Sponsored links

A Voice for Men

Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry

SocFreeSpeech
You are here: Home / Featured / Forcing men to make monthly payments to their rapists

Forcing men to make monthly payments to their rapists

By 32 Comments

U.S. courts have uniformly affirmed that the state can lawfully force boys and men to make monthly payments to their rapists.  The circumstances that produce this outcome are:

  1. woman rapes boy or man with a sex act of reproductive type [1]
  2. rapist gets pregnant from the rape
  3. rapist gives birth to the baby, rather than aborting it
  4. rapist doesn’t get rid of the child under safe-haven infant abandonment laws
  5. rapist doesn’t give the child up for adoption

The rapist can then legally receive a “child support” order that requires the raped boy or man to make monthly payments to his rapist.  The size of these payments depend on the rapist’s income, not the child’s needs, and there’s is no legal requirement that these payments actually be used to financially support the child.  Moreover, if the rapist is granted state payments under the welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the state will require the rapist to name the raped father of the child.  The state will then on its own motion establish a “child support” order against that boy or man, and the state will collect on behalf of the rapist any payments made under that order.   Circumstances of men being legally required to make monthly payments to their rapists have been numerous enough to generate more than seventeen court cases.  All the court cases addressing these circumstances have affirmed that a raped man is legally obligated to make payments to the woman who raped him.[2]

Requiring raped boys and men to “pay child support” is truly a marvel of sophistry, delusion, and social exploitation.  Courts typically gesture to the best interests of the child.  The irony of referring to the best interests of the child seems to be lost is cases imposing child support on boys of ages twelve and fifteen who were victims of statutory rape.  Courts hold up the principle “every child has a right to support from both parents.”[3]  But what about single parents?  Should law, public policy, and courts discourage single parenthood?  If the public concern is about the financial support of children, two parents are surely better than one parent.  But three or more financial parents is better than two.   Why not impose child-support orders on grandparents as well as the brothers and sisters of the parent?  The best interests of the child would be better served by imposing child support orders on the whole village.[4]

Boys and men being legally forced to to make monthly payments to their rapists indicates that elite men and women devalue fundamental interests of ordinary men.  Legal platitudes about the best interests of the child and the virtues of two-parent families are emotive superstructure above base interests.  A law review article published in 1992 asked:

Men also have interests in their genetic progeny and in their reproductive autonomy.  If we object to what some characterize as coerced motherhood, can we close our ears to pleas about coerced fatherhood? [4]

Two decades latter, the answer unquestionably is yes.  What that answer fundamentally means for open, free, democratic societies remains to be seen.

justice ponders child support law and goes blind

*  *  *  *  *

Table: child support rape cases (Excel version)

Notes:

[1] The outcome is the same if a woman acquires a male’s sperm through fraud or theft.  See Higdon (2011) pp. 18-20.

[2]  Here’s a list of child support rape cases.  Many such cases probably occur in low-level family court proceedings that are largely opaque to external policy evaluation and analysis.  For example, online searches don’t show the Ohio child support rape case described obliquely in a newspaper article.  Moreover, given the unanimity of courts’ opinions, a rape victim might wisely judge that bringing such a case isn’t worth the cost.  Forcing boys and men to make monthly payments to their rapists is more bizarre to reason than unusual in practice.  On courts’ unanimity in making such decisions, see Hidgon (2011) p. 13.

[3] See, e.g. County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., 50 Cal. App. 4th 842 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 6th Div. 1996 at 845.

[4] Two law review comments  (London (2004) and Johnson (2005)) and two law review articles (Jones (2002) and Higdon (2011)) have focused on requiring boys and men victims of rape to pay child support.  Three out of four of those authors are female.  London (2004) considers the issue from a highly gynocentric perspective. Higdon (2011), p. 12, observes:

Few would argue with the proposition that, if a man voluntarily has sex with a woman and a child results, then he should be liable for child support.

Two decades ago, few would argue for gay marriage.  A law review article published in 1994 declared authoritatively, “As a direct consequence of biological differences, reproductive choice is a right exclusive to women.”  See Thompson (1994) p. 393.  Thus biology is destiny, and men don’t get reproductive rights because men don’t get pregnant.  That’s wholly specious.  That men don’t get pregnant simplifies the moral issue of reproductive rights from aborting a fetus to not having the state impose unplanned financial parenthood on a man for no act of his own other than having sex of reproductive type.  Higdon (2011), p. 41, begins its conclusion:

Despite the noble policies upon which it is premised, the practice of holding biological fathers strictly liable for child support is not without its shortcomings.

These polices are no more noble than circumlocution in describing gross injustice.

