|
On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Some people argue that the chance of health risks in pregnancy and abortion are so small, they are irrelevant. While others say, the small chance of getting someone pregnant while using a condom/pill is a significant problem. And there is emotional trauma involved with abortion or having to give your child which was growing inside you for 9 months to adoption.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc.
There is no way to be 100% "safe" in life. Sex, like everything else in life, is not risk free. Deal with it.
I think you're missing the main point.
Nobody is saying that the woman has no burden even if the man is paying child support. The problem is the woman gets 100% full choice into accepting this burden or not. The man has no say, other than never having sex again. Which is the entire point of the thread.
As an aside, I don't like the 'life's not fair, deal with it.' While that's sound advice for many things.. it's kind of silly. What kind of society would we live in if we didn't make fundamental changes to improve fairness when applicable..
|
On September 20 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:19 Mentalizor wrote:On September 20 2011 05:11 Toadesstern wrote:On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?. Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished. And what about the 70,000$ bill she is passing onto him? It's his fault and his responsibility, too.
Here's why your reasoning is unsatisfactory. The logical basis for what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone who gets into a car is responsible for the (possibly) poor choices of the other drivers on the road as soon as he makes the decision to get in his car. You're then using this logical basis to say that any accident that occurs is his fault and his responsibility regardless of the nature of the accident because he decided to get into a car.
|
On September 20 2011 05:19 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:11 Toadesstern wrote:On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?. Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished. And what about the 70,000$ bill she is passing onto him?
ok once again, if this is ignored again I'm going to ignore the thread because it seems to be useless:
That's just wrong. She is not passing a 70,000$ bill on him. You owe the money YOUR KID, not the mother of your kid. That's a very important difference.
What you say, would be a problem, the second one is a responsibility BOTH got.
It's not only the man's fault, just as it's not only the woman's fault. Both are responsible and if you end up raising your child, quitting your job while the womand ends up still working she's paying "you" (i.e. the kid).
|
Here's why your reasoning is unsatisfactory. The logical basis for what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone who gets into a car is responsible for the (possibly) poor choices of the other drivers on the road as soon as he makes the decision to get in his car. You're then using this logical basis to say that any accident that occurs is his fault and his responsibility regardless of the nature of the accident because he decided to get into a car.
What's hilarious about you attacking someone's reasoning is that the reasoning of your position is that it is fair for one side to bear 100% of the burden of child-rearing, because that is necessary for "equal" rights.
The woman can have an abortion and nobody has any burden, so this means to be equal and fair the man can absolve himself of responsibility and put 100% of it on the burden on the woman.
One side exercising its rights - no one has a burden.
The other side exercising what you say should be its rights - one side gets 100% of the burden.
That certainly is very equal and fair, indeed. The reasoning is great.
It's also pretty hilarious how apparently if someone takes proper precautions they are absolved of responsibility. Hey man, I took 110% proper precautions but I still wrecked my car into yours because there was black ice on the road, this means my insurance company and I are absolved of responsibility! If my car insurance bill goes up because State Farm had to pay the other driver $60,000, that is very unfair I was not responsible!
Try that one, see how far it goes.
There's a legal concept of liability where you are liable for the consequences of your actions regardless of how many precautions you take or whether it 'wasn't your fault.' It's called strict liability. Your culpability in the consequences is more or less irrelevant. As Wikipedia says:
In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The plaintiff need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible.
You are, fortunately or unfortunately, considered strictly liable for the well-being of a baby if your act of sex results in that baby. There is no fault to be found. It happened, here's the result, it doesn't matter that you wrapped it four times or jammed ten Plan B pills down her throat the next morning. You had sex, a baby resulted, please deal with it instead of whining k?
|
On September 20 2011 05:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
Here's why your reasoning is unsatisfactory. The logical basis for what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone who gets into a car is responsible for the (possibly) poor choices of the other drivers on the road as soon as he makes the decision to get in his car. You're then using this logical basis to say that any accident that occurs is his fault and his responsibility regardless of the nature of the accident because he decided to get into a car.
