Choice for men revisited. Statutory Rape.

[craichead]

In the earlier thread regarding choice for men, the situation was brought up as to whether a boy statutorily raped by a woman should have choice in whether to keep the child or pay child support etc.

That situation was called something along the lines of imaginary by some posters, but here's a story that demonstrates what is clearly an unfair situation.

In this story, a woman raped a 13 year old boy and had his child. Now 17, the boy and his mother sued for custody and lost to the sex offender.

The boy is also oredered to pay child support.

I'd like to hear some comments on this one.

Here's the link:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3945638.html

[gaspee]

1. Well,

That cinches it then. Poor men. Always getting screwed by the justice system. Because we all know that 95% of the time, it's women who are the deadbeat irresponsible parents, right?

I don't get your point with this. *of course* it's a travesty of justice. One case. Maybe if you searched real hard, you could find 10 cases like that one in the past ten years.

Of course, you can find ten cases of men refusing to pay child support for the children they helped create by taking a door to door survey in one neighborhood. You're using faulty logic.

I don't think it's a men vs women issue. I think it's a case of responsible parents vs irresponsible. Unfortunately, in most cases, the people who abandon their families *are* men. Finding one miscarriage of justice will *not* change that fact. No matter how hard you spin.

[craichead]

24. Re-read original post

I never made any sweeping generalizations regarding the relative status of men and women in our society. That's gigantic subject.

My comments are addressed strictly to the condition of the family court system and how it views men and women, where I clearly see an issue that needs correcting.

I am curious though why when someone even brings up an issue like this others find it so necessary to respond with such a sneering disregard for a boy's present and future suffering.

Gaspee - and I'm not intending to call you out or insult you, but when you re-read the post you made, how does it make you feel? Are you aware of the attitude that it portrays?

To the mods -- I hope I'm not overstepping here. It's not meant to start a fight.

[sandnsea]

2. He wants to be a father

He went to court for custody, he has visitation. He wants to be a father and part of that is paying support. A hot $50 a month I might add, which is nothing, but at least he's accepting responsibility for his child. Unlike another group of men who will do anything to avoid being a father except put on a condom.

[craichead]

25. Your post begs the question....

that he's responsible for this situation in the first place.

He was a child himself when the woman raped him. She's solely responsible for this situation. He didn't exactly bring it on himself.

[ismnotwasm]

57. He's not

But what the question really is, can he opt out? Can he sue to have all paternal rights severed? As a statutory rape victim, I believe he should have that right.

A young girl who gets raped, gets pregnant and chooses to carry the pregancy to term, can either decide to keep the child or adopt it out. If she keeps it, she will be responsible for the child. If she adopts the child out, she won't.

There are violent male rapists in prison who have parental rights.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/News01/604300398/-1/NEWS01/CAT=News01

Lovely, no?

I don't see why it should be different for this boy, who has SUED for custody, for visitation, he's claiming parental rights, then he has parental responsibility.

[craichead]

58. There's an exteeeeemly important distinction though

The female rape victim, if she opts to keep the child is then responsible for that child yes.

But compare the relative situations of the boy and the girl. When you say she's responsible for the baby, I'm assuming you mean that every day she'll get up with the child, feed him, bathe him, dress him. She'll be there to see him as he grows up and for all the milestones of his development. In other words, she has the responsibility, but she also gets the benefits of being a parent that those of us who are parents know so greatly outweigh what are rhetorically referred to as "burdens" when it suits one.

The boy on the other hand has a government enforced child support order and a flimsy contractual right to "visit" the child. If the mother -- who I assume has little empathy since she doesn't mind using a child for her own narcissistic needs -- chooses to make it difficult for the boy to see the child, chances are he'll have little recourse. As a teenager, he probably has little or no income to hire a lawyer to help him out.

I know $50 sounds like almost nothing, but as the boy progresses through his life it WILL go up. He's in the system.

[benevolent dictator]

60. Did he have to pay child support

before he sued for custody? If not, then it seems to me that when he chose to attempt to gain custody (as a teenager with little or no income) then he was choosing to accept the responsibilities (and costs) of becoming a parent. He has visitation and pays $50. If he had the child full time, he would see it more often, but he would also spend a lot more than that.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

3. How does the sex offender keep the child?

I can't see this scenerio working vice-versa. Asking a girl to pay child support to a man that statutorily raped her? And the man gets custody??

[roguevalley]

4. This is totally wrong. Frankly, how can they impose adult responsibilities

on him as a minor, not withstanding his status as a victim. Until this country values boys more, these bizarre rape cases are going to be laughed at and treated with this kind of contempt.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

5. Boys are victims who may grow up to be offenders

Many victims of abuse often grow up to abuse. The psycological damage incurred is immeasurable. You are right, there is no way a child-victim can take on the reponsibilities of an adult. He doesn't have the rational or experience to understand how his life has been altered.

[roguevalley]

8. agreed. Of course, according to the next post, we live on another

planet and all boys are men from birth and poor them. :sarcasm:

SHEESH!

[gaspee]

6. Yeah

this country really undervalues boys. Poor dearies. I wished I lived on your planet where girls are valued more than boys. This men as victim crap is popping up all over DU lately. Oh no, they're expected to sit still in school! The horror! Oh-oh, men dont' have the choice of an abortion! They shouldn't have to pay child support. If it were their choice, they would have had an abortion! Look at all those women child molesters molesting all the little boys. The reason you hear about the women is because they are so rare. You don't hear about the men because they're everywhere. Check your local court docket for a week if you think I'm exagerrating.

I am so exasperated with the "men as victims" meme making the rounds these past few years.

