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.
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.
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.
[2] Divorce Source. Its ten o’clock: Do you know where your sperm are? Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml
[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. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208803.pdf
[5] Wikipedia. Statutory Rape. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=child+support+rape+victim&d=4680324777181235&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=cb25fe37,dc60d545
Tags: Child Support, Criminal Justice, Culture, explorer, Family Court, Fathers, Men's Issues, Men's Rights, Rape, TDOM
26 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
makeitstop:
Suzanne McCarley:
Bewildered:
malcolm:
ErnestoGuevara:
crydiego:
Great article. Well written. Very convincing. I hope you convince the people in power who can change this injustice. I recently already wrote about this issue, see
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism/men-pay-child-support-even-if-fraud-deceit-lie-rape
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism/mothers-baby-fathers-maybe-mandatory-dna-testing-at-birth
Thanks to TDOM for this excellent expose of misandric law. And by the way, I posted this to reddit/politics this morning.
It’s on fire. Check the globe and the hit count.
Thanks for posting it Paul. The more I delved into this, the more I wanted to vomit. The bottomline is that your sperm belongs to whoever takes it from you, no matter how they obtain it and if it is then used to create a child, you are financially obligated to pay for that child.
TDOM
@ TDOM
I would even extend that to say that your sperm, your labor, your money, your property and your life are the property of any women who can take them from you.
Feminists have raged rabidly for years that women had a history of being chattel.
Wrong. It’s men who are chattel. Right here and right now unless they take measures to protect themselves.
@ Paul
“I would even extend that to say that your sperm, your labor, your money, your property and your life are the property of any women who can take them from you.”
For the most part, I agree, though I think a man has to besomewhat complicit in that he has to give them the authority to take what he possesses. However, the example of the man who was raped as he slept certainly demonstrates how itcan be done without any complicitiy.
“Wrong. It’s men who are chattel. Right here and right now unless they take measures to protect themselves.”
Its always been this way. Men have always been forced to produce more than they consume in order to provide for women and children. Women have reaped the benefits. These days, however, they want it all and they don’t want to have to provide anything in return. Check out Trigger Alert where Laudenum Byron posted an excellent article from Roy Baumeister discussing how this evolved. He doesn’t get toofar into it, but he briefly discusses how feminists have twisted and exploited it.
http://triggeralert.blogspot.com/
TDOM
So good to see TDOM get a wider readership at last. The full url for the Baumeister piece is:
http://triggeralert.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-there-anything-good-about-men.html
This is indeed an eye opener. Great article TDOM. Male or female, they should be equal under the eyes of law. Most people think that if it the sex involves a younger male and an older female it’s alright. Their argument being that a female’s chastity is more valuable. I strongly disagree. Regardless of gender, all should be equal in the eyes of law.
This goes right along with what I wrote about in “NAMbLA, Coercion, and Misandry.” In the movie “Nine,” a group of little boys paying a grown woman to do a striptease is considered cute. Snips and snails and puppy dogs tails, after all.
Since this is what boys and men are like, well then, they should just get on with the business of providing, shouldn’t they? And since they’re hot for it starting at an early age, then they can’t really be raped. What idiocy.
For AVFM readers. The debate on Reddit/politics is heating up. If you have time, please stop by there and vote this article up and add your comments.
This is a chance to reach some people otherwise unaware of men’s issues.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/dmli5/male_rape_victims_forced_to_pay_child_support/
“Men have always been forced to produce more than they consume in order to provide for women and children. Women have reaped the benefits.”
I think “reaping the benefits” is a little ridiculous. It is true men have typically assumed the role of providing in western culture, but there have also consistently existed laws that prevented women from holding jobs, property, voting, and positions that allowed them to produce for themselves. Perfect example is that it was only in the recent centuries (in Europe/America) that women were allowed to own property or businesses. While it is clearly true that male statutory rape victims being forced to pay child support is outrageous legally, generalizing this to say women have “reaped benefits” is a gross simplification.
Also “It has always been this way”
Not in the hunter gatherer societies that existed before the agricultural revolution. These societies were fiercely egalitarian and while males and females had separate roles (hunting vs. gathering), there did not exist the social pressures you are referring to.
Not true. Hershey Chocolate Company was only able to exist because the founder’s female relatives where loaded(he borrowed money from them). Even in Ancient Rome women where independently wealthy(for a brief period of time the type of clothes they could wear was limited to prevent extravagance{no designer labels would be a modern equivalent} and limited to only being able to own like 1 ounce of gold).
So in this respect I am calling you ignorant of History. That or you are an outright liar. As for America and the workplace discrimination women experienced, that was all woman on woman discrimination(see Mothers of the Republic). Women fought for the “right” to stay at home. They viewed other women working as stealing money from a SAHM’s table. They protested and harassed business owners until they reached a compromise, working women would be paid less. Heck since the 1800′s Europeans called America a “Matriarchy”. Once upon a time if a man even cursed in-front of a woman he would end up going to jail.