What's hilarious about you attacking someone's reasoning is that the reasoning of your position is that it is fair for one side to bear 100% of the burden of child-rearing, because that is necessary for "equal" rights. The woman can have an abortion and nobody has any burden, so this means to be equal and fair the man can absolve himself of responsibility and put 100% of it on the burden on the woman. One side exercising its rights - no one has a burden. The other side exercising what you say should be its rights - one side gets 100% of the burden. That certainly is very equal and fair, indeed. The reasoning is great.It's also pretty hilarious how apparently if someone takes proper precautions they are absolved of responsibility. Hey man, I took 110% proper precautions but I still wrecked my car into yours because there was black ice on the road, this means my insurance company and I are absolved of responsibility! If my car insurance bill goes up, that is very unfair I was not responsible! Try that one, see how far it goes.
Actually, it's inaccurate to say that I believe one side should bear 100% of the burden of child rearing. It's also totally irrelevant to this discussion, since the entire purpose of this thread is to critique the current philosophy of choice associated with human reproductive rights. What you're talking about (who has to face the burden of child rearing) is subsequent to the initial decision that is made entirely on the part of the woman. In other words, I don't see how your point is relevant to the current discussion.
Nowhere have I said I believe women should be 100% responsible, and nowhere have I said I have anything but support for women having choices in their lives. Also, here's why your critique of my example is unsatisfactory. What you're suggesting has nothing to do with the reasoning that responsibility begins by entering your car, and has everything to do with a situation in which you are, in fact, responsible.
Anyway, I guess I'm done with this thread unless anyone has anything new to add.
|
On September 20 2011 05:48 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Here's why your reasoning is unsatisfactory. The logical basis for what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone who gets into a car is responsible for the (possibly) poor choices of the other drivers on the road as soon as he makes the decision to get in his car. You're then using this logical basis to say that any accident that occurs is his fault and his responsibility regardless of the nature of the accident because he decided to get into a car.
What's hilarious about you attacking someone's reasoning is that the reasoning of your position is that it is fair for one side to bear 100% of the burden of child-rearing, because that is necessary for "equal" rights. The woman can have an abortion and nobody has any burden, so this means to be equal and fair the man can absolve himself of responsibility and put 100% of it on the burden on the woman. One side exercising its rights - no one has a burden. The other side exercising what you say should be its rights - one side gets 100% of the burden. That certainly is very equal and fair, indeed. The reasoning is great.It's also pretty hilarious how apparently if someone takes proper precautions they are absolved of responsibility. Hey man, I took 110% proper precautions but I still wrecked my car into yours because there was black ice on the road, this means my insurance company and I are absolved of responsibility! If my car insurance bill goes up, that is very unfair I was not responsible! Try that one, see how far it goes. Actually, it's inaccurate to say that I believe one side should bear 100% of the burden of child rearing. It's also totally irrelevant to this discussion, since the entire purpose of this thread is to critique the current philosophy of choice associated with human reproductive rights. What you're talking about (who has to face the burden of child rearing) is subsequent to the initial decision that is made entirely on the part of the woman. In other words, I don't see how your point is relevant to the current discussion.Anyway, I guess I'm done with this thread unless anyone has anything new to add.
It's not. He's been trolling this thread with nonsense from the very start. You'd be wise to move on and address a more legitimate poster.
This thread has turned to garbage because nobody can focus on the actual issue and either refuse or are just daft. The extreme posts are getting all of the attention that focus on issues completely unrelated like forced abortions (what), women having 100% burden! (huh) etc.
Pretty sad but what should I expect, people are stupid.
|
On September 20 2011 03:27 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm no expert on porn stars, but I have a feeling there is some legal precautions taken in the contracts beforehand that might address this issue.
There actually aren't.
Child support is an obligation owed to the child, and therefore the mother cannot sign that away in a contract.
This is why it's also extremely dangerous to donate sperm in a non-anonymous capacity; the woman can turn around and sue you for child support (on behalf of the child) regardless of what you agreed upon.
On September 20 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:
It's his fault and his responsibility, too.
Then you have an insanely warped view of "fault".
As the law currently stands, a woman can drug and rape a teenage boy, get pregnant, and then sue for child support. That's how child support law looks at "fault" and "responsibility".
