Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist

[Darat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you really think this is how things happen in the real world? That competent medical authorities simply accept what they are told when an underage girl gives birth? Christ, how naive.

It looks like you have weighed into this thread to defend Sarge without thinking.

I was in the thread long before you were..... ETA that's wrong my first post in the thread was immediately after your first post, and you quoted it (didn't notice you'd responded to me at the time) so you knew you were lying when you said "It looks like you have weighed into this thread to defend Sarge without thinking.".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Depends on what he's convicted of, right? Or are you a big fan of extrajudicial punishment?

There is only one thing he could be convicted of and that is rape. Which the evidence is clear, he did rape her, he has no defence in law against that charge.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Agreed and I will abide by the result of the trial because I have no real stake in the case. But here is the problem. The DA is almost certain not to get the conviction on the statutory count despite our local IANALs. She was in a bar and drinking, which gives the defendant a huge out, no matter what the law says. As for the rape rape claim, I suspect jurors are suspicious of those claims when they come up years later in the context of a custody hearing. Terribly un-PC of them but probably rational.

You should go back to the start of thread and read the actual law - there is no defence of "she looked older", "she said she was older" and so on, none of that would be brought up in a court case as it isn't a defence the law considers.

[Darat]

Earlier on I said:

Originally Posted by Darat

Something really has gone wrong somewhere in this story. As ever all we can do is speculate based on what we know from the article. It's hard not to think that either the rapist has some sway in the local community given all this seems to have occurred at the local community level or we are missing some rather large chunks of information.

I did forget another explanation - that the police were totally incompetent.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Darat

Earlier on I said:



I did forget another explanation - that the police were totally incompetent.

And this seems beyond dispute.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Darat

But it should be a takeaway of some sort- sadly it has come to be a way society shields itself from the abuse of children. The same way a paedophile used to be called a "kiddy fiddler" it minimises what paedophiles are and what they do. A paedophile rapes a 12 month baby, they rape a 6 year old child. Confusing the term with someone who targets those beyond puberty does a disservice and helps society to continue to not have to think about the sheer horror of paedophiles.

Come now Darat, this is far too nuanced for many on this thread who are only here to elevate themselves to a high moral level in order to scatter accusations such as "rape apologist", not to mention suggest that some contributors here might actually have committed rape.

From Wiki, "researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children and some pedophiles do not molest children."

Again, from Wiki, "This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors".

Just as those who stand on the bodies of POC to shout, "racist!", they (many of whom are the same members) can't resist a salacious rape to spew trollistic accusations.

It's like flies around ***** at times.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you really think this is how things happen in the real world? That competent medical authorities simply accept what they are told when an underage girl gives birth? Christ, how naive.

It looks like you have weighed into this thread to defend Sarge without thinking.

When a 17 year old girl gives birth and names as the father her teen boyfriend, then yes it is ordinary and routine for statutory rape not to be considered likely, because …..there was at the time of birth no indication that rape had occurred.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by sarge

When a 17 year old girl gives birth and names as the father her teen boyfriend, then yes it is ordinary and routine for statutory rape not to be considered likely, because …..there was at the time of birth no indication that rape had occurred.

Oh come off it. She was 16 when impregnated. You know this. You are excusing rape.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by sarge

When a 17 year old girl gives birth and names as the father her teen boyfriend, then yes it is ordinary and routine for statutory rape not to be considered likely, because …..there was at the time of birth no indication that rape had occurred.

By the books in Louisiana, her age at the time of the birth was the indication that a rape had ocurred, no matter who the father was claimed to be.

LA has no Romeo and Juliet laws, or any provisions for sexual activity under 17 years of age. Its a simple hard line at 17 for AoC, no ifs, ands, or buts. If two 16 yr old have consensual sex together, they are both guilty of statutory rape in Louisiana. Rarely enforced, I would imagine, but law nonetheless. Any sex before 17 is considered statutory rape, full stop, so at the time of birth, indication of statutory rape was plain.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

LA has no Romeo and Juliet laws, or any provisions for sexual activity under 17 years of age. Its a simple hard line at 17 for AoC, no ifs, ands, or buts. If two 16 yr old have consensual sex together, they are both guilty of statutory rape in Louisiana. Rarely enforced, I would imagine, but law nonetheless. Any sex before 17 is considered statutory rape, full stop, so at the time of birth, indication of statutory rape was plain.