Like I said above, one case. Yes, it's a travesty, but then to claim that men are the victims. It's unfathomable to me how a progressive can make that argument. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the poor, poor men being victimized by women! Or by the courts!

We can't even get an equal rights ammendment passed in this country. Unfricking believable. But maybe I should just be happy I don't live in a country that values women even less. Like Saudi Arabia.

[roguevalley]

7. you should hear yourself. You're talking about men and I'm talking

about boys. Boys. underaged boys. Get a grip. Tell me this 13 year old boy is not a victim. He WAS victimized by a woman. It happens. 27 years in teaching gives me insight in the lives of boys. You
think its rare? Pick up the paper. This kid is 13. Tell me how he victimized the 'poor' woman.

[gaspee]

9. I did not say

I did *not* say the woman is a victim in this case. Give me a break. I said in the vast majority of cases, women are not the sex offenders, men are. To throw up that strawman is asinine. I have said at least three times in this thread that this case is a travesty of justice.

*This case*

And the reason cases like this are all over the news is because they are rare. That's what I said. You can make me the evil femininst harpy picking on poor boys all you want. It's not true. spin faster, spin faster!

I think any adult having sex with a child under 16 is a predator. I think anyone over 20 having sex with someone under 18 is a predator.

I still don't buy into the backlash myth that boys are discriminated against. And I never will. (OK< maybe if I make it another 50 years and it truly does happen) but I'm not holding my breath.

And yes, I know male children are victims of sexual abuse at the rate of about 1/4 the female victim rate, making both of them way, way, way too high. But most perpetratros *are* men. Which makes cases and others like this woman's all the more titilating and gets them their spot on the news.

As an aside... For everyone who thinks men and women are sex offenders in equal numbers, some guy tried to say that in the call in number on dateline's to catch a predator series, but why aren't you stinging any women? The guy was quite irate, too. Chris Hansen's answer? Because there were no women who preyed on their decoys and arranged to meet them for sex. OUt of 130 people arrested in 4 cities in 4 parts of the country, all men and no women.

So yes, the case above is wrong, but there aren't masses of women out there preying on little boys.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kerrytravelers]

11. Gwallan.

This thread is based off another thread found on the Choice board.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x3924


I have not heard of Germaine Greer thinks women should be allowed to have sex with little boys. Eve Ensler thinks getting a child drunk and having sex with them is a "good rape". Please provide links to an unbiased, creditable source.



Welcome to DU.

[gwallan]

12. germaine and eve and paedophilia

There is no internet source that I can find. She made this statement on Australian radio while promoting her recent book "The Beautiful Boy". The book itself should stand as sufficient proof of her attitude. This http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/09/1057430278896.html was written at the time but does not include the statement I refer to which I heard on our ABC radio. She is quite convinced it's "harmless".
Ref Eve Ensler you should read the Vagina Monologues.
The play is meant to decry rape and other violence against women. Yet, the original performances of the play and the published book eulogize the lesbian "rape" of a 13-year-old girl by a 24-year-old woman who plies her with alcohol. The pedophile section is entitled "The Little Coochi Snorcher That Could" - Coochi Snorcher being the nickname of the little girl's genitalia. Her vagina's tale of seduction begins, "She gently and slowly lays me out on the bed ..."
After becoming more graphic, the little girl gratefully concludes, "I'll never need to rely on a man."
Both by statute and by feminist definition, the "seduction" scene is rape. Nevertheless, the Coochi Snorcher declares, "... if it was rape, it was a good rape."
Ref Brewster Centre Police: Woman, boy had sex at shelter

This thread may be based on another but that does not excuse derailing the gist of this one. The issue of boys being raped and being forced to pay child support can, and should, stand on it's own.

[Kerrytravelers]

13. Miranda Devine is a conservative.

Along the right hand side of the page from your link:

Also in Opinion
The noise nazis next door are no fun
The new United States ... not so much a nation as a religion
Fresh slant on left-leaning bias needed to redress imbalance at the ABC
Hips or hip pockets - you lose either way
Strong medicine



Fresh slant on left-leaning bias needed to redress imbalance at the ABC This is a source from the right.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Devine

Miranda Devine is a columnist and writer for The Sydney Morning Herald, noted for her conservative stance on a range of social and political issues, and for her defense of Howard government policy.

<snip>

On recommendation from her father, Devine travelled to Chicago to attend the Medill graduate school of journalism. There, she worked for the Boston Herald as a city-beat reporter. Devine returned to Sydney in 1989 and soon after joined The Daily Telegraph as a general reporter. She was promoted in the early 1990s by the Telegraph's then editor Col Allan who wanted a strong female voice representing the then very masculine newspaper. There, Devine would establish herself as a staunch conservative, and politically polarising figure. Devine's name became so entrenched with her right-wing commentary that when she married and wanted to change her name, Allan objected.



http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Miranda_Devine


Gaspee was clear when she wrote that this crime is heinous and inexcusable. No one is arguing that there is any excuse. However, the thread this is based off advocated that men have reproductive control over women's bodies. That is what Gaspee is reacting to. What this woman did is a crime, but it neither bolsters nor tears apart a Roe v.Wade for men. It is simply a tragedy, a terrible crime, a rape of a child. It's not a case of reproductive rights. Take a look at the thread before this one. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x3924

[gwallan]

14. And that matters why?

Nothing you say about a journalist's political persuasion(I would point out I am a member of the Australian Labor Party - I'm no conservative) here is in any way relevant to what Germaine Greer did, wrote or said. Interestingly you have nothing to say about Eve Ensler or the Brewster Centre. My point is that clearly there are elements within the feminist movement acting as apologists for female rapists.

Secondly I refer you to the beginning of this thread:
In the earlier thread regarding choice for men, the situation was brought up as to whether a boy statutorily raped by a woman should have choice in whether to keep the child or pay child support etc.
...
I'd like to hear some comments on this one.