If you support that as it stands, then you have no idea what the word "fault" means.
|
society is based on double standards, the women has a say in everything and it always is her word that is the right one. to put this into complex lets say a women does NOT want to take care of her child but desides to put it up for adopt, WHY is she then not obligated to child support? it is basiclly the exact samething, but the problem does not lie where justice is drawn it is todays society as we live it. a bunch of hypocrites every single one of them
feminism has outdrawn the rights of women, removed those rules who was not pleasing, and keeping those who still are horribly wrong and bullet proof holes of injustice because they enlighten the choices.. this is what feminism is.
Every feminist want equality but still want legal preferentails treatment in other matters, alimony laws one of the best examples assuming womans only value lies within her marriageability. yea keeping that in todays laber prosperity based society is also clear proof. men have to work for every single fragment in theyre life, a women gets it handed to her and even tough that men are called pigs. if u ask me, it is actually the mens fault for being such cowards
|
On September 20 2011 05:56 sunprince wrote:
Then you have an insanely warped view of "fault".
As the law currently stands, a woman can drug and rape a teenage boy, get pregnant, and then sue for child support. That's how child support law looks at "fault" and "responsibility".
If you support that as it stands, then you have no idea what the word "fault" means.
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening.
|
On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening.
For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this:
http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdf
For men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
|
On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/Show nested quote +
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
That's fucking garbage. Could you imagine telling your kid how you and the father met and telling the child that you raped some stranger that's now your father or that you fucked some random drunk guy at a party. It's disgusting how broken some of the laws are out there. Child support is retarded right now, men should unite and get the laws changed regarding how it works. Maybe go on strike and don't pay at all similar to the black rights movement.
|
On September 20 2011 07:41 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
That's fucking garbage. Could you imagine telling your kid how you and the father met and telling the child that you raped some stranger that's now your father or that you fucked some random drunk guy at a party. It's disgusting how broken some of the laws are out there. Child support is retarded right now, men should unite and get the laws changed regarding how it works. Maybe go on strike and don't pay at all similar to the black rights movement.
haha mate take it easy, this is only one of the shity laws that are engaged by politicians on purpose no matter how outragous they are. u shouldnt claim around laws to much cuz every law has many weakpoints and are easily diversed. You should just accept that the world is fucked up and move on with it. (anyway that is what most people do) most stuff is just a cloud of bullshit anyway. going in a strike would result as nothing, the best men could do is probably go berzerk cut of some politicians heads before they actually take those matters into theyre hands(trollface), also if u do not know there has alredy been multiply waves of such acts where men have striked and all that, but it just backfires even worse and they get into bigger problems 
though the best option is accepting shit and move on :D
remember the lesson kids, if u get raped make sure u pull it out and drink up ur own cum so it does not come into the ladys pussy and u will be able to fix it ! :D im fine with it and so is the rest of the world
|
You guys need to man up. Sexism in gaming? Fathers right to abort? Men and women arent the same get over it and no law is gonna change that.
|
ok once again, if this is ignored again I'm going to ignore the thread because it seems to be useless:
That's just wrong. She is not passing a 70,000$ bill on him. You owe the money YOUR KID, not the mother of your kid. That's a very important difference.
What you say, would be a problem, the second one is a responsibility BOTH got.
It's not only the man's fault, just as it's not only the woman's fault. Both are responsible and if you end up raising your child, quitting your job while the womand ends up still working she's paying "you" (i.e. the kid).
The reason you're being ignored is because what you're saying, while true, has nothing to do with this discussion at all. Yes, you are paying for your child, but it was not your decision to have this child. You are avoiding that point entirely. It's the woman's choice to have your child, not yours.
You shouldn't be forced to pay for a child that you do not want to have if the option is available to you to opt out of having the child (adoption/abortion). Whether or not she wants to keep the child, with these options being present and readily available, is her decision to make, but you shouldn't pay for the decision she makes.
And please, stop with the "man up" bullshit, that's just a stupid argument avoiding the issue entirely.
|
On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy.
On September 18 2011 20:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think imposing to a woman to abort is just monstrous. Not an option.
If a woman lies to get pregnant or anything like that, then maybe we can discuss whether it is the right to the father not to give a pension. But the abortion really is something that should be between the mother's hands, in my opinion.
