2
   

Nineteen- year-old rapist sues 15-year-old rape victim for child support. And wins.

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 11:43 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Now this was actually helpful. Thank you.

You're quite welcome, dick-breath.
DrewDad
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 01:10 pm
@joefromchicago,
I'd expect a pedantic A-hole such as yourself to be more careful with his language.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 11:38 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:
There is no way he should have to pay support, and
he wasnt given the choice about wether or not he wanted to be a parent.

Of course the father was given the choice about whether or not he wanted to be a parent.
That occurred when he chose to have unprotected sex with a 19-year old woman.

Yes.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 08:00 am
Interesting arguments, all. This would be an excellent case for debate in a law class.

I have a hard time swallowing the 'rapist' label, though. If "sex with a minor" is automatically deemed "rape", rather than forcible sex (which is my definition), then I guess I'd have to accept it, but I would have just called it "sex with a minor".
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 08:21 am
@Mame,
Quote:
I have a hard time swallowing the 'rapist' label, though. If "sex with a minor" is automatically deemed "rape", rather than forcible sex (which is my definition), then I guess I'd have to accept it, but I would have just called it "sex with a minor".


Generally when humans care about something a great deal we come up with many words to describe that something, word which take into consideration all of the variations. With aggressive or otherwise not socially acceptable sex we care a great deal , but insist upon using only one word, rape. This is done on purpose, the intent is to make it seem in our brains that all sex which is aggressive or otherwise not socially acceptable is a violation of a woman on par with when a woman is sexually attacked. It is an attempt to use language control to shape thought and behaviour. It is also dishonest, and over time will diminish the horror of rape, as it becomes known to be the charge against males who agree to have sex with the wrong female (under-aged, drunk, likes it rough...)

Social engineering through dishonesty, this is what humanity has come to.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 09:33 am
@Mame,
I think most states have discarded the "statutory rape" label. In Ohio (where this case occurred), the correct term is "unlawful sexual conduct with a minor." The news media, however, will continue to use the label "statutory rape" label because ... well, because they habitually do a bad job of reporting on legal issues.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:33 am
@joefromchicago,
Ah, thank you. That clears that up and makes a lot more sense.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:01 pm
What's that old saying, something like "you have to pay for the fuel for the combine to reap what you've sown, even if your neighbor let's you borrow the combine".
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:36 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Quote:
The teenage woman is not a rapist,
she had intercourse with a minor who was 15 years old
at the time, and she was 19 years old.

Is there a double-standard, here?

Texas law (I think) is that sex can be consensual if the participants are within two years of age.

Four years difference seems a bit much to me.

It does not matter. Boys do not need protection from girls.

I speak as one who was in that position many decades ago,
at the age of 11, when I took a bus from L.A. to Phoenix, Arizona,
a trip of several hours, at night. A girl who represented herself
as being 17 sat next to me and successfully initiated sexual overtures to me.
We took a motel room at a rest stop. A few months thereafter, a girl of 23
came on to me. In both cases at the time, I deemed myself very lucky.
I value each of those experiences. I am glad that my life was enriched by them.

If anyone had attempted to interfere, I 'd have considered that
an outrageous interference in my opportunities. Of course, if either
of those girls had been prosecuted for anything, I 'd have protected her.


I see the value of defending young girls from oppressive older guys;
not so the other way around.
0 Replies
 
EmDeeKay
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 05:02 pm
They should both be locked up.... She is retarded for having sex with AND getting pregnant by a 15 year old. He should be punished for taking advantage of someone not of sound mind. Unless they are both retarded then.............hey!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 05:18 pm

Nonsense.

Thay both did nothing rong.
Statutory rape laws shoud apply only against adult sex with
underage GIRLS. If it happens to a boy: it is a GOOD thing.

It happened to me when I was 11, and I LOVED IT.
That was many decades ago, and I am very glad that it was included in my experience.
I look back upon it with fondness.





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 05:45 pm
At the risk of stepping into the line of fire in an acrimonious exchange, i would like to observe that i see nothing inconsistently with common sense in the argument which Joe has outlined. The child is guilty of nothing, and the state has a proximate interest in assuring that the child is properly supported. To that end, no questions of guilt or innocence in a criminal matter would relate to the civil issue of providing for the child's support.

(And yes, i know those exchanges took place a year ago, but i've just noticed this thread.)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 06:32 pm
@Setanta,
The question here is when (if ever) can the collective force a child into a 18 year contract. If you go for this **** are you also going to go for forcing children to honor contracts that they signed with a gun to their head? Are you willing to gut the principle that contracts must be voluntary?
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 07:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
No, that is not the question here. The woman was a consenting adult. Your bullshit and self-serving view of sexuality and minors doesn't happen to apply here. Do us a favor, Rapist Boy, keep you twisted views to yourself. At the very least, don't respond to my posts, they are not addressed to you, and your opinions (uniformed and perverse) are a matter of indifference to me.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 08:53 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

The question here is when (if ever) can the collective force a child into a 18 year contract. If you go for this **** are you also going to go for forcing children to honor contracts that they signed with a gun to their head? Are you willing to gut the principle that contracts must be voluntary?
Factually, it was very voluntary.
It is only deemed not so by arbitrary statute; the dead letter of the law.
There is nothing morally rong with a boy making love to a woman.
I wish I had done it more ofen, when I was a boy.





David
0 Replies
 
lmur
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:26 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
... (uniformed and perverse)....

Like this, you mean?
http://www.ergogenics.org/images/policewoman.jpg
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:52 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

At the risk of stepping into the line of fire in an acrimonious exchange, i would like to observe that i see nothing inconsistently with common sense in the argument which Joe has outlined.

That happens every couple of years or so. It's always worth noting.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:53 am
@lmur,
Damn . . . and was working up quite a good rage, too . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:24 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Setanta wrote:
At the risk of stepping into the line of fire in an acrimonious exchange, i would like to observe that i see nothing inconsistently with common sense in the argument which Joe has outlined.

That happens every couple of years or so. It's always worth noting.


Oh . . . i don't think i agree with you that often . . .

(Sorry, Joe, i couldn't resist . . . )
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 12:52 am

It seems STRANGE to me:
for what reason, I ask, for what reason
woud anyone want to negate the good luck
of a boy who succeeds in having sex with a woman ?

When it happened to me,
it was a source of major gladness and happiness; there was NO downside to it.
I did not even have to pay a tax on it.
Well over half a century has passed since that good fortune,
so I doubt that there will be unforeseen repercussions yet to come.

It is perverted that some people wish to take the fun out of life for others,
even to the point of making it criminal.

Having fun is the reason for LIVING. If anything, we shoud be concerned about putting MORE fun into life,
not draining the fun out of life.
There is no similar objection of the child having sex
with a child of the same age; (that statement does not apply
to the girl 's father). I found it the same in both cases.

Obviously, everone of every age needs to be concerned
about avoiding both STDs and pregnancy, but that is not age related.


No one disputes protecting girls from older men,
but the more recent policy of having it be statutory rape
for a boy to have sex with a woman is irrational and helps nothing.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 11:58:17