Rape Victim Forced to Pay Child Support

[spoonitnow]

This is absolutely disgusting.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...port/14953965/

[wufwugy]

The cult of legislating morality is the problem

[spoonitnow]

The cult of completely fucking over men with unreasonable child support and other bullshit is the problem

Agree, also this

[wufwugy]

The sad thing is that because of the special interests dynamic, it takes far more than just a majority of voters who disagree with this to change it. A mere yet vocal 10% of the population who are hellbent on assuming women are always victim to men are often enough to keep laws like these legitimate

[spoonitnow]

The sad thing is that because of the special interests dynamic, it takes far more than just a majority of voters who disagree with this to change it. A mere yet vocal 10% of the population who are hellbent on assuming women are always victim to men are often enough to keep laws like these legitimate

wufwugy right about something twice in the same thread. Wtf kind of Twilight Zone is this?

[jackvance]

While I agree that the child support laws are generally unfair because they squarely put the economic burden on men, this is kind of a bad example. Calling this rape is just a semantic failure. Statutory rape in the case of a 15 y'old male and a 20 y'old female is nothing at all like what you'd imagine rape to be, it overloads the word with meaninglessness.

[OngBonga]

While I agree that the child support laws are generally unfair because they squarely put the economic burden on men, this is kind of a bad example. Calling this rape is just a semantic failure. Statutory rape in the case of a 15 y'old male and a 20 y'old female is nothing at all like what you'd imagine rape to be, it overloads the word with meaninglessness.

Yeah this. He wasn't raped, not in the conventional sense, and calling it rape dilutes the meaning of the word.

It sucks for him that he was dumb and ignored the legal papers. He should've accepted responsibility as soon as he found out. He's right that it's harsh to expect him to be financially responsible for the part of his daughter's life where he was underage, but he should've argued this straight away instead of burying his head in the sand.

But the bottom line is the welfare of the child comes first. If this dude doesn't pay child support, then either the taxpayer does, or the child has less. That's what this guy should've thought the instant he discovered he was a father. I'm not overly sympathetic for him.

[spoonitnow]

While I agree that the child support laws are generally unfair because they squarely put the economic burden on men, this is kind of a bad example. Calling this rape is just a semantic failure. Statutory rape in the case of a 15 y'old male and a 20 y'old female is nothing at all like what you'd imagine rape to be, it overloads the word with meaninglessness.

So if a 12 year old girl consents to a gangbang with a stream of 20 men who are 40+ years old, that's not rape? Wrong.

People that young cannot give consent because they are not mentally mature enough to make that decision. It's the same reason people that young cannot sign contracts.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah this. He wasn't raped, not in the conventional sense, and calling it rape dilutes the meaning of the word.

It sucks for him that he was dumb and ignored the legal papers. He should've accepted responsibility as soon as he found out. He's right that it's harsh to expect him to be financially responsible for the part of his daughter's life where he was underage, but he should've argued this straight away instead of burying his head in the sand.

But the bottom line is the welfare of the child comes first. If this dude doesn't pay child support, then either the taxpayer does, or the child has less. That's what this guy should've thought the instant he discovered he was a father. I'm not overly sympathetic for him.

There was no burying his head in the sand. He wasn't informed of any of it until he was 20 years old.

[jackvance]

So if a 12 year old girl consents to a gangbang with a stream of 20 men who are 40+ years old, that's not rape? Wrong.

Completely different situation.

[OngBonga]

There was no burying his head in the sand. He wasn't informed of any of it until he was 20 years old.

He said he panicked, ignored the legal documents and never got the required paternity test. The state eventually tracked him down.

I consider ignoring legal documents to be burying one's head in the sand.

[OngBonga]

People that young cannot give consent because they are not mentally mature enough to make that decision. It's the same reason people that young cannot sign contracts.

I'm not gonna argue with this. The argument is the definition of "rape". There is a distinct difference between an aggressive rapist who forces someone to have sex, and an overage person having sexual relations with a willing, albeit underage, person. To call both "rape" makes no distiction between one and the other, where there should be a distinction.

