems odd that an 18-year-old who has “sex” with their willing 17-year-old partner in California (in inverted commas because legally this can only be rape) is automatically far, far more evil than the 50-year-old man who has sex with a 13-year-old in Spain. It is as though the actions themselves (and the harm they cause) do not matter, but simply the officially sanctioned language that defines them.

            Obviously, it is far, far, far worse (for the suffering of the individual) to be a victim of child rape than a child rapist, but it is a strange situation when there are scores of 16 and 17-year-olds who do not consider themselves to be rape victims, being informed by people online that they absolutely are victims in spite of their feelings, despite the fact that these people online may live in state in which 16 and 17-year-olds who underwent the same experience are absolutely not victims, nor their partners rapists.

            As said, it is what it is. You can’t argue against the Law… I mean, you can dislike it or think that it is unjust or simply that it should be standardized (which is really what I think) but it doesn’t change based on your feelings. As you say yourself, if an older boyfriend cannot wait to have sex with their 16 or 17-year-old girlfriend or advice them that it is best to wait, that is their own fault. It is mine. I made the choice to live each subsequent day as a child rapist for having committed statutory rape. But it is hard not to feel jealous of all the young men and women who had precisely the same relationship in so many, many other states, yet were able to do so perfectly legally because their state has a 5 year close-in-age exemption or sets the age of consent at 16 or whatever. I mean, it’s not like it’s just the difference between being a good, upstanding citizen and a slightly bad one… it’s the difference between being a good, upstanding citizen and an incarnation of absolute evil – obviously, even more so than murder, arson or terrorism, it’s the act that if you pass, there is no coming back from. You have crossed the moral event horizon – even if your victim doesn’t not perceive themselves as such, or forgives you personally.

            It’s just such a unique thing. If you plunge a knife into the chest of a person… it doesn’t matter whether you are in Oklahoma or Florida or North Carolina… it’s murder either way you cut it. The sentencing might differ, but it’s still going to be a morally heinous act whatever. Same with if you cut someone’s hand off, or chain them up in a basement, or set fire to their house, or try to blow up a governmental building, or commit genocide. However, if you touch the vagina of a willing 17-year-old a few years younger than yourself… in some states, you are just a regular young man; in other states, you are the worst kind of monster.

  • plasmacutter

    Laying it bare:

    This is not 1950 anymore. Women can not only work, but they’re attaining higher qualifications than men.

    Additionally, science has rendered pregnancy a choice from pre-conception to plump-belly.

    Finally, our poorest now have a higher standard of living than well-off families did in 1950.

    The idea that men should be compelled by the state to pay for a woman’s unilateral choice to let her biological clock ring is ludicrous.

    Imagine if men were entitled to “supercar support orders”. Not only should child support (and alimony) be 100% abolished, we should have justices ruling any program which assists single mothers while excluding other categories of people a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.

    • jhgl hgyi

      Yeah the laws, but also a huge part of society, is sort of stuck in the past. They always think of the women as the helpless victims who never mean to do anything wrong, and the men as the dominant predators who are responsible for anything that happens. What’s even worse is that the law can’t apply common sense. Even if it’s not stated in writing that “a rape victim can’t be ordered to pay child support for any children that result”, it should be obvious that they should never be obligated to. It’s especially bad with that statutory rape example. “Oh he’s too young to give consent, but he did so willingly so it still counts” WTF!? They always say that this law is meant to PROTECT minors, it has to be all or nothing here. Either you can legally give consent and accept the risks, or you can’t and therefore can’t be obligated to pay child support.

      Of course many men would try to argue that they were raped to get out of paying child support even if that wasn’t the case. But you’re right that child support is stupid and should be abolished outside of marriage. If a women gets pregnant, she can decide to either get an abortion, put the child through adoption, or be a mother. So just because she decides to be a mother she has the right to force a man to pay child support? Heresy! Whatever choice she makes should not put the father under any legal obligation. Your body, your choice? Correct, it’s your choice, and therefore YOUR responsibility! Want to be a mother? Well you have to take responsibility and do it yourself if the father doesn’t want to help! No one said being a mother was easy! Screw the kid, the father’s rights to his own money and protection against rape come first.

    • Pixie5

      While I concede that you may have some legitimate points, this one is outright wrong:

      “Finally, our poorest now have a higher standard of living than well-off families did in 1950.”

      I am poor (disabled). I know others that are poor. The “working poor” is a very real problem. I can only assume that you have never experienced poverty.

      I live a pretty bare-bones existence. No luxuries and no cable or satellite TV, No car. Almost half of my meager disability check goes towards rent. I have a computer courtesy of my father and internet service and am hoping to make a little money online.

      I am not complaining as I am certainly better off than many, but I am definitely not living the “high life.”