[5] Shultz (1992) p. 93.  Higdon (2011), p. 26, states, “courts simply have to start taking a different approach to this issue.”  Higdon (2011) still has not been published in a law review.  Law reviews themselves are quite capable of ignoring and obscuring the gross unreasonableness of this area of law.

References:

Higdon, Michael J. 2011.  “Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination and the Duty of Child Support.” (February 14, 2011). University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 139.  Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1761333 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1761333

Johnson, Dana. 2005.  “Comment, Child Support Obligations that Result from Male Sexual Victimization: An Examination of the Requirement of  Support.” 25 Northern Illinois University Law Review, pp. 515-538.

Jones, Ruth. 2002.  “Inequality in Gender-Neutral Laws: Why Must Male Victims of Statutory Rape Pay Child Support for Children Resulting from Their Victimization?” 36 Georgia Law Review, pp. 411-63.

London, Ellen. 2004. “Comment, A Critique of the Strict Liability Standard for Determining Child Support in Cases of Male Victims of Sexual Assault and Statutory Rape.”  152 University of Pennsylvaian Law Review, pp. 1957-99.

Shultz, Marjorie M. 1992.  “Abortion and Maternal-Fetal Conflict: Broadening Our Concerns.” 1 Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies 79.

Thompson, Angela. 1994.  “International Protection of Women’s Rights: An Analysis of Open Door Counselling Ltd. and Dublic Well Women Centre v. Ireland.” 12 Boston University International Law Review 371.

Article published under CC license.

Filed Under: Featured, Feminist Governance, Gynocentrism

Sponsored link

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

Gynocentrism.com

Elsewhere on AVfM

  • JT Coriolis

    The moment there is a life, it must be supported.

    I would prefer not to support it with my taxes.

    Obviously, the mother who brings the fetus to term, should support this child.

    Now it gets to cases where the father is an under aged boy.

    I still would rather not be on the hook, so I suppose I have no answer to this conundrum. There is a life and there are three parties: the mother, the father (regardless of the age) and the taxpayers.

    I still have no clue.

    But can you imagine if Trump announced: “Some of the money we used to support a woman’s right to an abortion will be diverted to pay for the child support of a baby born from the rape of a boy.”

    • Guestronomy

      Simple answer.
      the child should be either given to the man if he wants it or become a ward of the state.
      As the rapist should be in jail for the same amount of time a man would be, meaning that the child would be an adult by the time they got out.

      • Karl Dawg

        Awesome answer !

      • JT Coriolis

        I agree with punishment for the rapist–that is an obvious punishment but does not go to the issue of financial support.

        Can a 14 year old boy raise a child?

        As for it becoming a ward of the state, even that is too cut and dry. And it absolves the woman of her costs.

        Nothing is ever easy with infants.

        • Guestronomy

          “Can a 14 year old boy raise a child?”
          In the case of under age victims then
          (1) their family would need to be involved in the arangment)
          (2) the state would have to offer support till the victim was old enough to take full responsability.
          Same sort of things that happen when a 14 year old girl has a baby.

          I do agree that the is a moral case for recovering as much of the cost as posible from the rapist.

    • Safi Karim

      The moment there is a life, it must be supported.

      Biologically, life begins before childbirth. It’s a fact, no matter how inconvenient. Any woman or girl is allowed to have abortions, literally killing the human life; yet men and boys aren’t even allowed to simply not financially support the human life. So people’s concern about the support for and well-being of that human life is very selective

  • Bora Bosna

    Did you notice that almost all of the authors in the references are female?

  • Guestronomy

    “the best interests of the child”

    Not being raised by a rapist.

    • Karl Dawg

      Again .. .. .. awesome answer.

  • “A law review article published in 1994 declared authoritatively, “As a direct consequence of biological differences, reproductive choice is a right exclusive to women.” See Thompson (1994) p. 393. Thus biology is destiny, and men don’t get reproductive rights because men don’t get pregnant.”

    Then men are denied complete humanity. Being pregnant is only half the procreation equation no matter how big, over-sized, and weighted pregnancy superficially looks. Bearing millions of babies is useless unless they are also brought to maturity, which men have historically overseen. Plus, wombs stay empty without semen.

    ’nuff said, unless we also discuss how reproductive powers—by default—cannot be about who owns the equipment. The meaning of humanity, unless it is shallow, can’t be about who owns more equipment.

    If I am wrong, then can we all just please stop it with “humanity this” and “humanity that? Under this condition, the term is rendered meaningless unless you are a female.

    Humanity is both male and female. No opinions can change that. We both count, equally and nothing else. !00-0 is nowhere near as fair and balanced or equal as 50-50.

    The law article of 1994 is incorrect.