Gaspee has continually attempted to divert from this as you are now doing.
"Gaspee was clear when she wrote that this crime is heinous and inexcusable"
Gaspee decried the crime of rape not the secondary rape implicit in forcing a rape victim to pay child support.
I will state again. The law, legal precedent and practices relating to child support allow a rapist to demand money from their victim. No amount of bleating about "deadbeat dads" or the respective culpability of the genders re sexual abuse impinges on this. Female rape victims have the choice as to whether to have the child or abort. Why do we deny male child victims the equivalent? It is wrong and it must be changed.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gwallan]

17. Isn't that a bit irrelevant?

This is a liberal site. Clearly, we really don't take the writings of a right wing pundit seriously. For example, a site linked to an opinion by ann coulter will hold no water.
"we"? You speak for all liberals and everybody on this site?
If you have any doubt about Germaine read the book. I'm sure your local library will have it. After all it's got "Greer" on the cover. It's also got lots of juicy boy porn between the covers.

If you are advocating for a man's right to a woman's reproductive freedom, you have come to the wrong site. It seems that there is a few new posters who have this opinion. Interesting.
I have said nothing of the kind. I am pro choice. What I object to is a woman's right to demand money from a boy she has raped. Boy, not man! If you consider that to constitute "reproductive freedom" that is simply appalling.

You are also very argumentative, especially for someone who only has 2 posts.
Plus thirty years involvement in left wing party politics. When did somebody's "post count" become the determining factor in their ability to be right? Frankly if your concept of "debate" is slinging mud at the political pursuasion of a journalist you are not at all "liberal" nor are you a "debator". Address the issue at hand and we might progress.

Unfortunately, once someone has taken a tone of argument versus debate, it is no longer interesting for me.
Feel free to make a snarky response to me, for I am giving you the last word.
No snarky response apart from suggesting you are making an extremely ungracious exit without once addressing the issue at hand.
Let me remind you. Should women who become pregnant as a consequence of raping a boy be able to demand child support from that boy? I say no. You've said nothing.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. A suggestion...

Plus thirty years involvement in left wing party politics. When did somebody's "post count" become the determining factor in their ability to be right?

I have noticed that every single post you've made since you've joined has been in this thread. DU is a large place with a whole bunch of forums where one can discuss left-wing politics. If you are able to, or interested in discussing left-wing issues, DU even has a country forum for Australia http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=199 My suggestion is to take a headlong dive into discussing other issues and dispel any suspicions that you may have arrived at DU solely to discuss one topic only :)

[gwallan]

42. Do you have anything to contribute?

I repeat - when did one's post count become the determining factor in one's right to comment or ability to be correct. Everyone is a newbie at some stage and in every environment. I could equally criticise you given that your only contribution to this thread has been to draw attention to my being new here.
How about YOU contribute to the subject under discussion?
AGAIN that was why rape victims are forced to pay money to their rapists.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Another suggestion. drop the nasty attitude...

I don't give a toss about yr post count, but I made a friendly suggestion and showed you a forum that folk who aren't one trick ponies may be interested in.

In case you hadn't noticed, i made a few contributions to this thread yesterday, none of which concerned yr post count...

[gwallan]

47. Not nasty - yet

I don't give a toss about yr post count, but I made a friendly suggestion and showed you a forum that folk who aren't one trick ponies may be interested in.
...hate-filled nutter...and you might be taken seriously...
Nasty attitude? Chickens/eggs, pots/kettles. Passive aggression.
Yes I'm new to this forum and I was drawn to it by this topic. As to whether I continue to have anything to do with it might depend on the level of "democracy" I see demonstrated by others. So far you are the second person who's seen fit to try this little act. I don't care how subtle your ad hominem, even if you do dress it up as "advice" or "suggestion", it is unnecessary and advances us not one jot.
However I do have a habit of getting rather nasty with apologists for rapists. There seem to be a few of them about - provided the rapist is of the preferred gender of course - and Greer happens to be one of them. Pity really because up till then I quite liked Germaine.

In case you hadn't noticed, i made a few contributions to this thread yesterday, none of which concerned yr post count...
Saw them. Nothing addressing the actual issue however.
It's clearly a problem for some people isn't it. It's all vey well to proclaim reproductive choice for women but when that extends to a rapist's right to override the choices and rights of their victim that seems to have a few folk squirming.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Another suggestion: try not being nasty at all...

1. It's not a wise move to accuse any DUers in this thread of being 'apologists for rapists...

2. Please don't snip my description in another post of Miranda Devine as a 'hate-filled nutter' (which she is, btw) and try to pretend that it was aimed at you. I consider that sort of tactic to be intellectually dishonest...

3. So far you are the second person who's seen fit to try this little act. What's so hard to comprehend about the fact that I don't give a toss about yr blessed post count? I pointed you to a forum that's a second home to me here at DU coz as a fellow Australian I thought you might actually be interested, and there was nothing nasty in that, despite yr attempts to twist it into something that was...

It's all vey well to proclaim reproductive choice for women but when that extends to a rapist's right to override the choices and rights of their victim that seems to have a few folk squirming.

Excuse me, but reproductive rights has got nothing to do with what yr talking about in this thread...

[gwallan]

52. For goodness sake take your own advice.

It's not a wise move to accuse any DUers in this thread of being 'apologists for rapists...
If the cap fits. If a woman can rape a kid and then demand money from her victim I would suggest that's exactly what our entire society is doing. All of us. We are all responsible. We let them get away with it.