      We now have a surge of homelessness due to unemployment insurance being cut off. In some cities it is actually a crime to be homeless and sleep in your car. You can go to jail for up to 6 months.

      No one gets rich from welfare, food stamps or disability payments. That is a complete myth. It is also a myth that everyone who needs help can get it.

      That of course is separate issue from the main point of this article. It has given me some food for thought as there does seem to be gross injustices in the system.

      • plasmacutter

        I never contended life on welfare was “cushy” or that people were becoming rich from it, but I still contend you are better off in your state than you would have been in 1950 with a similar fraction of the median income.

        It’s not to say today’s poor life is luxurious or not a struggle, it’s to say it was much grittier and uglier back then.

        • Pixie5

          Well, from what I understand, the fifties were an age of prosperity. To say that today’s poor are better off than the “well-off” in the 50’s defies logic and common sense. But since I was born in 1964 I will grant that I did not live it. But I would like a cite from you that backs up your statement

          I mentioned that people do not get rich from welfare simply because that is the perception of many conservatives and it is tiresome. I have heard wild stories of what welfare and programs like disability give people. Many people seem to think that people who are on these programs have it better than them.

          • plasmacutter

            everything that was not rent or food in the 1950’s was classified as a “luxury”.

            While it may sound tired, it is still TRUE that today the poor have access to entertainment which would have been unavailable to the truly poor in the 1950’s.

            If you were poor in 1950 you had two options: go to the library or stare at the paint on the wall and hope it peels.

          • Pixie5

            But we are not talking about the poor in 1950. You said that the POOR TODAY are better off than the “well-off” (meaning RICH) in 1950. You appear to be dodging the issue. You obviously have no proof for your position.

            Entertainment does not mean that it is affordable. I have no TV service and you can’t get TV by antenna in my area. I have a computer given me from my father and watch some TV online. However there may come a time when I will have to use the library computers and the TV at the clubhouse at my mobile home park. Try living on $1000 a month.

            The “well-off” in the 50’s had at the very least radio to listen to and most likely TV as well. While I imagine radios got cheaper around that time, televisions were new and expensive. And yet somehow enough people in the 50’s managed to own them so that we had all the fun shows like “I Love Lucy” and others. If people were so poor in the 50’s that would not have happened.

            You appear to not be aware that the 50’s was one of the most prosperous eras of the 20th century! Now if you were talking about during the Great Depression, then that would be entirely different.

          • plasmacutter

            I stand by the point I made RE poor now > prosperous in the 1950’s. You yourself have proven my point.
            The poor today have access to all entertainment options available through general purpose computers and the internet.

            I’m not excusing poverty today, as it’s all relative to technological advancement, but the simple truth is we ARE that much better off today than the 1950’s.

          • Pixie5

            You have twisted the argument completely around. Cheap entertainment is not an indicator of prosperity, only that it is cheap!
            Meanwhile the prosperous in the 1950’s paid thousands of dollars (not adjusted in today’s value) for a TV.
            At any rate I fail to see how that has anything to do with the topic of poverty. People still need to eat and to have clean water. They also need to keep warm in the winter. Yes there ARE people who can’t afford the basics and yet you prattle on about entertainment
            The fact is that I am getting some help from my father. Many other people are not so lucky. So don’t assume that they are able to afford “entertainment.”
            I am done here. You sound just like everyone else who claims that “the poor have it easy.”

          • Jack Strawb

            Yup. I made the mistake of making posting similarly before reading the thread, figuring he was just misguided, not pointlessly pigheaded. The original claim is, of course, absurd.

          • Sandon

            The reason it is absurd is because inflation has surpassed wages. People these days may make more wages than 1950 but they certainly pay a lot more than 1950 as well. The only truth to it, is that in 1950, maybe people on welfare who were single parents were not as better off as people today. Meaning single mothers for example had to give up babies because they couldn’t survive. Maybe the poor these days earn $10 000 per year and in 1950 that was a huge wage to get that much. If we take inflation into account and forget about size of wage, it does not work. I remember when i was young, getting $300 Australian per week being able to save and buy things and now getting $1000 per week is a struggle because nothing lasts these days and is over priced for what it is.

            If you won a million dollars in those days, you would be rich, now a million is minor and probably wouldn’t get you much at all. A house a car but eventually you would have to go back to work.

    • Jack Strawb

      “Finally, our poorest now have a higher standard of living than well-off families did in 1950.”

      This is not remotely true unless you’re using some very obscure curve that makes a 2014 pc the tech be all and end all, worth uncountable riches in 1950 dollars.

      Trust me. “Our poorest” would invariably trade for a 1950s standard of living in a heartbeat. Where did you get this idea from?

  • MrSonicAdvance

    Where is the equivalent case where the victim is the woman? Feminists keep banging on about how they want equality and how they haven’t achieved it, so presumably there must be a comparable situation where a woman is held accountable for an illegal act perpetrated upon her.
    So let’s hear it.