EDIT

Quote:

There are certain exceptions to this, however. If both individuals are minors under the age of 17 but over the age of 13, it is unlikely that either can be convicted of statutory rape, as long as the sexual activity was consensual. Similarly, if there is a two-year (or less) age gap between the two individuals, and the sexual acts were consensual in nature, neither can be convicted of statutory rape.

https://www.ambeaulaw.com/criminal-d...20of%20consent.

Sounds like there are exceptions.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lionking

Oh come off it. She was 16 when impregnated. You know this. You are excusing rape.

If Sarge isn't excusing it, and it was consensual sex only, I am in this case. The age of 16 is no big deal in the grand scheme, and there is plenty of reason to suspect she misled him about her age. Up to and including false ID.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Woman comes forward 10 years after the supposed rape and reports it. Do you know who raped you? Why yes, it's the guy I've been sharing custody with for the last 5 years.

Yeah, that's about when I expect she heard the crickets.

The report was made within the statute of limitations, so the police had an obligation to investigate.

Why are you okay with law enforcement failing to investigate a reported sex crime against a minor?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Who said that? Can you link to the post?

Here you go:

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

99% of respondents here don’t understand the meaning of the word paedo. Doesn’t stop many of them throwing it around.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

I'm on record on this forum. I've even got the infractions to prove it and I think I may have been suspended for a short time for expressing my views.

Not that it matters to you.

That doesn’t really clear it up. Is a 30 year-old man raping a 16 year-old girl something you oppose or support? I know if someone erroneously called that a man a pedo you certainly wouldn’t be shy about expressing your thoughts.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Here you go:

Are you serious? You're not presenting this as "gotcha", I hope.

Let's see if it stands up though.

You said, "...when a 30 year-old man rapes a 16 year-old girl is that it’s wrong to call him a pedo."

And you got that from me saying, "99% of respondents here don’t understand the meaning of the word paedo. Doesn’t stop many of them throwing it around."

Please show me where that sentence references the rape, the 30 year old man or the 16 year old girl?

Did it ever occur to you that I'm maybe, quite correctly, pointing out that many people do not actually understand what the words mean and how it should be applied with more care? I go into why that is in a later post.

Did it ever occur to you that it's maybe the likes of you that I'm targeting when accusing people of "throwing" the word around?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Agreed and I will abide by the result of the trial because I have no real stake in the case. But here is the problem. The DA is almost certain not to get the conviction on the statutory count despite our local IANALs. She was in a bar and drinking, which gives the defendant a huge out, no matter what the law says. As for the rape rape claim, I suspect jurors are suspicious of those claims when they come up years later in the context of a custody hearing. Terribly un-PC of them but probably rational.

Republicans: The party of protecting children.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

That doesn’t really clear it up. Is a 30 year-old man raping a 16 year-old girl something you oppose or support? I know if someone erroneously called that a man a pedo you certainly wouldn’t be shy about expressing your thoughts.

Your hubris is blinding you and you're in the wrong lane.

Do I have to explain this to you in big?

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Now that we’ve established that men 30 years and older having sex with 16 year-old girls is no big deal, how many times have you engaged in this perfectly normal practice? Is it something you do habitually? Or just once in a while as a treat for yourself?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Are you serious? You're not presenting this as "gotcha", I hope.

Let's see if it stands up though.

You said, "...when a 30 year-old man rapes a 16 year-old girl is that it’s wrong to call him a pedo."

And you got that from me saying, "99% of respondents here don’t understand the meaning of the word paedo. Doesn’t stop many of them throwing it around."

Please show me where that sentence references the rape, the 30 year old man or the 16 year old girl?