Don’t trust text books. Look the facts up for yourself.
“I think “reaping the benefits” is a little ridiculous.”
Totally disagree. While in a hunter gather, neolithic society it makes sense that male provision to females was actually of benefit to the species, rather than one sex, the same behaviors in post feminist moder society are purely windfall for women. These crazy laws are just one more bit of evidence to that.
Excellent piece!
TDOM did an outstanding job with the case studies and technical references.
I think criminal law judges are becoming more gender blind (except in policing / sentencing), but family law is less culpable and less likely to change case precedents.
There are no case precedents in family law that provides an excuse for use of sperm, except in sperm donation. Blowjobs aren’t even safe. The only safe option for young men is to seriously consider vasectomy. It is easy, cheap and reversible and sperm can be stored cryogenically. Great birthday present for 16 yro boys.
@ Paul Elam & TDOM
Thanks for putting this out. I’ve already voted it up on Reddit.
Issues like this can be a great way to mobilize men to action. I’ve been meeting at least twice a week with my partners to lay the legal groundwork for our Men’s Organization. I’m going to bring this issue into the fray at our next meeting.
Reading Reddit now. JHK, a guy really needs hip-waders to go in there.
Feminism really is a protean mess of an ideology. In workaday feminist discourse, a child belongs to the mother, yet one of the arguments made on Reddit is that child support paid by a male rape victim is in the best interests of the child. I suppose not having a father via a stable relationship is in a child’s best interest…
How is it that women are so great at making beds but so terrible at laying in them?
@sychosomat
” Perfect example is that it was only in the recent centuries (in Europe/America) that women were allowed to own property or businesses. ”
Not true. Women have owned and run businesses for millenia.
“but there have also consistently existed laws that prevented women from holding jobs, property, voting, and positions that allowed them to produce for themselves. ”
A complete mis-representation of the past.
For the most part, restrictions on women were perfectly valid and fair.
For example, why should women have had a ‘vote’ when the matters that were dealt with by government in the past (such as war and employment) affected mostly men. Thus, why should a woman have a vote on whether men should go to war?
As for the limited property rights of a few centuries age, women were mostly being protected by them – a bit like children are protected now when it comes to property.
They also made it clear who was deemed responsible for the property – and, for example, for any loans taken out on the strength of those properties, or for any taxes that had to be paid.
The man was always responsible.
Indeed, if my memory is correct, UK laws did not even apply to women in the Middle Ages.
In essence, women were treated like children – for their own protection.
Thanks to everyone who commented and thanks again to Paul for posting it. This is thie first time I’ve ever posted an article anywhere but my own blog and I’ll be posting it there next week. In the meantime, I’ve started a follow up. I’ll offer it to Paul for posting here when its done. On Reddit there is a debate concerning legal issues between criminal and civil courts. My position is that this is a moral and ethical issue and the inconsistency in the law is both immoral and unethical. I’m hoping to address some of those issues as well as 14th Amendment issues in the follow up.
TDOM
@ TDOM
You can’t argue with over 11,000 views in 22 hours. This is really good for any website, much less an MRA site. TDOM, you gave us an opportunity to recruit a handful of newby’s (My site subs are way up) today.
Very much looking forward to your next piece on this!
@ sychsomat,
Is there any evidence, as feminist claim that the West moving was done by men as hunters and women as gathers? Some claim that’s why California is called “The Land of Fruits and Nuts”
I you want to see how egregious it is, check out his website:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783
Scroll all the way down. It is a huge list!
@ Paul
can you include a function for members to PM each other?
@ Witman
I like the idea. Let me check in to it.
@ witman
I read that piece about a week ago. I have kept a copy of it because I could be the source of about 10 articles.
Thanks for posting it.
An interesting radio programme about women and children from the BBC:
BBC.Female.Sexual.Abuse.Of.Children.2010.mp3:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MHLBMGCQ
http://rapidshare.com/files/423258411/bbc.female.sexual.abuse.of.children.breaking.the.silence.mp3
Men have at least one more option that is far less severe, Denis. Always, always, always use a condom, and take it with you when you leave. Not only will this ensure that you leave “nothing” behind, but it will aid in preventing a few sexually transmitted diseases.
@Rebtus
“Some claim that’s why California is called “The Land of Fruits and Nuts””
California may be the land of fruit and nuts, but it’s the Barbarian who rules.
TDOM
D TOM,
Glad that you understood that my comment about California was a joke I heard of read somewhere.
B.R. Merick.