    • Mr. E

      Feminists don’t want equality, they just say they do. What they want is special rights. Feminism is all about WOMEN and not at all about equality.

  • librtee_dot_com

    This article needs a few more footnotes, particularly describing the details of the cases in Alabama and Louisiana. I couldn’t find anything about them on Google.

  • FireBits

    “I wanna get pregnant! How to do that? Well under age boys are easy and lets me control the birth control, so I should seduce one”

    • Kronk

      “And because I have a vagina, the law will support me all the way”!

  • guber

    Shame, shame.

  • Emilio Lizardo

    Applying statutory rape to young adults in the prime of their sexuality is inane and unethical. Particularly when prosecutors are free to determine the very same people as adults if they perform a reprehensible enough act.

    How is it that someone actively seeking sex be considered to be coerced or abused?

    • Sandon

      That is a point i make. If a14 year old girl or boy had sex 10 times and wanted more, than they would be experienced enough with sex. What if they met an 18 year old and pressured that person to have sex? And the 18 year old is a virgin, without any sexual experience at all. Who really is in the wrong than? The law is a joke when it does not consider things like this. An 18 year old being classed as far more adult than a 14 year old, yet the 18 year wouldn’t even know what sex was about and most likely be scared since it was their first time. At the same time a 30 year old can have sex with an 18 year old and that is ok? Not saying it isn’t but the laws are about themselves and not about what is right.

      • Kronk

        “laws are about themselves and not about what is right.”
        Now we are getting somewhere…

  • Isaac Shapira

    One problem with this post, is that the photo of the invasive female medical person is actually kind of hot.

  • cvxxx

    The problem is men who are victims of rape but forced to pay child support never really fight. They fail to sue to woman directly.
    Yes there is discrimination. But when a woman is impregnated willingly or not there is a great deal of support. Many men do not understand that. Since misery loves company shared suffering is a male realm. But action is not. My guess is it is still part of machismo. Thsat is why is is not pursued with the vigor that women use. Men need to get the courage to speak up and fight this discrimination.

    Young men who are introduced to sex by a older more experienced woman are not victims. Neither are females, but the lack of a male contraceptive is the real problem. It has been less than a century since female birth control pills were introduced.

    • Jack Strawb

      “The problem is men who are victims of rape but forced to pay child support never really fight.”

      It’s a sound point, but I assume it’s because the male victims we learn about are overwhelmingly young or otherwise unable to understand how to bring suit, and may simply not be able to afford to bring suit.

      • Zyavol

        And these are the boys WE fight for, because we do understand the implications and we are outraged.

      • 66Scorpio

        The problem is that many of the female rapists are passingly attractive and the victim falls in “wuv” with them.

    • Sandon

      Maybe but that is still putting blame on the raped person or man and allowing a law to have these biases and do as it wants. The raped man should still have the law behind him that protects him. If you are a 14 year old boy, it would be pretty safe to say that that person would not be earning enough money to sue a rapist, let alone pay child support. That means this boy is than going to be in debt and probably imprisoned for being raped. Just like an accused rapist who never raped at all.

      That is what the law is apparently for to protect kids who can not protect themselves. Shouldn’t have to sue a rapist and i bet if a man raped a woman he would be liable to pay support once again.

      A 14 year old girl consents to sex as well but the apparent rapist still is subject to all the laws despite whether she sues or not.

      These courts are serious criminals that need forceful removal. They are out of control.

      • Kronk

        “These courts are serious criminals that need forceful removal. They are out of control.”
        Now with that very real fact, don’t you think that more men would actually do something??

    • Alex Clark

      Can a 12 or 16 sue a woman and where are they going to get money for a lawyer to sue? Mom & Dad now have an add expense and pay for a lawyer probably being poor has something to do with it.

      • 66Scorpio

        Civil liability works differently than criminal liability. I have never heard of a “common law age of consent”. Statutory rape is just that: sexual assault by operation of statute rather than a civil wrong in itself.
        The problem isn’t with the mechanisms to sue the woman (depending on where you live you can get tens of thousands of dollars in small claims court) but rather with the substance of the claim.

    • Kronk

      “Young men who are introduced to sex by a older more experienced woman are not victims”.

      According to the law, yes they are. It is known as rape.
      The problem is the law is only applied to favor females.
      And that is because we men want it this way as evidenced by no uproar, no revolt, no action anywhere that I can see. Why would they even think about changing the laws (and actually making them fair) if nobody is saying anything???

      Think about it.

  • Jack Strawb

    Even if, somehow, a female rapist is allowed to carry a fetus to term against the wishes of the boy or man she raped, how is it possible that he is not allowed to either assume sole custody of the child after the child is born or, conversely, exercise Legal Paternal Surrender?