Did it ever occur to you that I'm maybe, quite correctly, pointing out that many people do not actually understand what the words mean and how it should be applied with more care? I go into why that is in a later post.

Did it ever occur to you that it's maybe the likes of you that I'm targeting when accusing people of "throwing" the word around?

Yes, “technically, he’s not a pedo” is perfectly normal response to a story about 30 year-old man raping a 16 year-old girl. Maybe next, you can correct the punctuation in the police report she filed.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Asking someone if they participate in the behavior they are attempting to normalize is a fair question.

And I like how you take issue with me asking that question, but not the blatant rape apologism from the person I asked.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Yes, “technically, he’s not a pedo” is perfectly normal response to a story about 30 year-old man raping a 16 year-old girl. Maybe next, you can correct the punctuation in the police report she filed.

Nope, you're still not getting it.

You haven't shown where my sentence references the man, the rape or the girl despite my asking you to.

Once you've understood that it doesn't then you might understand that perhaps I'm not talking about the man, the rape or the girl.

From that, you might star to wonder just who I am referring to when I see the word paedo directed at someone?

I doubt it though as introspection doesn't seem to be a tool in your box.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Nope, you're still not getting it.

You haven't shown where my sentence references the man, the rape or the girl despite my asking you to.

Once you've understood that it doesn't then you might understand that perhaps I'm not talking about the man, the rape or the girl.

From that, you might star to wonder just who I am referring to when I see the word paedo directed at someone?

I doubt it though as introspection doesn't seem to be a tool in your box.

The topic of the thread is a story that involves a 30 year-old man who raped a 16 year-old girl.

How totally off the wall for me to assume that the comments you make in this thread would in some way be related to the topic.

I apologize for the mistake and will ignore your off-topic ramblings going forward.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Asking someone if they participate in the behavior they are attempting to normalize is a fair question.

You didn't ask if he "participated" at all. You flat out insisted that he does.

You wanted to know, how many times he engaged in this "perfectly normal" ^{(your words, not mine)} practice? And was it something he did habitually? Or just once in a while as a treat for himself?

Quote:

And I like how you take issue with me asking that question, but not the blatant rape apologism from the person I asked.

You are accusing him of being a sexual deviant. That is what I'm taking issue with.

It's disgusting, utterly disgusting.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

By the books in Louisiana, her age at the time of the birth was the indication that a rape had ocurred, no matter who the father was claimed to be. ...snip....

No it isn't - the relevant legislation was quoted I think on the first page, if it was a similar aged boyfriend it isn't statutory rape.

Quote:

...snip...

Quote:
Louisiana

The age of consent in Louisiana is 17.

§ 80. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile

A. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile is committed when: (1) A person who is seventeen years of age or older has sexual intercourse, with consent, with a person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than seventeen years of age, when the victim is not the spouse of the offender and when the difference between the age of the victim and the age of the offender is four years or greater; or .......

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

You are accusing him of being a sexual deviant. That is what I'm taking issue with.

How is assuming that someone takes part in the behavior which they are arguing is perfectly normal an accusation that they are a sexual deviant?

And just to be clear, do you view a 30 year-old man having sex with a 16 year-old girl as a sexual deviant?

Assuming that you do, I have a shocking story to tell you...

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Sounds like there are exceptions.

Refers to when both are minors, so not applicable here.

Although the laws do seem a bit self contradictory.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Refers to when both are minors, so not applicable here.

Although the laws do seem a bit self contradictory.

I was referring to where you said two minors would be guilty of statutory rape if they engaged in consensual sex.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Darat

No it isn't - the relevant legislation was quoted I think on the first page, if it was a similar aged boyfriend it isn't statutory rape.

The "and" in that statute me and they would need to be married, or both close in age minors. I don't believe the boyfriend was claimed to be a minor?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

How is assuming that someone takes part in the behavior which they are arguing is perfectly normal an accusation that they are a sexual deviant?

And just to be clear, do you view a 30 year-old man having sex with a 16 year-old girl as a sexual deviant?

Assuming that you do, I have a shocking story to tell you...