[Luco]

The cult of legislating morality is the problem

The Living Colour song?

[wufwugy]

The age definition of sexual consent is the probably the easiest problem of this to fix, but I don't think much fix comes through the law here anyways. I think we could completely strip away the court's jurisdiction on sex related issues and far fewer problems would arise than in even the most well intentioned system, like what we have now.

[wufwugy]

^^ofc that's just returning to the same ol same ol kind of thing I always say

Rule of thumb when dealing with me: laws are always bad unless they're stopping active coercion (murder, rape, theft, fraud, battery, maybe some other stuff).

[spoonitnow]

I'm not gonna argue with this. The argument is the definition of "rape". There is a distinct difference between an aggressive rapist who forces someone to have sex, and an overage person having sexual relations with a willing, albeit underage, person. To call both "rape" makes no distiction between one and the other, where there should be a distinction.

Rape is penetration without consent. Someone underage is not able to consent. Therefore, sex with an underage person is rape. This is not up for debate.

I'll give you another good example of a similar concept at work. A chick you know is drunk. You finger her vagina. There's penetration, and there is no consent because someone drunk cannot legally consent. Therefore it's rape. Do you disagree with this? Then you're saying that the Steubenville High School rape case that caused a big uproar not all that long ago was bullshit.

Related: Why don't we have a Dumb Fucking Whore Registry?

Also related: Steubenville Rape Convict Back on High School Football Team

[wufwugy]

^^don't let aubrey see you saying things like that, she'll love you to death

[spoonitnow]

^^don't let aubrey see you saying things like that, she'll love you to death

Here's the quote that guides my approach to trolling:

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

[wufwugy]

Well now you edited it to something that doesn't apply to. Sex without consent != sex without statutory consent

[spoonitnow]

Well now you edited it to something that doesn't apply to. Sex without consent != sex without statutory consent

Legally they are equivalent, and that's why both are rape, and that's why you're called a rapist if you do either.

The main problem is that third wave feminism has pushed for a definition of rape that's based on consent instead of force. This is why there's so much shit now that's legally considered rape that isn't actually rape like fingering a 15 year old girl's butthole while she masturbates when you're 20.

[wufwugy]

Legally they are equivalent, and that's why both are rape, and that's why you're called a rapist if you do either.

The main problem is that third wave feminism has pushed for a definition of rape that's based on consent instead of force. This is why there's so much shit now that's legally considered rape that isn't actually rape like fingering a 15 year old girl's butthole while she masturbates when you're 20.

A good example of the moral hazards of laws

Statutory rape is not always rape, but when you make laws about these things, they're so blunt that they create the unintended consequence of making not-rape into rape

[spoonitnow]

A good example of the moral hazards of laws

Statutory rape is not always rape, but when you make laws about these things, they're so blunt that they create the unintended consequence of making not-rape into rape

I make good threads. Usually.

[OngBonga]

Rape is penetration without consent. Someone underage is not able to consent. Therefore, sex with an underage person is rape. This is not up for debate.

I'll give you another good example of a similar concept at work. A chick you know is drunk. You finger her vagina. There's penetration, and there is no consent because someone drunk cannot legally consent. Therefore it's rape. Do you disagree with this? Then you're saying that the Steubenville High School rape case that caused a big uproar not all that long ago was bullshit.

Related: Why don't we have a Dumb Fucking Whore Registry?

Also related: Steubenville Rape Convict Back on High School Football Team

I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I'm suggesting that the definition of rape is wrong. It's absurd to consider forceful sex to be legally the same as sex with a willing minor, or indeed fingerbanging a drunk lady. I can't even begin to say how many times I've had drunken sex with my ex. Did I rape her? Or did she rape me? Does it depends who the most drunk is? It's fucking ridiculous.

As far as I am concerned, rape is forced sex, and the law is a fucking joke.