    In the case of the former, to not do so would be like turning over an infant to a male rapist once his female victim gives birth. It truly is that disgusting. How is a female rapist allowed to keep the infant? How can laws exist that reward women who rape?

    • Mark Wharton

      Gynocentric culture. Or you could say “patriarchy”

      • Jack Strawb

        Heh. What better example of the falsity that women are the natural nurturers of children than the idea that a woman who left her infant to die might be reunited with it, rather than there issuing a long term restraining order against any contact whatsoever?

        • Mr. E

          Yes. This is one of the reasons why I have some concerns about “Financial Abortion” for men.

          • driversuz

            If you consider your statement carefully, you might be saying that at the end of the day men are still the ones who should take responsibility.

            God know it sucks for the children when NOBODY does, and women don’t have to so…

          • Mr. E

            My problem is that I have discovered that I am very fond of children. I didn’t know it until mine were born. On that day, in that moment, my entire life and worldview changed. What I thought was important before that moment wasn’t so much afterwards. Despite my (many) postings advocating for abortion rights for men, I am personally more in favor of children being born. But then there are all the various attendant problems which that entails– custody, sponsorship, nurturing, etc. Who does it? Whose responsibility is it? How does it get done? How to ensure the humanity of it? And the list goes on.

            It really doesn’t matter which side of the argument you take up, the issues are very thorny and doubtful that everybody can be satisfied.

            But speaking to my specific comment, it is helpful to go back to the previous one I was replying to:

            “the idea that a woman who left her infant to die might be reunited with it, rather than there issuing a long term restraining order against any contact whatsoever”

            If a child is born and yet simply abandoned (“Financially Aborted”) by the father, then there is an actual child someplace, you’ve just abrogated yourself of responsibility for it. But you still have to go through life knowing that there is a human being out there with your genes. And someday you may have to face that person as they come looking for you to get some answers. That is a situation that women who abort their children will never have to face. They may have regrets and even “ghosts”– but never real, live human beings who can stand in front of them and ask questions regarding their abandonment.

            Just another way in which the question of “abortion” is different for Women and Men.

          • Mr. E

            Hmmm… do I detect a hint of humanity…??


      • Spelunker4Plato

        not “patriarchy.”

      • Mr. E

        Don’t use that obscene word. “Patriarchy” has nothing to do with it. This is pure “Matriarchy”.

    • Kronk

      Because we don’t do JACK-SHIT about it! And what’s worse, we men have allowed to it happen to us in the first place…

  • Jack Strawb

    I believe the laws you mention overwhelmingly allow male rapists to sue for visitation, not custody.

    • Kronk

      …and very few ever get that. And the only reason they even allow that is to force the father to pay his ‘mommy-support’ which of course, the corrupt court will get their cut first.

      As I’ve said many times over the years, none of what’s happening to men and children in “family” court is an accident. This is not a case of good intentions gone bad. Modern, so-called “family” law has always been about providing for women at the expense of men and children.

      People are puzzled today by the “unfairness” of what’s happening. I have news for everyone – THIS SYSTEM WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE FAIR. A hundred years ago, there was never a suggestion that men, especially, be treated fairly in the realm of marriage and family. Men were to do their duty to women, “to make an honest woman out of her”. There was then and continues to be gobs of social engineering unleashed on the public trying to convince men to “man up” for the sake of a woman.
      Today we know it as GYNOCETRISIM. The largest and most destructive social ill there ever was.

  • Sandon

    And “rape apologists” too don’t forget

  • Archie Meijer

    I have never heard this applied the other way around. Say an adult man has sex with someone underaged. She gets pregnant. But the victim doesn’t want to keep the baby. He (somehow) gets to keep the baby and then sues for child support. I bet you such a scenario has never happened.

    One common argument used in these cases is “it’s about the innocent child.” This argumentation in favor of making the man pay child support ignores that there are ways of doing things that would look out for the child’s best interests while not punishing the man for having been the victim of a crime. Simple. In the very rare cases like that have the government pay the child support and every taxpayer contributes what at most would amount to a couple cents per person. I hope at least that this is what they do already in cases where the other parent is deceased, on welfare, in prison, or otherwise unable to pay child support. If I’m wrong then that’s incredibly unfair to children of poor single parents who are unlucky enough not to have an absent parent who has money to pay for child support.

    Another thing wrong with child support is that there is no control over how it’s spent, so too often child support is really just extra money for the parent to goof off with. If the primary concern is about the child then child support payments should be converted into electronic credits and the parent should get a card s/he can use to spend on hhis/er child for approved childcare items and if s/he needs something special there can be a request form where s/he explains how s/he needs it and how it will help his/her child. And any back child support payments received after the child is an adult should not even go to the woman, they should go to the now-adult child.