Please don't snip my description in another post of Miranda Devine as a 'hate-filled nutter' (which she is, btw) and try to pretend that it was aimed at you. I consider that sort of tactic to be intellectually dishonest...
Of course it was aimed at me. If you wish to dress it up in passive aggressive terms then so be it. I'm happy for you to do so as long as I have the right to point it out.
I posted that link because it accurately portrayed the content of an ABC interview with Greer. I think your choice to describe anyone as a 'hate-filled nutter' says more about yourself than Devine. Personally I've disagreed with many people over the years, particularly those on the right, but NEVER referred to any of them in those terms.

What's so hard to comprehend about the fact that I don't give a toss about yr blessed post count? I pointed you to a forum that's a second home to me here at DU coz as a fellow Australian I thought you might actually be interested, and there was nothing nasty in that, despite yr attempts to twist it into something that was...
You were trying to use my being new here to belittle me. It was unneccessary and patronising.

Excuse me, but reproductive rights has got nothing to do with what yr talking about in this thread...
Au contraire. It is what sparked the thread in the first place.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. But I'm not the one threatening to be nasty...

You were in the post I replied to. Yr the one who's sitting there acccusing DUers in this thread of being 'apologists for rapists' even though you flat out refuse in another post to answer my question as to whether you consider a teenage girl over the age of consent to be a rapist of her teenage boyfriend under the age of consent (as the term 'statutory rape' is in the title of this thread, it's pretty damn important to clarify what you define as a rapist...

I called Miranda Devine a hate-filled nutter. If it was aimed at you, then you should have told us all that you are actually Miranda Devine, though I'd be asking right away why a conservative like her has joined DU...

Obviously there is something very hard to comprehend about the fact that I pointed you to the Australia forum because I actually thought you might be interested. I'm extremely sorry for making that mistake and won't make it again :)

Yr now claiming that this thread is about reproductive rights? Earlier in another post you claimed the complete opposite. 'What I object to is a woman's right to demand money from a boy she has raped. Boy, not man! If you consider that to constitute "reproductive freedom" that is simply appalling.'

Here's a simple fact about reproductive rights. Child support isn't reproductive rights. When it comes to reproductive rights, once pregnant, any decision as to whether or not to continue the pregnancy is that of the woman who's pregnant and no-one else...

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Because Miranda Devine is a conservative raving anti-choicer...

You want to sit there and slag off another woman for what she wrote, then do it without using the writings of a hate-filled nutter like Miranda Devine, and you might be taken seriously...

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. No, it wasn't...

I don't see any other replies to that question, do you?

Not that I care the slightest what Germaine Greer has or had to say about anything, but posting an article by a raving conservative nutter like Miranda Devine to prove that someone else is a raving nutter isn't the best way of doing it...

btw, I've been contributing to the discussion, so you might like to drop that line...

[gwallan]

51. Que?

Excuse me, you are the one slinging lines like "nutter" around. It was a veiled attack on myself.
At the time you posted that reference your presence on this thread consisted of nothing more than insult.

[Violet_Crumble]

deleted: double post hiccup...

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Oh, hi Miranda Devine!

Excuse me, you are the one slinging lines like "nutter" around. It was a veiled attack on myself.

It's only veiled if yr Miranda Devine pretending to be a pro-choice member of the ALP. Given that Ms Devine would be a rather busy woman, I somehow doubt that's the case. We can say what we think of public figures here with a few exceptions, and calling a conservative windbag like Devine a hate-filled nutter isn't one of the exceptions. If you have a problem with that, you can always take it up with DU admin. I'm sure that'd be a fascinating conversation once they read some of the crap from our Miranda ;)

[gwallan]

23. But you are trying to divert from the issue

I did *not* say the woman is a victim in this case. Give me a break. I said in the vast majority of cases, women are not the sex offenders, men are. To throw up that strawman is asinine.
The "strawman" is yours. Women are responsible for about a third of child sexual abuse.

And the reason cases like this are all over the news is because they are rare.
No they are not. Generally the only ones getting media attention are the "attractive" ones.

I still don't buy into the backlash myth that boys are discriminated against.
In these sorts of cases they most definitely are. Their rapists are rarely punished and the law allows the rapist to demand child support from their victim. If this isn't discriminatory I don't know what is.

OUt of 130 people arrested in 4 cities in 4 parts of the country, all men and no women.
I wont accept this. Typically you resort to conviction or arrest rates with regard to female offenders. These crimes are far less likely to be reported than those with female victims.


...there aren't masses of women out there preying on little boys.
Nor are there masses of men preying on little girls as you are trying to imply.

[craichead]

26. Are you an animal lover?

Gaspee said,
"Oh no, they're expected to sit still in school! The horror!"

My friend has a little dog. It's a black lab puppy. Everyday she'd come home from work to find that the puppy had destroyed something or chewed up some shoes so she took him to the vet to find out what to do.

The vet told her that the puppy wasn't getting enough stimulation, attention and activity. He told her that if she wanted the bad behavior to stop she should come home from work everyday at lunchtime and play with the puppy and take him out more after work and throw a ball for him. The problem, the vet said,is that he's acting out on your property because he's wired to play and run.

So th woman committed herself to solving the problem and gave the puppy the playtime and outlet he needed. He still acts out a little, but the problem is much better.

That's the way people react when they actually love the animal involved.

[NMMNG]

16. That is just wrong

The rapist gets to keep the child, and the victim is forced to pay child-support. I just don't understand the way some people think. :banghead:

[lindisfarne]

18. She committed a crime. She bears the responsibility, not the boy.

But often, the courts make the decision which is best for the CHILD. It can end up being unfair for one of the parents, as in this case.

It's important to note the following: "Gallardo, who will turn 18 next month, was ordered to pay Duran $50 a month in child support."

