Rape victims should not have to pay their rapists

nor should other crime victims like Justin Bieber, Catherine Kieu Becker’s husband, or the millions of paternity fraud victims.

For two days now I’ve listened to morning talk jock Chip Franklin’s[1] incessant rant and “outrage” over the Chrystal Harris spousal rape case[2]. Her husband was unemployed and losing it mentally. It was a horrible time. “I didn’t know what to do,” she said. He threatened to kill her. He choked her, slapped her, raped her, sodomized her, and forced her to perform oral sex. She was able to tape record the attack which was truly horrific.

Chrystal had a six figure job. San Diego Superior Court Judge Gregory Pollock ordered her to pay spousal support to her husband when released from prison in 2014. The judge also ordered her to pay for his attorney’s legal fees.

Franklin started a scorched earth campaign against Judge Pollock; demeaned him, vilified him, and encouraged listeners to barrage him with protests. After all, Franklin was rightly “outraged” that victim Chrystal was being re victimized by being ordered to pay her abuser, the criminal, the perpetrator, her rapist…

Franklin was also incensed that Chrystal’s husband would immediately upon his release from prison have joint custody of their children.

Now San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is proposing long overdue legislative reforms to ensure violent crime victims do not have to compensate their abusers. But why now? Such injustices are hardly new. Many individuals and organizations have been advocating for similar legislative reforms for years. Now Johnny-come-latlies rise from the ashes like a born again Phoenix.

Were Chrystal a similarly victimized man the story would not have triggered Franklin’s sensationalism sensor and Dumanis would not be proposing reform legislation. A man’s victimization would have been a non event, understandable, perfectly fine, no big deal, nothing to get excited about.

So why have earlier pleas for crime victims reforms been ignored?

Franklin[3] wondered if “the old school guys” in Sacramento were the culprit. He thought “this was” an issue feminists should really get behind. He railed against the court and criminal justice systems for being unfair by re victimizing abused women. He praised the courage of the four or five women who called to tell him they had been raped but got no justice. Apparently he knew for a fact the callers were indeed rape victims, no other evidence required. If they had been male rape victims would Franklin’s outrage been the same?

Franklin often mentions how he was raised by his mother and older sisters, which may explain his deference to women issues and superficial treatment of issues adversely impacting men and boys. Like the rest of us Franklin is a product of his environment. While understandable, though harmful, he, like millions of others, is chivalrous at the general expense and injury of males.

For example, Frankin gave cursory lip service to Mariah Yeater’s[4] claim that she had sex with heart throb pop star Justin Bieber[5].

As many of you now know, Yeater[6][7] later gave birth to a son and wants a paternity test. Yeater was legally an adult and Bieber legally a child when they allegedly had sex. If the sex occurred, Yeater probably will not be arrested, not be tried, and not be imprisoned. Yeater will be shown to be a poor, misguided, and desperate young woman scheming to survive the best way should could contrive. She may even be portrayed as victimized like real crime victims. If she lied, falsely accused, jeopardized the life of another, she won’t be arrested, tried, or imprisoned for that either; not even fined.

If true however, Yeater is by law a rapist. Even so, victim Bieber may be ordered to pay millions in child support to Yeater, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover Yeater’s attorney’s legal bills.

What if Yeater were the 15-year-old pop star and Bieber the 19-year-old rapist? Then, should Yeater, a young girl, be required to pay child support to Bieber and his legal bills? Never happen; and, Bieber would probably do some time behind bars.

Why should rapist Yeater retain custody of “their” purported child? Shouldn’t Bieber, the rape victim, be given custody, receive child support, and have his legal fees paid by Yeater?  Or, should that apply only when the victim is female?

Let’s consider the case of Omaima Nelson. Last month, in Orange County, California, her bid for parole was denied[8], thank God.

Omaima murdered her husband, chopped him up bite-size, cooked his body parts, ate him and chased her dinner down with a bit of white wine. Police found her husband’s head in the refrigerator, hands in a fry cooker, and entrails in his Corvette. Apparently Omaima sat at the kitchen table with her husband’s cooked remains and said out loud: “It’s so sweet, it’s so delicious. I like mine tender.”

There are no issues of spousal or child support for Omaima the Cannibal, her husband is dead. However, this case is so horrendous one would think it would be a focus of talk shows like Franklin’s. Yet I cannot find anything to show he ever mentioned Omaima’s predilection for sweet meat. Regardless, I suspect Franklin could not resist reviling the man who butchered his wife, fricasseed her, and chased his dinner down with a fine wine?

Then there’s Westminster, California sweetheart Catherine Kieu[9][10]. In July 2011 Kieu poisoned her 60-year-old husband, tied him to a bed after he passed out from being sick, waited until he awoke, cut off his penis with a 10-inch kitchen knife, and in their garbage disposal ground his severed organ into sewage. Police found him in great pain, terrorized and bleeding profusely. He was hospitalized in critical condition. She said, “[h]e deserved it.”

“It’s hard to believe what would motivate a person to do this sort of thing. It’s one of the worst things you could do to a person short of killing him,” said District Attorney, Susan Kang Schroeder.” I agree and such a crime has to be worse than threats, stalking, choking, and even rape?

