[corners]

Woman rapes 14-year-old boy and makes him pay alimony for the baby resulted

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../14953965/

While in high school, Olivas had sex with a 20-year-old woman. She took advantage of a lonely kid going through a rough patch at home.

State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim.

Then two years ago, the state served him with papers demanding child support. That's how he found out he had a then-6-year-old daughter.

"It was a shock," he said. "I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It's unexplainable. It freaked me out."

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

Olivas said he owes about $15,000 in back child support and medical bills going back to the child's birth, plus 10 percent interest. The state seized money from his bank account and is garnisheeing his wages at $380 a month.

[corners]

It is interesting how feminists are forcing equality:

When a woman rapes a 14-year old boy ===> the underage boy must pay her child support, while she gets 0 days in prison

When a man rapes a 14-year old girl ===> the man, again, gets between 20 years and a lifetime in prison...

[Biologist]

Wow! I think that this news is actually very significant, because it very clearly illustrates the anti-male, pro-female bias in the US legal system.

The woman clearly committed statutory rape. There really isn't much grey area around it. Why the hell is she not in prison?

On top of that, she was successful in claiming back child support for when the guy was only 14 years old? Could you imagine if the genders were reversed?

Scary times we live in.

[Rutting Elephant]

She should have to pay him child support for his personal expenses-
for stealing his childhood and innocence forever (as the situation would be represented had this been a girl attracted to an older man).

[corners]

There are tons on women who are raping underage boys, but usually they get away with it, because the public opinion still favours women,
no matter how much of violent criminals they are the respective women:

http://kfor.com/2014/08/14/officials-yuk...r-age-boy/

http://www.wkrn.com/story/14515796/woman...ar-old-boy

http://www.wfla.com/story/23551613/kings...ar-old-boy

[TheWastelander]

(09-03-2014 08:37 AM)corners Wrote:  

There are tons on women who are raping underage boys, but usually they get away with it, because the public opinion still favours women,
no matter how much of violent criminals they are the respective women:

People generally accept reality when it comes to teen boys and decent-looking adult women having sex. But if an adult man does anything with a teen he's a rapist weirdo who should be thrown under the jail and she's an innocent angel who, at no point, enjoyed what was going on and was taken advantage of.

[Rigsby]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...years.html

=================
A female tutor seduced a 13-year-old boy during a lesson at his home before abusing him during regular sex sessions that went on for two years, a court heard today.

Carolyn Keeling, 63, allegedly started abusing the boy in 1993 when she gave him wine and stripped down to her underwear to sunbathe during a tutoring session at his home, a jury heard.

The alleged abuse continued until 1996, when the boy was 15.

She smoked cannabis with him on occasions and on occasions they drank together.
==================


Their quote. Sorry, it is the Daily Heil!

[Basil Ransom]

Corners:

Where is the evidence she raped him? You are making up and repeating lies. Why do you let the government tell you how to think?

[vinman]

In parts of America around the early 1900's blacks had no rights that whites and to respect. Now in the 2,000's MEN have no rights that the courts have to respect. Jim Crow 2.0.

[Rigsby]

(09-03-2014 09:17 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Corners:

Where is the evidence she raped him? You are making up and repeating lies. Why do you let the government tell you how to think?

Quite, the reason I posted this particular link to the Daily Mail was because this shit went on for years. He wasn't raped at all. Still, it was an abuse of power.

[Walderschmidt]

(09-03-2014 09:17 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Corners:

Where is the evidence she raped him? You are making up and repeating lies. Why do you let the government tell you how to think?

Are you being sarcastic?

Wald

[Cattle Rustler]

(09-03-2014 10:33 AM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:17 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Corners:

Where is the evidence she raped him? You are making up and repeating lies. Why do you let the government tell you how to think?

Are you being sarcastic?

Wald

He's just using the same logic the manosphere applies when a female is "raped".

[RexImperator]

In this situation, it seems like the best revenge would probably be having a whole lot more kids put of wedlock with various girls. Then the child support for each girl will be so diluted so as to be meaningless. That, or just quit your job and go to jail out of spite.

[Soothesayer]

Yet one more reason why I never divulge my real last name to a lizard either stateside (non-LTR) OR overseas, nor answer collections or phone calls unless I know who it is. As soon as you answer them, you will become a TARGET.

[Basil Ransom]

No, I am not being sarcastic. Calling this rape perpetuates the lie that sleeping with an adolescent is necessarily rape. Call it statutory sex or something.

I'm not even taking a position on ages of consent - I don't have a strong position on them. I do object however to calling consentual, willing sex with a mid to late adolescent as rape in any form.

[Quintus Curtius]

^^^^

I hear you, Basil, but the problem is that you're not seeing this as a legal issue.

We're dealing with a specific legal construct here: statutory rape. Under statutory rape statutes, a person is considered "per se" unable to consent to sex, even if that person appears to be a willing participant in the intercourse. You may not agree with it, but that's how the law views it. These statutes go back centuries, and the idea is that they are meant to enshrine a public policy of protecting children. In theory, at least.