Excellent advice. The community paper has been running pictures of young men who are wanted by police for failure to appear for child support hearing. Another issue, beware that the woman tells her real age or the man may end on sex offender registry for statutory rape. Link to Paul Elam’s
http://www.helium.com/items/1280213-sexual-predators-sex-offenders-sex-offender-registry
Paul,
Maybe this article can find its way into the next issue of Menz magazine. I think it (the article) explains in its own words the necessity of this movement. I am getting a very receptive response from people who ask me about the mag when I drop it off at Barber shops, Libraries, Cafe’s and Car repair shops, people want to know more.
@ Patrick
That is Factory’s final say, but he has my vote and I know he reads through these comments.
What say you, Factory?
@charlene thank christ there are still a few women left in the world
I find it absurd to call any willing participant to sex a “rape victim”. Rather than painting young men and young women equally with such a term, I’d prefer to see it reserved for ACTUAL rape victims, i.e. people who are unwilling participants in sex.
As for child support, again the age of the participants is not relevant, in my view. If the woman has complete control over whether the pregnancy is carried to term (which she does), why should the man, who has zero say, be forced to support a child he does not want? The injustice of the current system is not given enough weight by the author, who saves his complaints for when the male participant is under a certain age.
Men cannot advance by crying “Me too!” to phony problems such as “statutory rape”.
@ JdL
I am sure you have noticed that whether you think it is absurd to call a willing participant in sex a rape victim, the law already makes that call and has for a long, long time.
The only “me too” this article is advocating is in the equal application of the already standing law.
Absolutely. In it goes.
Of course, now I have more illustration to do/look for…..
Incidentally, at this rate, Issue 2 will pass the 20,000 view mark in about an hour and a half…
With articles like this, three stands a chance of beating that handily…
@ JDL
Hopefully by now you’ve read part 2 which addresses how sexual predators gain the cooperation of their victims through a process called grooming. It is a process of psychological manipulation that results in a victim who appears willing. The references I used for the Nathaniel J case indicate that the perpetrator discussed the encounter with the victim prior to its occurrance. This is typically part of that process.
I also have not ignored the larger issue of reproductive freedom for men and paternity fraud. That will be addressed in part 3 and it will include some proposed solutions.
@factory
I’d love to see my article published in Menz. Just give me credit and plug my site.
TDOM
“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”
I think most of us argue the wrong way.
It is of course without question that children should not have sex and so people having sex with children should be punished. But teenagers are a different topic altogether, because they are already mature enough (in the biological sense) to want sex. Most of 14 year olds wants to have sex regardless of their gender. We shouldn’t try to argue that a 15 year old boy is traumatized by having consensual sex with his female teacher. He’s not. BUT the reverse is also true: if a 15 yo girl agrees to have sex with an older guy, she won’t be traumatized and thus she doesn’t need “protection” in this sense.
I often quote Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet where the 13 yo Juliet’s mother says to her that when she was the same age she was already pregnant with her (or even already have given birth to her, I can’t quite remember). This suggests that it was quite normal for a teenager to marry, have sex and give birth while very young. This is not something unnatural, only our laws and hysterical activists try to paint it that way.
Now… I’m not encouraging child molestation or rape. But if one’s body is biologically mature enough to have sex (erection or menses respectively) then it should not be a crime to have CONSENSUAL sex with them.
If the teenager WANTS the sex to happen then I fail to see how it can be a crime. Of course if s/he is just lured/forced into it then that’s molestation.
On the other hand, their parents should prepare them for all this stuff and teach them to make proper judgements about their own sexlife.
Seeing guys go to jail for 20 years for fucvking someone 2 years younger than them (when its legal at that age in the UK, or isn’t in the Uk but is in Spain, etc) got me into MRA to start with. When i bring this up people think i’m some kind of paedo, but the Netherlands seems to have a sensible sollution (legal within 3 years of you) why don’t we adopt it? Should she have the right to chose (to rape him?)
“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.”
Be right back, gotta go puke.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/05/police-warrant-hiv.html
Keep an eye on this case for a clear example of open misandry.
I predict a light sentence if not just “counselling”. Meanwhile a man doing the same thing is qualified to be deemed a “dangerous offender” and incarcerated INDEFINATELY.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/02/hiv-offender-aziga.html
Not that I think indefinate incarceration for someone proven to have so little regard for his fellow humans making informed decisions about life and death issues…… It is the milder treatment for a woman doing the same thing and calls for “understanding” that is both upsetting and illogical……… because she only killed men…. well and a few women that likely also contracted the disease from Kyra Peterson’s partners.
Also, notice in the Aziga case 7 women who have contracted the disease from him are mentioned in every story………. Not one word about any of those 7 passing it on before they were aware they were infected. Just because those would be sick or dead MEN, I would still add them to the victim count.
I realise this was necromancing but this came up somewhere else. I know there was a similar case in Australia a few years back where a 15 year old boy was at a slumber party, was raped by the boy’s mother, who subsequently fell pregnant and the family court ordered him to pay child support. Anyone got a link to it?