If it were that "shocking", it probably would not be legal in 31 states and plenty of other regions...such as the UK, New Zealand, and most of Australia...to name a few.

"Sexual deviant", lol. I guess I should be scolding everyone for their "Puritan" views of sexuality?

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

How is assuming that someone takes part in the behavior which they are arguing is perfectly normal an accusation that they are a sexual deviant?

You have no evidence to support your assumption, none whatsoever yet you are alluding to some form of deviance. Own your words.

There is, on the other hand, plenty of hard evidence that many parts of the US and other countries would not see a sexual relationship between a 30 year man and a 16 year old girl as you do. What makes them wrong and you right? Many would wince at the thought perhaps but no laws would be broken.

That doesn't matter to you though, as your goading is couched in the muckiest and sleaziest manner.

You are trolling.

Quote:

And just to be clear, do you view a 30 year-old man having sex with a 16 year-old girl as a sexual deviant?

In my country the AOC is 16 and therefore there is no reason to see any such relationship as "deviant". I don't know of any such relationships but if I did I'd probably wonder at the older individuals motivations.

I'm currently married to partner who is 9 years younger than me. What does this make me in your eyes sans any evidence of our respective ages when we met?

Quote:

Assuming that you do,

That strategy is not working out well for you

Quote:

I have a shocking story to tell you...

As Dumbo said....... I'm all ears. I feel a big twist reveal is in the offing, I hope I'm wrong.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Darat

But she didn't she told them it was her boyfriend so there was no reason for them to have considered it was rape. I was like you at the start wondered why the birth wasn't notifiable. The reason it wasn't is that there wasn't any reason for the medical staff at the time to think statutory rape had happened.

The answer to the questions is the NAME of the father, not just "my boyfriend"

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

If it were that "shocking", it probably would not be legal in 31 states and plenty of other regions...such as the UK, New Zealand, and most of Australia...to name a few.

"Sexual deviant", lol.

bluesjnr used that term, not me. i was just referring to their usage.

Speaking of grown men having sex with 16 year-old girls, I personally don't think it's appropriate regardless of what the local age of consent law says.

You seem to disagree.

So my question is, if you're fine with this behavior, is it a behavior you engage in or would engage in given the opportunity?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by sarge

When a 17 year old girl gives birth and names as the father her teen boyfriend, then yes it is ordinary and routine for statutory rape not to be considered likely, because …..there was at the time of birth no indication that rape had occurred.

She didn't "name" this alleged boyfriend, it STILL bears to be investigated, even with the "close age teenager" laws in Louisiana.

The absolute minimum investigation should have been done to at least identify who this "boyfriend" was and his age.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

You have no evidence to support your assumption, none whatsoever yet you are alluding to some form of deviance. Own your words.

Here you go:

Originally Posted by Warp12

If Sarge isn't excusing it, and it was consensual sex only, I am in this case. The age of 16 is no big deal in the grand scheme, and there is plenty of reason to suspect she misled him about her age. Up to and including false ID.

Also, I didn't describe it as deviance. You did.

Quote:

There is, on the other hand, plenty of hard evidence that many parts of the US and other countries would not see a sexual relationship between a 30 year man and a 16 year old girl as you do. What makes them wrong and you right? Many would wince at the thought perhaps but no laws would be broken.

I disagree with laws that make it legal for a 30 year-old man to have sex with a 16 year-old girl. I have this weird hang up about adults having sex with children.

Quote:

That doesn't matter to you though, as your goading is couched in the muckiest and sleaziest manner.

I'm against 30 year-old men having sex with 16 year-old girls. Not sure how that make me the sleazy one here.

Quote:

In my country the AOC is 16 and therefore there is no reason to see any such relationship as "deviant". I don't know of any such relationships but if I did I'd probably wonder at the older individuals motivations.

You're the one who described it as sexual deviance, not me.

Quote:

I'm currently married to partner who is 9 years younger than me. What does this make me in your eyes sans any evidence of our respective ages.