Most cases you will have an unwanted child, a father who asks for abortion and a mother who refuses. And then, I think if it is not malicious from the mother, the guy just takes his responsibility.
from the moment a woman uses lies, deceit, treachery or other tools to get pregant without the sperm donors explicit consent, She is NOT thinking about the childs needs when she gets pregnant. Therefore, how can she be said to deserve anything. Some women do it in order to legally extort money from men.
From the moment neither the male or female is making sure birth control is in place, neither are thinking about the welfare of a possible child. therefore, how can either of them be fit to raise it, let alone make one or the other culpable for money while they are not?
On September 18 2011 20:17 iMarshall wrote:Although those are fair points in theory, it's not as simple in practice imo. Women have the responsibility for their own bodies, just like you need to take responsibility for your own semen (don't laugh, you started it ). Wear a condom and dispose of it yourself, or take a risk and pay the price if she gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby.
because its only the man's responsibility to make sure protection is involved. good to know, sexist.
|
On September 18 2011 22:15 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The person who has to go through the emotional nightmare of an abortion is the one who decides. There is no equality in this unless you offer to carry a baby.
because its always an emotional nightmare, because women always have the same thoughts and reactions. Don't know if serious...
Its a nice stereotype, however, you must realize there are plenty of self serving women who couldn't really give two shits about their fetii.
Antisocial personality disorder and narcissism and sociopathy aren't male only diseases. there are people in the world born without conscience, without regret, and without empathy. These same people are wildly successful in faking it because they understand the social contract rules and want to get what they want out of society.
Again, not sure if serious...
Edit:
Anyway, this whole issue is derived from the classical culture idealism that women are not creators of their own destiny like men, and are just along for the ride; that they are not responsible, and are weaker less capable of making decisions on their own, and need to be protected, and men are the only abusers, and women are always victims, and blah blah blah blah blah.
Sexism is why there is no culpability for the woman in any case like this. Don't like this fact? Tough.
On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/Show nested quote +
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
yep, women CANT be rapists, women CANT be just as dirty and sex driven as men.
It CANT be...
gtfover yourselves. Women are just as horny as men.
The thing is, if we taught females they had just as much power and self determination as men, and therefore are just as liable and responsible for their actions, they wouldn't be helpless, or feel like shit if they "get raped' cause they're drunk. I doubt the guy felt like shit, it probably bothered him but he would have moved on, if not for the skank being a selfish bastard.
|
On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/Show nested quote +
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
wow, just wow... i thought your statement was hypothetical, but those decisions are horrendous, I would have assumed it would be looked on a case by case basis with exceptions for exceptional circumstances, im totally speechless regarding that.
One tiny thing though, women CAN NOT rape men, the statutory definition is penetration with a penis, so afaik its sexual assault (sorry offtopic)
|
It's also pretty hilarious how apparently if someone takes proper precautions they are absolved of responsibility. Hey man, I took 110% proper precautions but I still wrecked my car into yours because there was black ice on the road, this means my insurance company and I are absolved of responsibility! If my car insurance bill goes up because State Farm had to pay the other driver $60,000, that is very unfair I was not responsible!
Try this example: you both wrecked your cars into eachother despite taking precautions (not only your fault) and the other driver can either choose to pay 70,000$ to fix the car, or get rid of the damages for free if he sees a car dealer before the time's up.
|
On September 20 2011 08:42 Maxtor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
wow, just wow... i thought your statement was hypothetical, but those decisions are horrendous, I would have assumed it would be looked on a case by case basis with exceptions for exceptional circumstances, im totally speechless regarding that. One tiny thing though, women CAN NOT rape men, the statutory definition is penetration with a penis, so afaik its sexual assault (sorry offtopic)
k facepalm pretty hard
|
On September 20 2011 08:42 Maxtor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
wow, just wow... i thought your statement was hypothetical, but those decisions are horrendous, I would have assumed it would be looked on a case by case basis with exceptions for exceptional circumstances, im totally speechless regarding that. One tiny thing though, women CAN NOT rape men, the statutory definition is penetration with a penis, so afaik its sexual assault (sorry offtopic)
sexism and ameliorating and diminishing the responsibility of women strikes again!
Wear a cape that has a picture of a man under a circle-line NO insignia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