So why wasn’t Franklin “outraged” about Kieu? Like Nelson, I couldn’t find any evidence that Franklin ever mentioned Kieu’s butchery let alone devoted considerable air time to it like he did for Chrystal’s rape.

If Kieu is released from jail, not convicted because of some “abuse excuse”, not sent to prison where she belongs, it’s possible her husband will have to pay her spousal support. Will Franklin be up in arms, albeit “outraged” about that? Doubt it. Franklin may be of the ilk that rallies with, “What did he do to piss her off.”

Consider choking. Not strangulation, but “choking”. Hands squeezing throat, thumbs deep in flesh, lungs begging for air, eyes bulging from fear, it stops, hands removed, red marks, bruising, breathing freely again, still fearful, rightfully so, now safe, nightmares, perhaps forever, not good, certainly a crime, but it’s over, those few minutes of abject terror…

Now, consider paternity fraud, a choking of a different kind, much more devastating, seldom if ever prosecuted; perpetrators are readily identifiable, always goes free, and seldom suffer sanctions. The victims, thousands of men annually, are indentured up to 20 years or more to their female perpetrators and the State which is not only complicit in the crime but, openly protects the perpetrators.

These women are rewarded with tens of thousands of dollars in child support, counties get millions in Social Security Title IV-D incentive dollars, and the victim gets the privilege of paying for being victimized, just like Chrystal being ordered to pay legal fees and spousal support.

Undue mental and emotional force is by definition “violence”. Paternity fraud certainly causes all of that and then some. Yet legislators and the agencies charged with child custody collections fight hook, line, and sinker against outlawing this perverse and debilitating thievery. All victims are fair game males.

Have you noticed a theme yet? Are you now able to answer the question why the laws were not changed earlier to protect real victims? Have you figured out why there has been no public outcry, no interest, and no political will to stop rewarding certain types of criminals by ordering their victims to support their abusers?

If not, you might want to read this article again while wondering why so many fathers with sons seem predisposed to sacrifice their lives to protect felonious women. I imagine people like Franklin find revolting the mere thought of wondering such a thing. Tomorrow, like millions of others, he’ll start pandering to women again. He still won’t get it.

It’s the good’ol “Women’s Caucus” that virtually controls or influences every piece of state legislation. Is it possible feminists have not rallied for reforms because they long ago realized that overtime such reforms may cost women more than they gain? Powerful legislative committees are often controlled by misandric female legislators who for decades have prevented meaningful paternity fraud and other reform legislation that benefit males. Courtly, if not fearful, male legislators generally acquiesce. New school feminists and “ol’school guys” drove legislation to absurdity where victims pay their abusers. Needed is common sense legislative reform absent gender politics. Needed are influential talk show hosts who “get it,”6 otherwise they do great harm.

[2] href=”


  • AntZ

    Bravo, NCFM. Never let anyone forget that the MRM is fighting for equal protection under the law, and equal protection of government. Feminism, on the other hand, is a religion of hate.

  • Rper1959

    ” Undue mental and emotional force is by definition “violence” ” and even more common then paternity fraud is the state enforced “violent” abuse by malicious ex spouses (read women) denying their spouse (read children’s father) and children their basic human right of an ongoing and meaningful relationship whilst expecting the man to continue to fund their abuse. Open the flood gates to victims of paternity fraud, and many more such male victims of the feminist system will follow, no wonder the femplex don’t want this acknowledged or spoken of.

  • LJ

    It had been repeatedly stated, the problem will have to negatively impact women (read feminists) before changes will occur. Great job examining this one.


    Cult of hate.

  • CCRoxtar

    As far as Justin Bieber goes, I don’t think he ever met Ms. Yeater, much less had sex with her. His mother, or some other adult who manages or chaperones him, would most likely watch him like a hawk & make sure he goes straight to the limo after every show. So I think the more likely scenario is extortion: the real baby-daddy is some no-name guy without 2 dimes to rub together, & Yeater is targeting Bieber because he has deeper pockets. She is a gold-digger AND an attention whore!

  • Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

    Yet they tell us men are not raped. Can’t happen, ever. Nope. Nada.