As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, it's not just the age difference, but also the age of the younger partner. A 50 year-old and a 41 year-old? Who cares. 40 and 31? Also not a big deal. 30 and 21? Not great, but okay. 20 and 11, however...

Quote:

That strategy is not working out well for you

As Dumbo said....... I'm all ears. I feel a big twist reveal is in the offing, I hope I'm wrong.

It's the topic of this thread, the thing you don't see to be interested in discussing.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Here you go:


Also, I didn't describe it as deviance. You did.



I disagree with laws that make it legal for a 30 year-old man to have sex with a 16 year-old girl. I have this weird hang up about adults having sex with children.



I'm against 30 year-old men having sex with 16 year-old girls. Not sure how that make me the sleazy one here.



You're the one who described it as sexual deviance, not me.



As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, it's not just the age difference, but also the age of the younger partner. A 50 year-old and a 41 year-old? Who cares. 40 and 31? Also not a big deal. 30 and 21? Not great, but okay. 20 and 11, however...



It's the topic of this thread, the thing you don't see to be interested in discussing.

Some words from my post that seem to be wasted on you.

"you are alluding to some form of deviance. Own your words."

That's right you didn't describe as a deviance, you sure as hell allude to it as such though.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

She didn't "name" this alleged boyfriend, it STILL bears to be investigated, even with the "close age teenager" laws in Louisiana.

The absolute minimum investigation should have been done to at least identify who this "boyfriend" was and his age.

I agree but I don't think there was anything that legally required the medical professionals to notify anyone. One would have thought that post-natal care would have attempted to identify the father, but if she wouldn't say there would have been no way to compel her.

Sadly lots of people will do what is easiest rather than what is best.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lionking

Oh come off it. She was 16 when impregnated. You know this.

She was 17 when she gave birth and listed as the father another teenager. This alone precludes an assumption of rape. But you know this already.

Quote:

You are excusing rape.

You are lying. My every statement on this subject has been an condemnation of the rape.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by sarge

She was 17 when she gave birth and listed as the father another teenager. This alone precludes an assumption of rape. But you know this already.

You are lying. My every statement on this subject has been an condemnation of the rape.

I keep seeing this claimed, but I don't see "teenage father" in the reporting, just "my boyfriend".

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

If it were that "shocking", it probably would not be legal in 31 states and plenty of other regions...such as the UK, New Zealand, and most of Australia...to name a few

No. What matters is the law where the offender is. The question is "was/is she under the the AOC in the offender's jurisdiction".*

As has been previously and painstakingly explained, the actual age is neither here nor there, especially if you are going to try to (as you are) normalizing sex with children in one state or country because the ages there are different from those of another state or country. The AOC is 14 in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy and Portugal, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay, and 13 in the Philippines. In The Vatican, the AOC is for a girl is 14 so long as she is married - I don't see you using those countries to justify your position.



__________________

* Of course, this is providing there is not any specific law restricting a citizen of one country from travelling to another country for sex with children under the AOC in the citizen's country - i.e. "sex tourism".

In the US this is 18 USC§2423(b): Travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct
U.S. citizens and residents are prohibited from traveling to a foreign country with the intent of engaging in sexual activities with a child. This is punishable by up to 30 years in prison.

In NZ we have a similar statute
Crimes Amendment Act 1995: 144A Sexual conduct with children and young people outside New Zealand
It is an offence for New Zealand citizens and residents to engage in sexual conduct or activities with a child in another country - 7 to 14 years maximum imprisonment for engaging in sexual conduct and/or activities with a child under the age of 16

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Some words from my post that seem to be wasted on you.

"you are alluding to some form of deviance. Own your words."

That's right you didn't describe as a deviance, you sure as hell allude to it as such though.

I've made my position clear. I don't think a 30 year-old man having sex with a 16 year-old girl is appropriate, regardless of the local age of consent laws.

Others in this thread seem to disagree, and have described it as "no big deal".

I'm merely inquiring if these posters have engaged in the behavior they describe as "no big deal".

You described that same behavior as "sexual deviance". I didn't.