    • 66Scorpio

      Mothers have custody in the vast majority of cases and virtually all collect child support from the fathers. In the minority cases where the father gets custody, many do not seek child support from the mother. In the rarest of rare cases where the father secures custody and a child support order against the mother, those mothers are far more likely to be “deadbeats” than similarly situated fathers.

  • john03063

    The boy in California was forced to pay child support to his rapist because he was a wiling participant? I wonder if the same court would force an underage girl to pay child support to the man who impregnated her if she was a willing participant ?

    • Uno Hu

      It is an iniquitous law, or an iniquitous application of the law. Yet this and other unfair child support laws will not be repealed or modified until and unless there is massive campaign of civil disobedience with all individuals (certainly mostly men) who are subject to unfair child support orders refuse to pay anything at all and openly defy the judge in Court. This will indeed result in a lot of “civil contempt incarcerations” for a while, but (to use the vernacular), “There just ain’t enough jail cells to lock’em all up!”

      [Side Issue: Q: What is an “unfair” child support order? A: Any support order that results in a significant disparity in the living standards enjoyed by the custodial parent and the obligated parent.]

      This sort of civil disobedience toward earning one’s freedom does indeed have a cost . . . but freedom ain’t [sic] free – it never has been. No freedom or liberty has ever “free” – somebody, somewhere, sometime had to purchase and periodically maintain that freedom – to buy it with their treasure, or their pain, or their blood, and for many even their lives was the demanded cost.

      Until men are willing to commit themselves to a widespread program of civil disobedience, why should any one change a law that is “working fine”?

      • Mr. E

        “There just ain’t enough jail cells to lock’em all up!”

        Uh… I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Have you seen the stats on the US prison population..??

        • john03063

          The can’t lock up too many men for too long. Who will pay to support single mothers and their bastard children ?

          • Mr. E

            The Government– aka: you and me through our taxes.

    • Mr. E

      Of course not. Feminism sets up a dastardly double-standard. One for Him, two for her– er, one for her.

  • Miesasia

    It makes me sick how men are forced to pay women who have raped them any kind of money. Just think about if a man raped a woman and the woman had a baby. Then the woman would be forced to give the baby to the rapist and pay child support.

    Oh but im just being silly again… I forgot men HAVE TO PAY because of patriarchy, sorry guys and girls. I forgot! (sarcasm)

    Hope this gets fixed soon as possbile and remmeber to support your finnish MRA friends by visiting our site at and like us on facebook at

  • Bill

    This is even more ridiculous when scientific studies, as well as the culture belief tend to agree that males mature emotionally slower than females. Meaning a 16 year old boy is even less capable of considering the consequences and ramifications of his actions than a 16 year old girl. If anything, this fact should mean that statutory rape of a male by a female is WORSE than the inverse.

  • Bill

    This is even more ridiculous when scientific studies, as well as culturally accepted truths, tend to agree that males mature emotionally slower than females. Meaning a 16 year old boy is even less capable of considering the consequences and ramifications of his actions than a 16 year old girl. If anything, this fact should mean that statutory rape of a male by a female is WORSE than the inverse.

    • Spelunker4Plato

      i reject that out of hand. “emotional maturity” is subjective and i doubt there’s a science that measures it

  • Spelunker4Plato

    age of consent and voting age should be 16. if they can make life or
    death decisions on the road, then they can have consensual sex. the
    article also forgot to mention that minors are suddenly treated like
    adults if they commit a crime, which is a double standard and of course
    males will be punished more often

    • Zyavol

      I disagree. The age of consent should match with the financial responsibility behind it. Some states set the working age at 18 and no younger unless a work permit is applied.

      • Lucian Vâlsan

        All Europe has age of consent set at 16 and lower (most of Europe even lower, such as Spain – 13 or Hungary – 14).

        To ban teen sex is in and of itself insane for the simple reason that reality will never match this law. Teens have been having sex since forever and will continue to do so.

        • 66Scorpio

          AFAIK, most consent laws will have a “close-in-age defense” which means that jailbait-on-jailbait will not be illegal. As I made reference to above, until a few years ago in Canada you could bang a twelve year old and would not be charged if you were 14 at the time.

    • 66Scorpio

      I recall that hippy song “Eve of Destruction” that said “you’re old enough to kill, but not for voting”. We have that in Canada as – the last time I checked – you could join the military as young as 16-1/2. That might have changed with all the “child soldier” stuff going around.
      It is an interesting but I think ultimately groundless comparison between a drivers license and the age of consent.
      The other thing to note about age of consent laws is that what you can or cannot consent to varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Canada, the age of consent was 14 (and as low as 12 where someone close-in-age was concerned) and it was bumped up to 16. The thing is, it is basically an all-or-nothing line. Below that, it is MC Hammer-Space: you can’t touch this. Just about anything of a sexual nature with a 15 year old can get a conviction. At 16, everything is fair game if the other person is not “in a position of trust or authority” such as teacher, cop, employer, etc, (and that becomes irrelevant – to criminal proceedings but not professional misconduct) at the age of 18.
      In some jurisdictions – such as most in the USA I suspect – there are various levels of intimacy with different ages of consent along the way. Coitus is the event horizon while heavy petting and lesser things might not attract the attention of authorities the way it can in Canada.