$50 a month seems more symbolic: to acknowledge the boy is the father, to have the boy help support the child (even if it's a small amount) could help with the parent/child relationship down the road. I wonder if the judge is thinking about this aspect.

In this case, the situation is egregiously unfair as the boy was only a child himself when all this happened. I would say, however, that if the boy loves this child, he should want to contribute to the child's support. But he's young, immature, and from the article, it seems like the judge is trying to promote a relationship between him and the child.

But oh, how unfair: this woman completely took away his childhood and post-teen years with her illegal behavior. It seems completely unfair to give her custody, if the boy and his mother were willing to take the child.

[gwallan]

22. One instance where the victim won custody

In Australia early this year a woman was convicted of a rape committed in 1992. The victim in this case had won custody of the child last year. This is the only instance I'm aware of where a victim has won custody. (Woman avoids jail over sex with boy) Unfortunately the article deals with the rape and only mentions the custody in passing. It does appear that CS was demanded from the victim in the original instance but I've been unable to find out if he was forced to pay.
I've spoken to our Child Support Agency about their attitude and it appears they have no relevant policy. By default they can demand CS of a kid regardless of the respective ages of the "participants".

There have been a number of appeals in the US regarding the child support aspect of this - all unsuccessful. All were decided on the basis of "best interests of the child" which effectively means the rapist keeps the baby AND receives CS from the victim. One of them here The fact that the victim is ALSO a child seems to be very easily ignored by US courts.

In this case, the situation is egregiously unfair as the boy was only a child himself when all this happened. I would say, however, that if the boy loves this child, he should want to contribute to the child's support. But he's young, immature, and from the article, it seems like the judge is trying to promote a relationship between him and the child.
Personally I believe he should not have to pay and at the very least he should be allowed access. If it's an issue of "promoting a relationship" this could be achieved in this way. The rapist should NOT be allowed to profit from their crime.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. You've got to be joking...

It does appear that CS was demanded from the victim in the original instance but I've been unable to find out if he was forced to pay.
I've spoken to our Child Support Agency about their attitude and it appears they have no relevant policy. By default they can demand CS of a kid regardless of the respective ages of the "participants".

You've spoken to CSA about their *attitude*? Do you realise how condescending that sounds? I pity the poor client service officer who has to cope with someone who rings up CSA to go on about their *attitude*...

Knowing a fair bit about the CSA itself, when it comes to being 'forced' to pay, anyone who isn't employed and not on a govt benefit gets forced to pay zero. The formula applies to everyone...

on edit: If you have gripes with policy, the way to handle it is to write to the Minister, not speak to some poor boffin in a call centre about something they can do nothing about. Though if yr going to talk about a specific case and yr not either of the parents involved, you'll get no information about the specific case due to confidentiality reasons....

[gwallan]

44. Joking? Moi? NO. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

You've spoken to CSA about their *attitude*? Do you realise how condescending that sounds? I pity the poor client service officer who has to cope with someone who rings up CSA to go on about their *attitude*...
Actually it was quite cordial. I think the folk I spoke to were a little surprised. It was simply something that's not on anybody's radar.

Knowing a fair bit about the CSA itself, when it comes to being 'forced' to pay, anyone who isn't employed and not on a govt benefit gets forced to pay zero. The formula applies to everyone...
That's not relevant. What you're trying to insert here is those people who avoid child support payments by hiding income. There's no excuse for that. But your average kid(remember we're talking about kids here) would have difficulty doing this.
A sixteen year old rape victim who was receiving a youth allowance would likely be forced to pay ten or twenty dollars a fortnight. His tax returns(if he had to do them) would be garnished as well.

on edit: If you have gripes with policy, the way to handle it is to write to the Minister, not speak to some poor boffin in a call centre about something they can do nothing about. Though if yr going to talk about a specific case and yr not either of the parents involved, you'll get no information about the specific case due to confidentiality reasons....
Speaking of "condescending".
There is no point writing to a Minister if you haven't done your homework. Sometimes that homework consists of exploring the situation with the relevant government departments.

And once again you are avoiding the issue.
If you need reminding that was why rape victims are expected to pay child support to their rapist. You have yet to contribute on that. So far your only purpose appears to be one of shooting the messenger plus a little bit of changing the subject. Mix and stir, but above all divert.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. No, I'm sure you don't think it was...

Actually it was quite cordial. I think the folk I spoke to were a little surprised. It was simply something that's not on anybody's radar.

Just as I'm 100% sure that whoever you spoke to on the phone at CSA was cordial. They have to be, no matter what's said on the other end of the phone....

That's not relevant. What you're trying to insert here is those people who avoid child support payments by hiding income. There's no excuse for that. But your average kid(remember we're talking about kids here) would have difficulty doing this.
A sixteen year old rape victim who was receiving a youth allowance would likely be forced to pay ten or twenty dollars a fortnight. His tax returns(if he had to do them) would be garnished as well.

Actually, it is relevent when yr portraying a situation like this as being one where a non-custodial parent in that situation is forced to pay.

Speaking of "condescending".
There is no point writing to a Minister if you haven't done your homework. Sometimes that homework consists of exploring the situation with the relevant government departments.

You might have to point out what's condescending about pointing out a few obvious facts. Was it the bit where I pointed out that a Ministerial is the way to get complaints about policy to the right ears, or was it that I dared to point out that the CSA (just like it's cousins the Tax Office and Centrelink) protect the privacy of their clients and can't and won't give out any information on individual cases to a third party?

btw, 'homework' doesn't involve ringing the CSA and speaking to them about their *attitude*...

If you need reminding that was why rape victims are expected to pay child support to their rapist. You have yet to contribute on that. So far your only purpose appears to be one of shooting the messenger plus a little bit of changing the subject. Mix and stir, but above all divert.