[OngBonga]

Just to be clear, I'm not for a minute suggesting that an adult having sex with a willing minor is acceptable. I'm saying there should be a legal distiction between having sex with a willing minor and rape.

As for having sex with a drunk lady, well if she's willing she's willing. How does the law define "drunk"? One sip of wine? x amount of alcohol in the blood? Are we at the point where a man needs to ask for identification and then breathalise a woman before he can get fucking laid? What if a man is drunk but not the lady? What if a man doesn't realise a lady is drunk? What if the lady is literally begging for it? What if the lady in question is the man's girlfriend or wife? What about lesbians and bummers? What about cannabis? What about cocaine?

All this needs to be legally clarified for any law against drunken sex to hold any ground.

[OngBonga]

Just reading up on this Steubenville case. It seems pretty clear that this girl was raped. They were filming her unconscious while fingering her and trying to put their dicks into her mouth, right? That's not a drunk girl begging for it. Was she dumb for getting herself in that situation? Of course. Does that give the lads free reign to do what they like with her? Of course not. Those lads deserve to be sent to jail, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

[spoonitnow]

Just reading up on this Steubenville case. It seems pretty clear that this girl was raped. They were filming her unconscious while fingering her and trying to put their dicks into her mouth, right? That's not a drunk girl begging for it. Was she dumb for getting herself in that situation? Of course. Does that give the lads free reign to do what they like with her? Of course not. Those lads deserve to be sent to jail, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

The logical inconsistencies are strong with this one [on the topic of defining rape].

[OngBonga]

Logical inconsistency? I said I define rape as forced sex. Putting your finger is the minge of an unconscious girl fits that description.

[spoonitnow]

Logical inconsistency? I said I define rape as forced sex. Putting your finger is the minge of an unconscious girl fits that description.

Here's my point: How was it forced? How was it any less forced than fingering any girl? How is fingering a girl sex?

These are the problems with defining rape using 'forced sex' because the opposition can try to twist it around to mean a lot of other things that shouldn't be considered rape (or can use it to excuse things that should be considered rape).

[a500lbgorilla]

[OngBonga]

It's forced because she is not agreeing to it. How can someone unconscious consent to sex? And we both know that fingering a woman is sex. The law is clear about that, and I'm not in dispute with the law in this regard. Those lads took a girl who was clearly in no state to willingly engage in sexual activity, and messed about with her in ways that she would rightfully be very distressed about. That's not acceptable behaviour in a civilised society. It's rape because they penetrated her without her consent. It's not even like she gave consent and the law says because she was drunk she didn't. She actually did not give consent by virtue of the fact she was unconscious. What those lads did was horrible.

[spoonitnow]

You made several statements here that proves my point entirely:

It's forced because she is not agreeing to it. How can someone unconscious consent to sex?

Those lads took a girl who was clearly in no state to willingly engage in sexual activity, and messed about with her in ways that she would rightfully be very distressed about.

It's rape because they penetrated her without her consent.

It's not even like she gave consent and the law says because she was drunk she didn't.

She actually did not give consent by virtue of the fact she was unconscious.

You cannot give consent if you are drunk. You cannot give consent if you are underage. It does not matter if you agree with either of these because it's built into the definition of consent.

Back on point: This is why rape cannot be based purely on consent if we want rape laws to be worth a damn (just like it can't be based purely on force).

Edit: On the point of fingering the girl so obviously being sex, it's worth noting that fingering someone vaginally or anally without consent is not legally rape everywhere in the United States.

Rape has to be based on the combination of force and consent for vaginal or anal penetration for it to be taken seriously.

[OngBonga]

consent
kənˈsɛnt/
noun
noun: consent; plural noun: consents

1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.



I'm confused, where in the definition of "consent" does it say that one must be above a certain age or non-intoxicated? The law says that minors and drunks cannot give consent, not the dictionary. I'm saying the law is wrong to consider a minor or drunk giving consent to be non-consensual sex.