  • Dannyboy

    The animosity and presumption of guilt of a man is nothing new. The media has licked the misandric ideologues for quite sometime now.
    For the most part as you stated it is ignored. Given the pussy pass so to speak.
    I agree with what LJ said.
    Until some act ( law ,bill ) negatively affects a woman things are not likely to change.
    Just look out when it does then the cockroaches are crawling out of the wood work falling all over themselves frothing at the mouth threatening politicians with their jobs if they don’t change something that is wrong. If its a man meh not so much.
    A man is victimized oh well that isn’t worthy of news coverage for the most part.
    It is only when there can be no excusing the heinous act that male victims get some sort of news coverage which is then left up to other media to ridicule. ( Think sharon osborne )
    I am not sure if yeater raped Justin, the proof will be exposed when or if there is a paternity test. If the results are positive there needs to be legal action. That’s right equitable criminal legal action. yeater needs to be put on the sexual predator registry, her dna taken and filed. Any and all the things a man would go through needs to be applied to Yeater. No excuse No exceptions.
    The media needs to wise up and call a rape a rape and expose her actions for what they are.
    If Justin is the father then I hope his lawyer sets up his child support so that only the child will benefit from his money. To reward yeater with the ability to enjoy the money is just wrong. I would go with a trust arrangement with yeater being barred from having access to any of the monies. A third party trustee would make the choice on how and what the money is spent on. If yeater’s liar erm I mean lawyer makes the claim that shelter needs to be provided for the child I agree just as long as the rapist isn’t permitted to have the same roof over her head. Food, clothing and entertainment the same applies.
    I am fairly sure there is a law on the books in the states that a criminal shall not be permitted to profit from their crimes.
    Well yeater your crime would be proven via a dna test and that means you don’t get to reap dime one for that criminal act. Your child would be fruit of the proverbial poison tree. I am not saying the child is poison I am saying your rape of that under age person is the poison, and poisonous acts should never be rewarded with a life of luxury.

    • sweeney

      If Beiber is the father he needs to seek sole custody as the mother is a sexual predator and thus is an unfit parent

      • Dannyboy

        In an ideal world yes that would be the optimal result.
        However the courts are no longer acting in an equitable manner. What they are doing is capitulating to gender law.
        Gender law looks like law, acts like law, is enforced like law, but is void of a basic principle of law.
        The equal application of the law.

        Now Justin does have a saving grace; He has money. He can afford some of the very best lawyers to argue his case.
        This is also a detriment to him, he has money and lawyers like yeater’s will be lining up at the door to get a piece of the action. yeater’s lawyer will undoubtedly receive a percentage of the settlement for his participation in the case.
        As for her being an un-fit parent, hell yes.
        Remove the genders.
        What are you left with?
        A 19 yr old actively pursuing ( shouldn’t the term stalking apply here or what ? ) and engaging in sex with a 15 yr old.
        Therefore after removing the gender bias the only rational conclusion is as you have stated yeater is a sexual predator and as such should not be permitted to:

        A) walk about freely without a pending criminal charge.
        B) pending the outcome of said criminal charge permitted to remain free if found guilty.
        C) if found guilty have a court order issued demanding that she is not be involved in the child’s life until said child reaches the age of majority and initiates contact with her if the child so chooses.

    • BeijaFlor

      Danny, I wish this would happen.

      Ms. Yeater deserves to be dealt with in the same fashion that would be used to deal with a male who “got it on” with a woman who “could have been underaged”. Instead she’s given a pussy-pass as wide and unrestricted as that a 34-year-old “music teacher” might already have gotten for sitting downstairs and making out with a Cub Scout.

      • Dannyboy

        Do you have a link for an article on that teacher student incident?
        I would like to read and absorb the info from it.

  • Promoman

    This just shows the results of the hysterical hypocrisy that women shill via the legal system. It’s bad enough that tainted subjectiveness is present in punishing crime but examining the right thing for a wrong reason is worse given the logic that’s pondering it. The “crime” is Pussy Pass not coming through. We’d have to see that “reform” isn’t a Trojan Horse that’d make things worse. Omaima Nelson at least has insanity as an excuse for her shit but women are basically have carte blanche by way of the Pussy Pass when they get in the gutter thanks to society.

  • Dr. F

    Everywhere you go if you look for it or not you’ll be greeted by the odd face of absurdity, and I see it right here.

    In fact there’s no escaping it as we go about our lives – it’s everywhere.

    A cement pole near my home serves no function whatsoever yet has a council approved sign on it that reads “Cars negate carefully here”.
    My downstairs neighbour only hangs her clothes out on the line when a storm seems likely and a local primary school has passed the rule that the kids can’t hunt and pick four leaf clovers.
    Guns are fired in the air to celebrate peace, a solar powered torch has been patented and a fortune teller from a road accident wins a multi million dollar law suit because she can no longer prognosticate.

    This ‘Chip Franklin business’ is another pea in pod that stretches to Mars and is, by it’s stripe, an absurdity that’s odd and perverse at the same time.

    As someone who revels in the humour and the gentleness of a teasing message that only absurdity can bring I’ll put up my palm to this type in a trice. This madness I read about here just begs me to pull it apart in my mind in order for me to better know it’s nature.

    Unfortunately the very nature of absurdity holds anything rational closely to it’s chest.

    The secret to understanding it better might be to know only that that there is nothing rational here and it’s wiser to look upon the baser motivations of the others that tolerate, accommodate and ply the words about in the papers and other media for us ingest.
    This is not even addressing the original players of the events themselves, just those that come after the event.

    Is it at all possible that the motivations are money and the flush of excitement felt when pampered on a stage.

    I mean can it be possible ?

    If you cup your ear their way you can hear the splash of tears from gales of laughter, a shuffling of freshly minted notes in grubby hands and the soft shuffle of glazed eyed pedestrians passing as they watch the lions eat their own.

    The only thing absurd about that picture is that there is absolutely nothing absurd about it at all.