Put a sock in the attacks. I'd addressed yr post, and just coz it's what you don't want to hear, that doesn't mean it's changing the subject. If you don't think the CSA etc should be discussed, then don't bring them up. Simple :)

Now some questions for you...

1. When you say 'rapist', are you referring to someone convicted in court of rape? Or are you referring to anyone who has sex under the age of consent? Do you consider a 16yr old girl to be a rapist of her 15yr old boyfriend?

2. Why focus on child support when by that point the gate's already shut? Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the issue of custody (assuming that yr talking about convicted rapists who aren't merely some kid a year or two older than their partner)? Someone who has entered into a predatory relationship with a kid under the age of consent shouldn't have custody of a child in the first place. By the time it gets to the point where the CSA are involved, the CSA doesn't deal with the circumstances of the conception of the child, nor should they have to. For them the focus is on the child and ensuring that it gets the financial support it would have gotten if its parents were together. The focus isn't on when, where or how the child was conceived, otherwise it'd be flooded with 'he/she lied to me/didn't get an abortion when I told her to do it/told me he was shooting blanks when he wasn't' complaints...

3. Why would the name of a male rape victim of a predatory much older woman be on a child's birth certificate in the first place? In the ACT at least, fathers who aren't married to the mother have to sign an acknowledgement of paternity before his name goes on the birth certificate...

4. If the father chooses to go for custody of the child and to be part of its life, do you still oppose him financially contributing to the child's upbringing?

[gwallan]

53. Maybe there is a joke here. But I doubt it.

Just as I'm 100% sure that whoever you spoke to on the phone at CSA was cordial. They have to be, no matter what's said on the other end of the phone....

You weren't there. If you don't want to get on the phone and talk to policy people in government departments that's your problem. If I don't do it the electorate officers working for the MPs have to anyway. To be honest you have me thinking you're somewhat naive in this regard. There are quite a number of MPs who have been quite happy with my efforts in this regard in the past(and, admittedly, sometimes it was shit stirring on their, and the labour movement's, behalf). I'm certainly not likely to take "advice" from somebody who's making a judgement about conversations they had NO involvement with but is "100% sure".
Why are you so focussed on my use of the word "attitude"? I could just has easlily said "position" or "policy". It's diversionery and quite petty actually. It's one word. Get over it.


Actually, it is relevent when yr portraying a situation like this as being one where a non-custodial parent in that situation is forced to pay.

Non custodial child, rape victim parent. You seem to be ignoring this.


You might have to point out what's condescending about pointing out a few obvious facts. Was it the bit where I pointed out that a Ministerial is the way to get complaints about policy to the right ears, or was it that I dared to point out that the CSA (just like it's cousins the Tax Office and Centrelink) protect the privacy of their clients and can't and won't give out any information on individual cases to a third party?
btw, 'homework' doesn't involve ringing the CSA and speaking to them about their *attitude*...

Among other things it does. You'd look a right fool if you hadn't and got it wrong. Just for the record those communications with the CSA predated the specific case I referenced and were not related to it or any other individual case. Nor have I ever had any personal involvement, or axe to grind, with the CSA.
Obviously you know all about it, though, so I'll just shove my forty years involvement in party politics up my jumper shall I.


Put a sock in the attacks. I'd addressed yr post, and just coz it's what you don't want to hear, that doesn't mean it's changing the subject. If you don't think the CSA etc should be discussed, then don't bring them up. Simple

Attacks? You "addressed my post" by addressing one word of it and your second sentence was "Do you realise how condescending that sounds?" You were on the attack from the get go. Don't play the victim now. Piffle.
I raised the CSA only because they DONT have a policy either way. It is not something that has really been looked into. What they don't do is report those instances of child sexual abuse when they know of them as other agencies are expected to do.


When you say 'rapist', are you referring to someone convicted in court of rape? Or are you referring to anyone who has sex under the age of consent? Do you consider a 16yr old girl to be a rapist of her 15yr old boyfriend?

Not relevant. Adult rapes kid. What don't you understand about this?


Why focus on child support when by that point the gate's already shut?

Because a rapist is taking money from their victim.


Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the issue of custody?

If you go up four posts you'll see i referred to an instance where this has occurred(you responded but chose not to take any notice of that bit and focussed entirely on my use of the word "attitude"). The victim was an adult when he won custody however. It is still the only instance I can find of a male rape victim getting custody of a resulting child and it happened many years after the offence.


Someone who has entered into a predatory relationship with a kid under the age of consent shouldn't have custody of a child in the first place.

Agreed. Therefore how can we countenance forcing that kid to pay money to the predator who, as you say, "shouldn't have custody".


By the time it gets to the point where the CSA are involved, the CSA doesn't deal with the circumstances of the conception of the child, nor should they have to. For them the focus is on the child and ensuring that it gets the financial support it would have gotten if its parents were together. The focus isn't on when, where or how the child was conceived, otherwise it'd be flooded with 'he/she lied to me/didn't get an abortion when I told her to do it/told me he was shooting blanks when he wasn't' complaints...

Once again I need to emphasise that we are talking about an adult raping a child. Most agencies - hospitals, schools etc - are compelled to report knowledge of sexual offences against children. It seems the CSA are exempt in these particular situations(this was the point of my original contact with them). Shouldn't they be subject to mandatory reporting just as everyone else is?


If the father chooses to go for custody of the child and to be part of its life, do you still oppose him financially contributing to the child's upbringing?

I object to the rape victim being compelled to do anything. The rapist has no right to any choices.


Cat among the pigeons:
Should a male rape victim have the right to compel his rapist to have an abortion?

[Violet_Crumble]

56. You refused to answer my question about rape....

But before we get to that...