      • john03063

        The laws in the the US are almost always based on hysteria more than reason or the severity of the crime. In most jurisdictions in the US, the punishment for taking nude photos of a minor are more severe – or at least equal to – the penalty for killing the minor.

        • 66Scorpio

          In Canada you can be jailed for drawing pictures of someone who looks like a minor, or taking a 21 year old and after giving her a wax job and putting her in pigtails and a kilt, naughty pictures can get you convicted.
          However, fucking a teenage boy up the ass is a constitutional right.

  • Zyavol

    This is indeed a disgrace. Let me see….15 years old in California, where state working age starts at age 18 UNLESS a work permit is issued…How is he even responsible for child support when he has not even had his first job? This is illogical!!! I discussed this article with my fiance and he pointed out that his parents would have to pay it on his behalf. Which is outrageous because his parents are being financially victimized after their son was raped!
    Bottom line: This needs to stop!

    • 66Scorpio

      Unless the grandparents have custody or guardianship rights and the obligations that go along with it – or there is some illogical glitch in the law that I am unaware of – they won’t get tagged for child support payments.
      I’m not sure how it works in the USA, but in Canada it is all driven by income. If you have no income, you have no child support payments. Of course, you have to show why you have no income and show the court that it is legitimate, which is where a lot of guys screw themselves. They will quit their jobs or go on disability or simply go off-grid without the evidence to say why. Then they get “imputed” and nailed for an obligation they can’t pay because they threw everything away.
      As a 15 year old I worked part-time in a warehouse for maybe 12 or 16 hours a week at something just above minimum wage. Child support does not kick in until your income is about $11k a year according to the Federal Guideline tables. Being a minor in high school would – one should hope – allow you to avoid being imputed a full-time or overtime wage.

  • Alex Clark

    “The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman.”

    What the fuck. He was 12 she was older but she deserves to get paid!!!!

    • Mr. E

      Welcome to Feminism.

  • Kronk

    You wrote;

    “The custody laws are oversights, not intentional”.

    Absolutely, positively 100% DEAD WRONG and therein lies the problem. All you people think this is nothing more than innocent oversight.


    Why is it so hard to get you people to understand that the corrupt court runs things exactly they way they want it to!

    Nobody who breathes air would think that this preposterous scenario is morally just YET so much money is available to be stolen from men that passing corrupt laws IS JUST TOO TEMPTING!

    “After all, I have a yacht payment coming up and that little boy should not have allowed himself to be raped”

    The moral bankruptcy is ubiquitous; and very lucrative….

    And with society soooooo hating men to begin with, whenever something like this happens to them nobody gives a good god-damn!

    NOT EVEN OTHER MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in most cases-

    • Vanessa Hutcheson

      I think you misunderstood my post. When it came to ordering male rape victims to pay child support, my comment on that was, “These were not oversights, though, as the rulings were made in full knowledge of the circumstances.”

      The “oversight” to which I referred were laws that allow male rapists to sue for custody/visitation.

  • Adam Smith

    any chance of fighting it by arguing that it is profit making from the proceeds of crime?.. after all statutory rape is still illegal isn’t it? and child support is getting money from that crime.

    • Mr. E

      Interesting idea, and good thought. However, technically, isn’t the money going to the child (the baby) with the mother simply acting as the guardian?

      That brings up another point though– under what circumstances would the rapee be able to obtain custody of the baby if he wanted?

      • 66Scorpio

        I’ve been out of the game for several years and I practiced in British Columbia. Yes, the money is going to the child, and courts are lazy that way (fault? who wants to take the time to figure out who was at fault? No fault!).
        “Best interests of the child” always rule. Being a statutory rapist has nothing to do with what type of mother they make. Pretty obviously, a 12 year old can’t care for a child (although if you look, I am sure you could find some 12 year old girl who has managed to). If the law allows, the grandparents (parents of the father) might be in a better position to take custody from the mother – who might be in jail as she gives birth. It’s a huge burden to overcome because mom will have several years to establish a status quo with her as the primary care giver before the guy is old enough to have his wits about him, make money, run a household, and care for a kid even on a part time basis.

        • Mr. E

          But by that logic, a man who rapes a woman might ultimately be a “better” father, but what court is ever going to seriously entertain the idea of granting custody of a child to a woman’s rapist?

          • 66Scorpio

            There’s the rub. That sort of logic has never been a two-way street.

