I just read about the craziest law. Sure, in the Us we got all sorts of ridiculous ones, like not being able to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant. But I think this one takes the cake. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...handle=hein.journals/geolr36&div=17&id=&page= In California, if a male is the victim of a statutory rape, and the rapist gets pregnant, the VICTIM must pay child support. I can't even think of a good comparison to try to show the absurdity, surely any thinking person knows this is a bad idea. I have never been so filled with rage about a law... You know what? I don't even know what to say except Where's the outrage? How the hell did this not be shown and criticized around the nation? Around the world? I mean, I understand if a man rapes a woman, but if a man is a victim and didn't want to have the sex in the first place, why should he have to pay child support? This just blows my mind!!! What do you think?
I don't find it that absurd. Yes, it's wrong, but the child deserves the best from both parents. The mom should be punished, but just because you're 15 doesn't mean you're obsolved from ALL legal responsiblities. You're old enough to know better. It's statutory rape, not forced rape. What I'm more upset about with stupid CA laws are the hand gun laws. A 300 handgun will cost a buyer nearly 400 dollars after taxes and fees, more if they decide to buy from out of state. If that wasn't bad enough, CA will restrict buyers to 50 bullets a month with probably added background check fees every time we buy. This is crazy, and doesn't prevent real criminals from circumventing the laws.
Do you know what statutory rape is? It has nothing to do with whether the victim wanted to have sex. And the idea behind child support isn't to punish the dad, it's to provide for the child. Thus, the name.
LOL An approriate post from a poster named Billy Bob. Uh, statutory rape means you're NOT old enough to know better. DOH!
No it doesn't. It means you're not legally old enough to make that decision. There's a difference. The case involves a 15 year old, old enough to know better. If he were to shoot someone, he'd likely be tried as an adult. I find nothing wrong with that law.
And what happens when the father turns 18? Is he still not responsible for the child? I'm 100% against statutory rape and think the mother should be punished, but when you're 15 and you can't keep it in, you're keeping it.
I have a hard time seeing how a guy is being raped without being drugged or out of it. Pretty sure he could defend himself, barring that she isnt carrying a gun.
I'm rambling off thoughts here but its what you have to do to look ahead. Misandry (at its extreme) runs way deeper than we want to believe, when you view it in a linear progression way. When you keep making laws and all social ethics solely about a woman's womb, when you keep making males evil perpetrators and females "victims of circumstance", and you keep taking a little bit off the top of a male's liberties, keep taking off the top, and keep doing it again for perceived equality, you actually make males REDUNDANT and therefore useless. Way more than women. Creating framework on the needs and whims of females isnt much better than a male dominated world. You'll have an imbalance all the same. Males might rule through oppression. Women rule through complete indifference. We keep looking ahead on the impacts of global warming, legalization of some drugs, abortion laws, etc. We trust science immensely in those areas. We assume the same scientific + political body looks after the needs of ALL people. But as you see, sometimes focusing on "breaking down barriers" and the "Women and children first!" motto means lets neuter some men to do it! Ultimately, all you'll need is like 20K sperm donating men for a 4 billion female population. And 18K of those men for "just in case". Thats not science fiction, thats scientific possibility and real numbers and innovation can make it happen in the hundreds of thousands of years in advance. All you need is plenty fear propoganda, an electorate voting it into office, a medical industry that feels it can make hefty profits of it, and its in effect. In order for there to be progress, there has to be change. Which means someone's gonna get the rug pulled from under them. The "someone" is usually male. All the lesbianism and bi women and insecure sensitive women, the "I'm TIRED of men" women, militant feminists. Thats fine in general society. But as POLICY MAKERS, keep those types FAR AWAY I say. Dont trust ANYONE I dont think misogyny is good at all. I dont think all modern forms of it is purely "cavemanish" with no purpose either. If women are indeed powerful, shouldnt we acknowledge that power with at least a little bit of skepticism? The fact that I even have to ramble like this shows the politically correct climate we're in so you dont "offend" women's pursuits. And yeah I'm in California....
Wrong. Statutory rape is predicated on the legal standard that the victim lacks the ability to consent. Therefore, each sex act is deemed to be without consent. Child support laws are predicated on a consensual sex act. The same consent that the law states cannot be present in a statutory rape situation. You cannot have it both ways. Either the guy is capable of consent or he is not.
I'm no lawyer, but I think the spirit of the CA law is not to punish the father but rather to give support the child. In which case, it satisfied your stated definition of statutory rape. Don't we do the same with child murders we trie as adults? I see the hypocrasy in both cases, but it's not neccesarily a bad thing.