You weren't there. If you don't want to get on the phone and talk to policy people in government departments that's your problem.

Where did I claim I was there? I told you three things - that CSA will not discuss individual cases with a third party, that they're obligated to be civil on the phone, and that writing to a Minister is the way to approach discussing policy. If you are claiming any of those three are false, then as someone who works in one of those agencies (should I like you point out how many years I've worked there in an attempt to claim some authority?), I can safely say that you are totally incorrect...

Why are you so focussed on my use of the word "attitude"?

Because claiming you ring an agency to talk to them about their *attitude* is incredibly condescending...

Nor have I ever had any personal involvement, or axe to grind, with the CSA.

I've got both a professional and personal involvement with the CSA, and I've got my gripes with them, not that those gripes are anyone's business but my own and the CSA's....


I raised the CSA only because they DONT have a policy either way. It is not something that has really been looked into. What they don't do is report those instances of child sexual abuse when they know of them as other agencies are expected to do.

Yes. YOU raised the CSA and then attempted to make out I was not sticking to the issue when I dared to discuss the CSA in my reply...

Now to the most important bit of yr post. You REFUSED to answer my question 'When you say 'rapist', are you referring to someone convicted in court of rape? Or are you referring to anyone who has sex under the age of consent? Do you consider a 16yr old girl to be a rapist of her 15yr old boyfriend? It's a simple question so if you continue to refuse to answer it, then I can safely assume that yr including teenage girls in the definition of rapist, and that is a belief that I find totally disgusting...

And until you answer my question, the rest of yr answers are worthless....

[craichead]

27. Two VERY important points, though.

"But often, the courts make the decision which is best for the CHILD. It can end up being unfair for one of the parents, as in this case."

Have you really considered this statement and the situation as a whole? We're talking about best interest of the child which I understand, but in reality, in what context is it in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of someone who's a proven child molestor? I can't think of any. I don't think the problem is just that it's incredibly unfair to the boy, but it's unfair to the baby! This woman preyed on a 13 year old kid in order to satisfy her narcissistic needs for power and control (I'd imagine). So how do you think that translates out into the empathy required to be a good parent? I feel bad for this little kid and all the embarrassment he'll have when his mother eventually re-offends.

Second. child support is $50, NOW. The order will be reviewed every two years and increased accordingly if and when he starts to make more money. Also, any childcare expenses the rapist incurs over babysitting for her other victim will be added on in addition. That kid will be saddled with a much bigger order as soon as he starts working.

If you really look at the context of the case, the judge isn't PROMOTING a relationship between the boy and his child -- the judge is LIMITING it since the boy wanted more.

[gwallan]

29. Yes, best interest of nobody's child.

We're talking about best interest of the child which I understand, but in reality, in what context is it in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of someone who's a proven child molestor? I can't think of any. I don't think the problem is just that it's incredibly unfair to the boy, but it's unfair to the baby! This woman preyed on a 13 year old kid in order to satisfy her narcissistic needs for power and control (I'd imagine). So how do you think that translates out into the empathy required to be a good parent? I feel bad for this little kid and all the embarrassment he'll have when his mother eventually re-offends.

Unfortunately one of the reasons often given by courts when giving "suspended sentences" to female rapists(as they typically do) is that "they have children at home". My personal sense of it has always be to wonder how anybody could trust the person concerned with any kids. I've always been afraid to voice that feeling. Thankyou for doing so.

[Megahurtz]

20. Fuck That!

First of all if I was the mother of the boy who got raped
the rapist would be lucky if I didn't kill her!

And the rapist should have never been granted custody and if so,
under our heinously fucked-up legal system
the boy victim should have never been ordered to pay child support!

The bitch should rot in jail!!!

[roguevalley]

21. I hear ya,. I would shoot her.

[craichead]

28. My Intention with this post

My intention with this post was not to somehow change the current paradigm regarding the general status of men and women in our society. That's a much bigger debate.

My intention was to support my original hypothesis posted in the other choice for men thread:

That we've arrived at a situation where men are seeking to opt out of fatherhood and responsibility mainly because the legal system we've built around fatherhood is so utterly brutal and draconian.

Cases like this -- where there is absolutely NO regard for the context of the pregnancy or the support or custody orders -- support my claim. If we're willing to somehow defend a rape victim losing custody to the proven rapist and then having the victim pay the rapist money for the next 18 years, imagine the rest of the spectrum of abuse of the system that doesn't make the paper!

To me either we need choice for men or we need the family court system reformed top to bottom.

I much prefer the latter.

[Warpy]

30. Without knowing more about this case, I can't really comment

on the decision of the judge, but it does seem odd that a woman with a history of molesting boys should get custody. Maybe the family who sued would have a better chance when the child and the father are both a little older and the father is capable of supporting his child.

As for expecting a 17 year old kid to pay child support, that too seems weird, although expecting his family to chip in until he reaches his majority and has an income of his own isn't out of the question. After all, it's about the child's welfare, not "punishing" anyone. That child support payments are seen as punishment is beyond odd.

This might be one of those horrible situations that has no real solution, especially when the father in question is so very young.

And no, no male of any age has the right to tell any woman whether or not to bear a child, no matter what the circumstances are.

[gwallan]

31. There's not much we need to know.

As for expecting a 17 year old kid to pay child support, that too seems weird, although expecting his family to chip in until he reaches his majority and has an income of his own isn't out of the question.
Why? Why should any child, or that child's family, bear the financial responsibility for the product of the illegal act of another person?