      • john03063

        There are lots and lots of stories about underage boys who are required to pay child support as a result of statutory rape. The court usually reasons that the boy should be held responsible because he “willingly consented” to the act. I never understood how an underage boy can consent; isn’t that the whole basis of statutory rape? He’s not getting custody because he’s too young. But apparently he’s not too young to extract money from. I wonder if the courts hold an underage girl to the same standard if she “willingly consents” to the act with the older man who impregnated her? Don’t bother answering; it was only a rhetorical question…

        • Mr. E

          “But apparently he’s not too young to extract money from”

          Not extract, extort.

          • john03063

            Extortion is illegal. Extraction is legal and encouraged every day by the gyno-friendly court system we have today.

          • Mr. E

            “Extortion is illegal. Extraction is legal and encouraged every day by the gyno-friendly court system we have today.”

            TomatO TomAto.

    • 66Scorpio

      Courts have said again and again (as a legal fiction IMHO) that child support is for the child. You can’t punish the child for the misdeeds of the mother. Similarly – in theory – child support and access are not linked. A mother will not be thrown in jail for denying visitation with the father but the father can be incarcerated for withholding child support. As a practical matter, because of this imbalance in consequences, mothers will deny access to leverage child support but men can’t do the reverse.
      Also in theory is the idea that fathers and mothers have an equal right to custody, and that the “tender years doctrine” has been abolished in most jurisdictions. As a practical matter, except in the case of a stay-at-home father or a mother who is so far gone into drugs, crime, mental illness or general debauchery (which would make you wonder about the father’s choice), the mother will always have an evidentiary advantage because she was the primary care giver. It’s a huge burden to overcome and the best that once can hope for is shared custody and joint guardianship, which is where the courts want to go for parting couples that can handle it, but feminists are dead set against it becoming the default that they would have to argue against.

  • driversuz

    You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (spam). [Ref: 4993]

  • Mr. E

    I believe that both men and women have the same right to be or not be parents– at every step of the process. There is no reason why women have a “right” to abortions, it is simply an affordance made possible through technology and sympathy and concern towards the woman if she chooses not to be a mother. However, our society affords much less concern towards his plight, should he choose not to be a father. And yet, there is no real reason why he cannot be the beneficiary of an abortion as well, if he chooses. It is simply a technological construct which can be successfully applied at the behest of either parent– if our society were really interested in fairness.

    Considering that the number one reason given by women for having an abortion is “I’m just not ready to be a Mommy right now”, why is it that we have sympathy for her and none for him? Isn’t he just entitled to an opinion and a choice? Isn’t he just as apt to be “finishing up his degree” or “not able to financially support a child right now?” Or “not mature enough to be a parent just yet?” Or any of the other reasons why our society lauds women for their decision to abort their child. When a man walks away from a pregnant woman, he is making the choice to not be a parent in the only form he has available– it really is analogous to a woman deciding to have an abortion.

    Women say men don’t know what it’s like to be pregnant– and that is true– and yet, when a woman has an abortion, she is no longer pregnant. And further, if the woman is complaining about being pregnant– which is what the lament suggests– having the abortion will resolve the issue. Women say that pregnancy is stressful and carries risks for the mother but also they say abortions are safe, effective and when done correctly hardly ever have complications. So having an abortion, if the risks involved in pregnancy are indeed any sort of real concern, will go a long way toward mitigating those risks, regardless of who is the originator of the request.

    There are yet further benefits to this arrangement, no woman will ever need to feel “trapped” or “enslaved” through pregnancy, and no man will ever feel “entrapped” by a woman. Moreover, every child will be born knowing absolutely that they were desired and wanted by both their mother and father– since both parents had an opportunity to “opt-out”. Additionally, there can be no further legitimate reason for fathers (or mothers) to abandon their offspring. If they together chose to bring the child into the world, then they jointly undertook the solemn obligation to love and care for that child, and thus giving even more weight to the State’s argument that the parent– either parent– can and should be compelled, by force if necessary, to provide for the child. Neither parent could have any credible argument otherwise.

    This outlook is neither a “Feminist” nor a “Masculinist” perspective, but rather a joint “Egalitarian” perspective based on true equality and mutual respect between the parents. Fairness and equity is possible between the sexes, it simply requires that people start listening to one another and looking for cooperative solutions and stop blaming each other for perceived transgressions. Regardless of what was true in the past, the only way to the future is through mutual respect and concern for one another. The only question left really, is when will we all climb onto that bus?

    • 66Scorpio

      For women, abortion is an outpatient medical procedure that leaves the putative father childless. For a man, an abortion would be a financial matter that could potentially leave a woman unable to care for the baby she chooses to have rather than abort (or adopt out).
      No one has every explained to me when and how “her body” becomes “his child”. Her body would give birth to her child. His child would still be his child before birth and the mother would not have the unilateral right to kill it.
      On another note: sure, it is only women who get pregnant. However 9 months out of 18 years is just over a 4% premium. As pointed out elsewhere, men will take or be forced into physically or mentally demanding/risky/punishing employment to support their family so even with whatever risks of child bearing we have in the industrialized world of the 21st century, men’s life expectancy is several years less than women. That 4% (at the outside, assuming you kick the kids into the street once they are of voting age) gets a pretty good return, not just in terms of money but in terms of years of life.