    • TLC

      Biology has nothing to do with it. A man is not required by nature to stick around and support the law. In the natural world, a lot of male animals don’t stick around to help the mother raise the child, though some do. It’s the law, not biology or nature, that requires men to support the child. Biology permits him to just leave–which, of course, women complain about. But claiming that biology denies men reproductive rights is utter nonsense.

  • Orion_TheHunter

    This is a great article, I want to say that first. Again, you guys come through with a valid, well documented contrarian piece. I’m tired of the trump card women have over our arguments, though. I grow tired, really tired, of how feminists can just ‘roll their eyes’ as an appropriate response to a challenge of merit, not a spurious one, to feminism. Their responses to pieces such as this one aren’t even intellectual. There’s no comprehension on their part that two equally ‘correct’ explanations can co-exist because both are based on valid viewpoints and perspectives that are incomplete. The feminists of today have so sewn up their own role in life as one of victimhood, and with it the attendant advantages, that they don’t even have to consider serious challenges to their own incompleteness (an incompleteness that anyone with half a brain knows exists in every ideology). Until there are enough men who are willing to withstand a woman’s anger, they’re never going to have to confront that gaping hole of hypocrisy that sits in the middle of their ideology.

    • artiefischel

      They roll their eyes because they believe that’s all they’re required to do. This is how entitled they believe themselves to be, that they aren’t even required to come up with an argument that is at least superficially reasonable.

      • Orion_TheHunter

        You’re right. It’s at the heart of the issue of latent sexism because it revolves around truth and how it is discovered. They believe they already know the truth, and can work backwards from that for explanation. Maintaining the narrative is more important than knowing the truth, so anything that doesn’t fit the narrative simply requires qualification.

        In reality, I wouldn’t care if it weren’t for the very real legal and economic consequences that it brings. I’d tell them to go scratch. But, when some feminist’s bring their arrogance to positions of power, if you so much as whisper ‘latent sexism’ or ‘female rape’ online, there is a pretty good chance they’ll drum something up to fire you. And the laws support them. Workers have no rights.

        If your employer wants to write you up for not tying your shoes properly, they can do that, and it can be the basis of a fireable offense. They don’t even have to say it was because you used the term ‘latent sexism’ or ‘female rape’. That’s essentially what happened to me and it cost me significant money from a patent I invented. I had done nothing wrong at work, so they couldn’t even say ‘harrasment’. They had to say that when I talked to a girl, I wasn’t being respectful of her time. And then when I stopped talking to the girls after they said this to me, they wrote me up for not communicating. Notice that nowhere in there is there anything about ‘he slapped her on the butt’ or ‘he gazed at her breasts’ or ‘he said something offensive’. It was, literally, simply that I was ‘not being respectful of their time’. And it stuck. How are we supposed to operate in that reality?

        It’s like we’re being forced to say and do things, not because they are right, but because they want to hear us say them. And they can essentially rob us of the fruits of our labor legally.

  • Safi Karim

    I hate when people use the argument that the boy / man who was raped still has to support the child because the child needs support and that the father’s “responsibility” to provide it is regardless of the mother’s actions

    For one thing, if the father was raped, he doesn’t have a responsibility either to his rapist nor even to the child. People say “but the child’s well-being”, but why does no one care about the rape victim’s well-being? Why exactly should the well-being of the resulting child automatically take precedence?

    I believe that in the cases where the father (and his family, if he’s a minor) do not want to care for the child, the most humane solution is that the child be put up for adoption or become a ward of the state. If the child is adopted, that would be ideal. In the case that it becomes a ward of the state, the obvious issue is yes, I know, taxpayers don’t want to pay for the child

    The thing this argument misses is that: the child is no more the male rape victim’s responsibility than it is the taxpayers, or anyone else. Yes, the child is biologically his, but he didn’t choose for it to happen, and a person is not responsible for something he had no choice in.

    Any assertion that a male rape victim is responsible for the resulting child demonstrates the difficulty people have with recognizing that men and boys can truly be raped by women. Because no one thinks a real victim of a crime is responsible for the damages someone else inflicted on him, yet all the time people say men and boys in these cases still have a responsibility to the child.

    The one responsible is the mother, and in any case–the father(‘s family) gets custody, the child is adopted, the child becomes a ward of the state–she should be made to pay child support. For what she’s genuinely unable to cover, the rest should be taken care of by the child’s guardians or, in the latter case, distributed among everyone else

    • phaidros52

      But your argument “Yes, the child is biologically his, but he didn’t choose for it to happen, and a person is not responsible for something he had no choice in”
      would also lead to let the taxpayer (state) take care for all children conceived in a marriage where the wife is not telling the truth when she says “Yes, I take the pill”. By your definition “a father is not responsible for something he had no choice in”. So, a tricky field even though making a raped boy/man/sperm donor (happened in Germany) pay for the child is disgusting at least.