And no, no male of any age has the right to tell any woman whether or not to bear a child, no matter what the circumstances are.
This is utterly irrelevant. The child is borne already. Otherwise it would not be an issue to begin with. The issue at hand is why should the victim of an illegal act be forced to bear a financial burden because of the outcome of that illegal act. Nobody is suggesting the victim can force the rapist to have an abortion or to have the baby.
Try, just for a moment, to put yourself in the victim's(remember him?) situation. What "reproductive choice" does he have?
BTW he's a "boy" - not a "male".

[Warpy]

32. Yes the child is born

but why should that child be punished because its mother slept with an underage kid to conceive it?

Remember, the court's focus is on the needs of the child.

This isn't about being fair to an underage kid who had to have been a willing partner in something he wasn't ready for. It's about being fair to the child that resulted.

Stop thinking of supporting one's offspring as punishment.

Besides, when the kid has a few more years on him and has a job that will allow him to support his child, I'm sure his custody suit will be successful.

[craichead]

36. The needs of the child

So is what you're saying that the needs of the child to live with a convicted rapist outweigh the needs of the child to live with someone who's not a convicted rapist?

[Branjor]

33. Because...

<Why? Why should any child, or that child's family, bear the financial responsibility for the product of the illegal act of another person?

Because that "child" himself sued for custody. If he had received custody he would have been paying a lot more than $50/mo. on the little one, even if the mother was paying child support. I think the $50/mo. was ordered more for the sake of the boy than for the little girl. $50/mo. buys practically NOTHING at today's prices, but it does give the boy a chance to do something towards being the father to her he himself has indicated that he wants to be and it enhances his relationship to her, both presently and in the future. He has also been given visitation which will increase in amount as he gets older. It was not a good idea to give custody of this child to him. In any custody decision, the interests of the three year old are paramount, not those of her father. The child has already been with her mother for three years now, and to rip the child away from her mother now would be terribly traumatic and unfair to this little girl. So where were the boy and his mother when it came to custody three years ago? The boy, of course, was too young to sue for custody at that time, but what about his mother? As the child's paternal grandmother, she could have sued for custody on the basis of the unfitness of the mother due to the mother's status as a sex offender, but apparently she did not.

[craichead]

34. Did you read the article?

Because clearly the article states that she and her son filed for custody together.

[Branjor]

37. Yes, I read the article.

The 17 year old father and his mother sued for custody and lost. Did you read my post? My question was, why didn't the boy's mother sue for custody three years ago when the child was just born and hadn't already had three years with her mother.

[craichead]

35. Very eye opening thread for sure!

This thread has been incredibly eye opening though not in a good way.

I have to say that I'm VERY frankly surprised at many of the responses it's gotten.

I never would have thought that I'd ever see a group of progressives performing the intellectual contortion act I'm seeing here in order to defend giving custody of a child to a CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST.

In what universe could it possibly be better to give a child to a CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST?

I mean really you can toss around whatever qualifiers you want about "I don't know enough about it" or "child's best interest" but really could someone please come up with a hypothetical situation wherein it's better to grant custody to a CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST rather than the child's father and grandmother?

[Warpy]

38. Well, consider a few things

that might break through the hysteria.

First, the baby is a girl. There is no indication that the mother has ever experienced, let alone acted upon, a sexual attraction to little girls.

Second, consider that the boy in question had to have been a willing partner. That's a little different from holding down a screaming girl child and forcing one's penis inside her. There are degrees. Yes, it's statutory rape, but it's not RAPE. It was dead wrong, it was a hideous thing to do to a kid who wasn't ready for it (even if he was willing), the boy may have problems later on, and there are consequences. However, screaming RAPIST without qualifying it in this case is wrong, too.

The judge in this case made the best decision possible. After he's maintained the minimal support mandated and kept contact with his daughter, the boy in question will be in a much better position to sue for custody.

Right now, it sounds like his mama's decision, and that's probably why the judge denied it.

[gwallan]

45. But...but...it's different for boys.

Second, consider that the boy in question had to have been a willing partner. That's a little different from holding down a screaming girl child and forcing one's penis inside her. There are degrees. Yes, it's statutory rape, but it's not RAPE. It was dead wrong, it was a hideous thing to do to a kid who wasn't ready for it (even if he was willing), the boy may have problems later on, and there are consequences. However, screaming RAPIST without qualifying it in this case is wrong, too.
And how would you qualify an adult male having sex with a willing thirteen year old girl? And don't tell us it doesn't happen. If there are, as you say, degrees of rape you must be consistant about it. Please remember - rape is about power, not about sex. To say the thirteen year old is a "willing partner" sounds very much like blaming the victim to me.
As craichead has already stated there is a great deal of intellectual contortion going on here. Your reference to holding down a screaming girl child and forcing one's penis inside her is nothing more than hyperbole designed to distract attention from the specific issue being discussed. No rapist deserves a pass because of their gender which is exactly what you are implying.
The fact is the original act is illegal and for damn good reasons. No weasel words alter that. The adult concerned, whether male or female, has broken the law and should not be rewarded for it. Furthermore there is NO justification for forcing the victim to hand over money to their rapist.

[craichead]

59. You have a very non-feminist definition of rape

I thought that rape was considered rape when the victim is unable to consent for whatever reason. Am I missing something here. I mean, most statutory rapes are carried out without the need for restraint usually because the predator tends to pick a child who won't be needing restraint because they're emotionally damaged in some way already.

Think of that sort of person and think of that sort of person as a parent. She may not molest the boy sure, but she probably wn't care much for his feelings either. How embarassed do you think he'll be when she molests his friends? When the other parents won't let their kids play at his house because his mother's a child molestor?

Anyway, a serious question: So if this isn't RAPE as you say and by your definition, because it wasn't violent and the boy consented, do you also consider say, a date rape where the woman's had too much to drink to be rape, or is that something less also?