I can give consent when I am drunk, I have done so many times in my life. I will not accept the law telling me otherwise.


drunk
drʌŋk/
adjective
adjective: drunk; comparative adjective: drunker; superlative adjective: drunkest
1.
affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behaviour.

Furthermore, legallly defining "drunk" is not an easy task. How does the law determine when someone has lost control over their behaviour? The point at which a person becomes drunk is subjective. If the law is going to say that a drunk person cannot give consent, then the law needs to be clear about what it means to be drunk.

As for fingering, well ok fair enough the States is a legal mess and it differers from one place to another. I was wrong to use the word "obviously". I think we both know that morally fingering a woman is sex, and so from that I consider putting your finger into a woman's vagina against her will to be rape.

[spoonitnow]

consent
kənˈsɛnt/
noun
noun: consent; plural noun: consents

1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.



I'm confused, where in the definition of "consent" does it say that one must be above a certain age or non-intoxicated? The law says that minors and drunks cannot give consent, not the dictionary. I'm saying the law is wrong to consider a minor or drunk giving consent to be non-consensual sex.

I can give consent when I am drunk, I have done so many times in my life. I will not accept the law telling me otherwise.


drunk
drʌŋk/
adjective
adjective: drunk; comparative adjective: drunker; superlative adjective: drunkest
1.
affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behaviour.

Furthermore, legallly defining "drunk" is not an easy task. How does the law determine when someone has lost control over their behaviour? The point at which a person becomes drunk is subjective. If the law is going to say that a drunk person cannot give consent, then the law needs to be clear about what it means to be drunk.

As for fingering, well ok fair enough the States is a legal mess and it differers from one place to another. I was wrong to use the word "obviously". I think we both know that morally fingering a woman is sex, and so from that I consider putting your finger into a woman's vagina against her will to be rape.

We're talking about the law, not Webster's, and not whatever fairy tale law in fantasyland that you wish happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_%28criminal_law%29

This video sums it up nicely:

[OngBonga]

What I wish happened? I wish that people weren't so fucking horrible.

Yeah we're talking about the law. Have you ever had sex with a drunk girl spoon?

[ManchesterUnited]

Without doubt the 20-year-old woman was a rapist that took advantage of the 14 old poor innocent child

[jackvance]

A good example of the moral hazards of laws

Statutory rape is not always rape, but when you make laws about these things, they're so blunt that they create the unintended consequence of making not-rape into rape

It's one of my annoyances, rape as a word is one example but there are more (abuse, a youth, bullying, ..), where the real meaning gets so mudded with all the law-driven and politically correct inspired additions that the words don't even mean what people think they mean anymore.

Some things that are called rape are very insulting to women who actually got brutally and violently raped.

[wufwugy]

Yep. Furthermore, I think broadening the classification of rape too far hurts the anti-rape cause in the first place. Most men are on womens' side when it comes to being against obviously forced rape, but the further into territory like a woman being inebriated enough that she couldn't "truly" give consent, you starting losing most men (and some women)

[OngBonga]

I wonder what happens when two drunk people have sex with each other. Are they raping one another?

[Galapogos]

I wonder what happens when two drunk people have sex with each other. Are they raping one another?

Not unless they're both male.

[spoonitnow]

I wonder what happens when two drunk people have sex with each other. Are they raping one another?

Typically the protocol is that the person being penetrated is the one being raped in the United States.

However, in Britain recently a woman was charged with rape for tying a man up and having regular vagina intercourse with him. In this case, it was forced sexual intercourse without consent that was the guideline for rape.

So one issue here is if all penetration should be called rape, or if it should be the act of having sexual intercourse. In the two drunk people (man and woman) scenario, it's only the woman being raped if it's by the penetration definition, but it could be both of them if it goes by the sexual intercourse definition.

But really neither of the two drunk people should be said to be raped unless it was forced (even though neither could legally give consent).

[OngBonga]

But really neither of the two drunk people should be said to be raped unless it was forced (even though neither could legally give consent).