They are controversial to some people, obviously. What the law views as a "mature" age often lags behind biological maturity. But this is the way society works. Again, it comes back to public policy of child protection.

It's what the law calls a "strict liability" crime. If someone has sex with a person under a certain age, it is viewed as "rape" in the eyes of the law. Meaning that it was a sexual encounter with a person that is by definition unable to consent.

[Pepini]

How can a woman rape a man without a strap-on?
A woman cannot rape a man. It simply doesn't make sense.
If one day my boy gets rape by a woman when is 14 year old I will be proud of him. Only if shes really ugly i will not be so happy.

[Basil Ransom]

The OP says 'rape' and not statutory rape in the title.

If you take painstaking care to make the distinction between rape and statutory rape in the case of a man but not a woman, then you are simply a liar peddling falsehoods.

Yes the legal courts use the term statutory rape, and I can't control them. But the word rape convicts a person in the court of opinion, even when preceded by 'statutory.' Using the phrase 'statutory rape' accedes to the view that Quintus described, that sex between an adult and a person under the age of consent is necessarily rape. If you don't buy that view, and most men here don't, then you have no business using the term 'statutory rape' with a straight face.

I haven't finished researching, but apparently statutory rape is a vestige of a time when sex was supposed to be confined to marriage; fornication was forbidden. Statutory rape was applied between unmarried couples, not married and underage ones. Statutory rape in the case of adolescents just doesn't make sense. If fornication is no longer forbidden, underage fornication has considerably less reason to be considered 'rape.' Statutory rape is a term inappropriate for adolescents fornicating in a society where fornication is accepted and ubiquitous.

[Quintus Curtius]

^^^

Basil, I agree that many statutory rape laws are anachronistic. They date back to a time when sexual precocity among young women was rare. But in today's hyper-sexualized environment, they don't serve the same purpose they once did. We still need some guidelines in place. Where we draw the line is up to each society and its values.

In fact, you often have the insane situation where the legal age to get married can be as young as 13 (under common law), but yet the statutory age of consent can be 16, 17, or 18, depending on the jurisdiction.

Obviously there has to be some line drawn regarding age and sexual behavior. It does serve some purpose. If no lines are drawn, then chaos is the outcome.

Such restraints on sexual behavior among adolescents are needed. The young person, his blood pumping with hormones, sees no reason why he (or she) should not give free reign to his or her sexual desires. He can end up destroying himself before he reaches maturity.

Sex is a river of fire, whose sides need to be banked and cooled by social and legal restraints. It cannot be otherwise.

I also agree that conflating "statutory rape" with "forcible rape" is the result when we slap the label "rape" on both types of crimes. This is a common prosecutorial tactic: calling a statutory "rapist" a "rapist", as if it's the same thing as forcible rape. But such is the practice.

[Walderschmidt]

(09-03-2014 02:34 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

No, I am not being sarcastic. Calling this rape perpetuates the lie that sleeping with an adolescent is necessarily rape. Call it statutory sex or something.

I'm not even taking a position on ages of consent - I don't have a strong position on them. I do object however to calling consensual, willing sex with a mid to late adolescent as rape in any form.

Now that I see what you mean, I agree with you %100.

She's taken advantage of him - calling it rape only lends credibility to the feminist school of thought that labels everything rape!

Taking advantage of a drunken, but willing girl, is never rape no matter how much a feminist wishes it would be.

Wald

[Sourcecode]

(09-03-2014 09:21 AM)vinman Wrote:  

In parts of America around the early 1900's blacks had no rights that whites and to respect. Now in the 2,000's MEN have no rights that the courts have to respect. Jim Crow 2.0.

no..not at all..It's insulting to even make that comparison even as a joke.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Basil, thank you for the posts in this thread.

The hysterical abuse of the word "rape" is one of the great evils of our time. We should not indulge in it here for one moment.

A 20 year woman having sex with a willing and eager 14 year old guy is not "rape". And a 20 year old guy having sex with a willing and eager 14 year old girl is not "rape" either. These things may be punishable by law but they are not rape, and should never be designated as such.

The word should be reserved for what it means, a violent sex crime which is extremely rare in peacetime conditions.

[corners]

The source of this news is Heartiste who retweeted PlayDangerously,

with this exact wording on their twitter:

A male rape victim is being forced to pay child support to his female rapist: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../14953965/

http://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/statu...3857253376

[Sp5]

This guy needs a better lawyer. You can't contract when you're 14, because you're not legally competent. But it's not against the law or deemed morally reprehensible to get a 14 year old to sign a contract.

Woman's got some chutzpah to go after the guy for money.

As far as the rape / statutory rape distinction goes, in my state charges of statutory rape showed up as "Rape" on the rap sheet, because it was a subparagraph of the rape law. You'd have to pull the case file to know more.

[corners]

Statutory rape is "Rape" according to the law.

Also, if the exact same situation was reversed, and a man was having sex with a 14-year old girl,
he would rot now in prison for lifetime probably, and everyone would regard him
as a "pedophile" and a "child rapist"