      • Safi Karim

        Lying about birth control is one thing, because if the man consented to sex he still could have used a condom and chose not to. He chose to just believe her and not take precaution himself, so it is partly his choice. In a case where the woman gets pregnant through spermjacking or poking a hole in the condom, in that case, yes I also believe it should be treated the same as if he were raped (where the woman pays as much support as possible and is the rest is provided for by the legal guardian), since in both cases he didn’t choose for that to happen

        • DSquiggles98

          “Lying about birth control is one thing, because if the man consented to
          sex he still could have used a condom and chose not to. He chose to just
          believe her and not take precaution himself, so it is partly his
          choice.”

          No, you’re still trying to obfuscate the woman’s wrongdoing by making his trust in her a fault on his part. If the woman lies to him about her birth control, that’s ON HER, not him. Saying that he could have added further protection to the situation is simply excusing her from accountability. Consensual sex requires TRUST for all parties involved, so for them to mutually rely only on her birth control is still a valid form of protection. Sure, adding further protection helps, but your logic can still be carried even further, for instance: “Well, yeah, she lied about her pill, but he also wore a condom and those aren’t 100% either, so he should have gotten a vasectomy beforehand.” At what point should the buck end?

          • Safi Karim

            Condoms are 98% effective, which is still much more reliable than trusting that his partner isn’t lying and hasn’t forgotten. Clearly a vasectomy is on a completely different level considering it’s a permanent sterilization process. Saying a man should wear a condom so he won’t get her pregnant this time isn’t anything like saying a man should get a vasectomy so he’ll never be able to get anyone pregnant again

            Of course she’s wrong for lying, but because there are people who lie, people should do what they can to try to protect themselves. It’s like if someone opened someone else’s car door and stole out of it the laptop that was sitting on his front seat, that thief would certainly be in the wrong and hopefully be punished. But then it would be illogical to say “he shouldn’t have to lock his car door and/or keep his valuables in the trunk. He should be able to leave it there and trust that no one will take it”

      • Bora Bosna

        You are comparing consensual sex to rape.

  • TLC

    Even when a man is the victim of a crime, he is still guilty.

    In this case, he’s guilty of being a father, which today is a criminal offense. Fathers must prove each month that they have paid their support or face legal sanctions, including jail. And in many cases, even if they’re proven not to be the father of the child, the state still demands they pay or face consequences.

    Now, if DNA evidence clears a murderer, he is set free. He may even be entitled to compensation for time spent in jail.

    But if DNA evidence clears the man accused of being a father, he must still pay or go to jail.

    Being a father is a worse crime than being a murderer. A father is guilty even when he’s proven innocent.

    Or even when he was the victim of rape.

    Men are adults and women are children even when the woman is an adult and the man is a child. He is punished for being a victim and she is rewarded for being a rapist.

    The solution here is to let the man decide what happens to the child. If he can raise the child, then he should be allowed to raise it. If he can’t, he can place it for adoption. If she wants the child, then she should prove she’s a fit parent as any other adoptive parent must do.

    And if taxpayers don’t like paying for single women having children, then they can rise up and end the welfare state.

    • Bora Bosna

      MGTOW is the only option for men right now.

  • Michael J. Higdon

    My piece has indeed been published in a law review — it was published in The Georgia Law Review several years ago: http://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/I2-4-Higdon.pdf

  • Rob

    so.. in theory,
    these rapists are receiving the proceeds of a crime ?

    • Bora Bosna

      In practice too.

  • PoeTentiate

    The obvious solution solution is to remove boys from the statutory rape laws. Then there would be consistency, in that men cannot be raped. That’s feminist canon anyways.

    • Bora Bosna

      Statutory rape laws don’t apply to boys already anyway. Same thing.

  • Iwasneverafeminist:honest!

    Now if society was able or comfortable to criticize women for this obscenity and other obscene treatment of males this would come to a grinding halt quickly … Women don’t like to be criticized or held accountable for their actions and males (indeterminate men who can’t find their “big” voice) can’t find the courage to speak out, because it is not just the fems that they offend but the everyday women in his life that will put him on the “no fly list!” ..
    Voltaire – “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize!”

  • Morgan Ptah

    Is the cover picture referencing one of the mention cases in the article?

  • Karl Dawg
  • Deidre Marie

    Wait, why is a rapist raising a kid? Why are these women legally allowed to be raising a kid that came from them raping a guy? The kid should be put up for adoption, sorry. The mother is totally fucked, what kind of parenting is she going to provide? Please, take me away from this planet, it gets dumber every day! >_<

  • skillett

    scandalous

Advertisment ad adsense adlogger