Well this pretty much sums up how I feel about this. It's not rape unless it's forced. I'm not talking legal crap here, I'm talking morally. And yes I realise that morals are subjective while law is not supposed to be, and that's the whole point of law. But every now and then the law is fucking stupid, and this is one of those cases, imo.

The idea that a drunk lady cannot give consent is ludicrous. There must be millions of couples who enjoy a drink and a fuck. Is that against the law? Does that mean men around the world are regularly raping their gf's?

[spoonitnow]

Well this pretty much sums up how I feel about this. It's not rape unless it's forced. I'm not talking legal crap here, I'm talking morally. And yes I realise that morals are subjective while law is not supposed to be, and that's the whole point of law. But every now and then the law is fucking stupid, and this is one of those cases, imo.

The idea that a drunk lady cannot give consent is ludicrous. There must be millions of couples who enjoy a drink and a fuck. Is that against the law? Does that mean men around the world are regularly raping their gf's?

Awareness of this issue is why I started this thread. Here's a quick history lesson of how this has become a problem for us:

Over the past couple of decades in the United States, there has been a change going on with the legal definition of rape. It has been pushed away from being based on force and pushed towards being based purely on the legal definition of consent. Third wave feminism has a lot to do with this, and the big push to change rape laws to cast a wider net in particular.

It's been mentioned in this thread already several times that changing rape laws to cast a wider net is bad for a number of reasons.

So you get to hear about "rape culture" from these people and retarded figures pulled out of peoples asses that make no sense like "1 in 5 women on college campuses are sexually assaulted," which is often changed to "raped," but the fact of the matter is that forcible rape has been on a pretty big decline for decades.


Image from above link.

Now here's where it gets scary. Say you're a young man going to a university, and a woman accuses you of rape. You can be kicked out of that school and have your reputation strongly dragged through the mud with no legal recourse even if she never presses charges, and this isn't a rare incident that happened on a fluke. It's starting to happen more and more. The reason is that the college does not have to prove that you raped the girl to kick your ass out. It sucks, but that's how it works for now.

So about this "one in five college girls are sexually assaulted on campus" figure that keeps getting thrown around. It came from a 2007 study by the National Institute of Justice, a study that was absurdly flawed and that did not, even in its flawed state, find that anywhere near one in five girls are sexually assaulted. A quick blurb from Time covers the basics:

“The estimated 19% sexual assault rate among college women is based on a survey at two large four-year universities, which might not accurately reflect our nation’s colleges overall. In addition, the survey had a large non-response rate, with the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were more apt to have completed the questionnaire, resulting in an inflated prevalence figure.”

Fox and Moran also point out that the study used an overly broad definition of sexual assault. Respondents were counted as sexual assault victims if they had been subject to “attempted forced kissing” or engaged in intimate encounters while intoxicated.

Someone try to kiss you? That's sexual assault in this survey. You can read the study itself at this link, but beware that it's a 111-page PDF.

The actual PDF paints a different picture:

5,446 people responded to the survey (note that non-victims are much less likely to respond, so this sample is already unreliable).

131 of these people alleged to have been forcibly sexually assaulted which puts us at about 1 in 42 already instead of 1 in 5.

16 of these 131 alleged victims reported their shit to the police (4 of which reported after more than a month of waiting).

6 of those 16 reports to police led to arrests.

[OngBonga]

So this is what happens when feminism is allowed to run amok.

Maybe us men should hit back and insist that being forced to listen to feminists amounts to rape of the ear.

Your nation is a fucking legal mess, it wouldn't surprise me if a good enough lawyer could actually push that through a court.

[spoonitnow]

So this is what happens when feminism is allowed to run amok.

Maybe us men should hit back and insist that being forced to listen to feminists amounts to rape of the ear.

Your nation is a fucking legal mess, it wouldn't surprise me if a good enough lawyer could actually push that through a court.

Sorry for the edits after you replied.

[OngBonga]

6 of those 16 reports to police led to arrests.

So from 19% to 0.1% in a blink of an eye. Sick manipulation of figures.