      • Mr. E

        Are you an attorney? If so, what type?

        • 66Scorpio

          I am a former attorney. Between 2/3rds and 3/4rs of my practice was family law (divorce, custody, visitation, support). I was in British Columbia for about 4 years ending in 2009.

          • Mr. E

            The Feminists, and many scientists, contend that a fetus, before it becomes viable, is not a “baby”– not a “human”, just a collection of cells, etc. For the purpose of this question, let’s assume they’re right and agree with them… So if it’s not a “baby” / “human” / whatever, doesn’t that make it a “thing”?

            If a friend invites you over to her house and you leave your property– let’s say your car– in her garage– even if she doesn’t know or agree to it– does she have any obligation to you with respect to your car? Can she tow your car out into the street the next day and abandon it there? Or at some time later? Does she have any obligation to ensure your car is kept in some reasonable condition? Irrespective of whether she agrees or not (consider it either way..) Does she have an obligation to try and contact you to come retrieve it? Can she charge you rent for leaving it there if you were originally invited by her to her house? How would it be different than say, forgetting your sweater on her couch? Can she take your car and alter it? Maybe use some parts from her car and turn it into a truck? –Without your knowledge or consent? Can she charge you for her efforts (parts and labor) even though you were not consulted regarding the modifications? Do you have any recourse against her for modifying your car? If so, what?

            How is sleeping with a woman and leaving sperm in her vagina any different than leaving your car in her garage?

            If the Feminists (and scientists) are right about “life” beginning at birth (or “viability”, or whenever)– why wouldn’t the property / car analogy be the correct one to apply in that circumstance?

    • Kronk

      When will we climb on to that bus?

      When the access to fathers money is eliminated. Not before that since the only reason we have these draconian laws have NOTHING to do with morality, justice or any other adjective you can name. It is solely about separating as much money as is available from anyone unlucky enough to have a penis.

      That’s it. And that’s that.

      • Mr. E

        “It is solely about separating as much money as is available from anyone unlucky enough to have a penis.”

        Hard to argue with you on that one.

  • Mr. E

    “Not only is it a constant reminder, it is like he is being punished for being a victim of a crime. It is unthinkable that our court system not only condones, but has legalized this draconian practice. It is not only an injustice, it is an obscenity that is being perpetrated on male victims. It needs to end.”

    Yes it is, and yes it does. Well said, great article.

    I can’t wait until WOMEN are held to the SAME STANDARD as Men.

    You know… EQUALITY.

  • Mr. E


    Rape culture at EVERY STEP of the process.

    Raped over and over, month after month, year after year.

    Raped in a way that would never be tolerated for any female.

  • Bharat Darshan

    Crime against Women is serious crime. Crime against Children is serious crime. Only Crime against Men does not matter. Misandry at its peak.

  • Bharat Darshan

    The provision of child support exist to carry out financial extortion on Men and alienate them from their biological child.

  • 66Scorpio

    The idea that nature discriminates and not the law has been shot down many times in cases where women thought they were getting the short end of the stick, especially in regards to pregnancy.

  • IHateFatChicks

    Women who have sex with boys under the age of legal consent should not be allowed to keep the children who are the product of the rape. Period. End of story. Full stop.

  • 66Scorpio

    I remember taking an upper level management course in university and one strand that came up was the idea of “empowerment”. According to the text book and the prof the three components of empowerment were responsibility, authority and accountability (to this model, I personally add “capacity” because it is not empowering to be put in over your head).
    In short, responsibility is the upfront knowledge of what is expected of you; authority is control over those things that will influence the outcome regarding your areas of responsibility; and accountability is that your fate is tied to the outcome of those things for which you had responsibility and authority over. (As a semantic point, you don’t “take responsibility” after the fact, you are “held accountable” under this model
    It’s a management concept but I think it is a brilliant socio-economic insight which – of course – feminists and SJWs in general do their best to undermine.
    The object of feminism is to increase women’s authority over the family, the economy and whatever else they can get their hands on, while making men both responsible and accountable to the greatest extent possible, with no nexus between the three.
    A teenage boy does not have the forward going knowledge of being responsible for raising a child, largely because he does not have the capacity to know WTF he is doing. All legal authority rests with the rapist mother, the only authority a boy has is to say now, but let’s be realistic. However, the accountability will rest on the guy who impregnates his rapist to give a chunk of his earnings for a few decades or so. . .money that – in practice – their rapist will use for their own purposes if it is significant.