Why do rapist and pedophiles have paternity rights?

reply to post by TheColdDragon

Way to ignore a cogent argument taking place and spout off your own emotion-based opinion about a topic.

I'm sorry, I didn't see the 'no disagreeing with TheColdDragon sign when I came in. Perhaps someone moved it.

My post was not addressed to you, it was a general post to address my feelings on the topic of the thread. I believe I had as much reason to post it as you did to reply to me. As to the coherence of your debate, that sort of flew out the window when I saw this:

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
...and I think that parents should stay out of it if it is obvious that their daughter or son had sex of their own volition.

Excuse me? You really believe there is no problem with children getting STDs or pregnant? And you really believe that a parent shouldn't even try to prevent it?

You want to discuss this issue? Fine, discuss it with someone who disagrees with you... me. I would love to hear how you defend that statement.

TheRedneck


[edit on 18-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm sorry, I didn't see the 'no disagreeing with TheColdDragon sign when I came in. Perhaps someone moved it.

Not at all, Disagree with me all you like... but address someone's words, otherwise you're just talking out loud to yourself. I'd much rather be addressed than ranted at, I'm sure most would say the same.

My post was not addressed to you, it was a general post to address my feelings on the topic of the thread.

Which apparently disregarded the content of the thread, hence my irritation.

I believe I had as much reason to post it as you did to reply to me. As to the coherence of your debate, that sort of flew out the window when I saw this:

So you ceased reading to reply with emotion. You have every right to do so, but it doesn't mean others won't be critical if you seem uninformed to the contents of previous posts.

Excuse me? You really believe there is no problem with children getting STDs or pregnant? And you really believe that a parent shouldn't even try to prevent it?

I'm fairly certain there is a problem with Pubescent Individuals getting pregnant or acquiring STD's. However, I would argue that after education by either parent or public, that problem is the responsibility of the individual that acquired said problem... whether they made a poor decision or not.

Of course, Parents will always care about the situations their children get into and I expect that the problem would be a shared one in such cases (Since I don't imagine many parents being quite that heartless). However, the responsibility falls to the willing participants of the act.

You want to discuss this issue? Fine, discuss it with someone who disagrees with you... me. I would love to hear how you defend that statement.
[edit on 18-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

Gladly. I did cite my view just above this, but allow me to reiterate; Whether the law considers Pubescent Individuals as adults or not, they have sexual urges and to place a blanket statement across all such individuals that they cannot consent (And are thusly NOT responsible for their actions) merely because the LAW says they can't is not any real kind of argument as much as a regurgitation of societal expectations.

If we're going to have a conversation, please check your expectations and beliefs at the door.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

I'm fairly certain there is a problem with Pubescent Individuals getting pregnant or acquiring STD's. However, I would argue that after education by either parent or public, that problem is the responsibility of the individual that acquired said problem... whether they made a poor decision or not.

That is fine reasoning for an adult, but you apparently have not spent much time around children. I have, as I have raised two exceptionally bright ones. As a parent, I can assure you that they do not think like adults, they do not act like adults, and they therefore cannot accept consequences to their actions that are invisible to them.

If a child fails to learn how to perform long division, it means he/she will suffer the consequences with harder lessons until he catches up. That's not a major catastrophe (although some children will think it is). If a child gets pregnant at age 13, that is 18 years (longer than they have been alive!) of being tied to a baby when they are obviously not ready for that kind of responsibility. The child is damaged by having to grow up too soon, losing a large part of their childhood (including, as I said before, the part that prepares one for a career to improve their lot in life), and the baby is damaged by having a mother figure who cannot operate in life as well as an adult mother. That's a catastrophe.

Of course, Parents will always care about the situations their children get into and I expect that the problem would be a shared one in such cases (Since I don't imagine many parents being quite that heartless). However, the responsibility falls to the willing participants of the act.

So your solution, then, if I am reading your post correctly, is for the parents of the child to raise any bundle of joy that she happens to have because you think she is sexually and mentally mature at 13?

Let me explain a few hard cold facts of life to you. A parent's productive years are limited. As we age, everything seems to take longer and hurt more. That's not bad health; I am as healthy as a horse, able to pass a DOT physical every 2 years. But age will and does catch up with us all in our elder years. Now, maybe you see no problem with wanting people to be a parent to their grandchildren, but I do. Grandparent s are there to provide wisdom and love, not to play catch when they have trouble running without getting out of breath or to play piggyback with an ache in the piggy's back. That's the parent's place, assuming they aren't children themselves.

Another fact of life: children are expensive. Don't believe me? Try having one. I do not regret one cent I have spent on mine, but that doesn't mean I didn't have to give up a lot in life to raise them. From diapers and formula, to clothes that are outgrown every 3 months, to doctors visits for that broken bone from playing too hard, to school supplies and food and a few chosen picks from the "Daddy, I want' list, and on to college, the amount it takes to raise a child today makes me wonder how we manage to do it.

So again, let me get you straight on this: you expect parents to stay out of children's sexual lives completely, and when one comes home pregnant, you expect the parent to raise it for their child, bearing all the expense and hardships that come with it? Yeah, right, that's a wonderful way to promote responsibility.

Whether the law considers Pubescent Individuals as adults or not, they have sexual urges and to place a blanket statement across all such individuals that they cannot consent (And are thusly NOT responsible for their actions) merely because the LAW says they can't is not any real kind of argument as much as a regurgitation of societal expectations.

So they have sexual urges. What's new about that? But that is irrelevant when they are not mentally mature enough to realize the cosequences of succumbing to those urges.

The laws against sexual exploitation of a minor are in place not to place some sort of limit on freedom, but to prevent sexual predators (such as the criminal in this case) from enticing children into an act which has been proven over and over in practice to be harmful to them in our present society. Do you realize how easily someone can convince a small child to do something? They are still learning the way life works. To allow the worst of the worst society has to offer (pedophiles) free reign because 'the kid wanted to' is to do no less than encourage every predator on the street to prey on the lack of wisdom, experience, and forethought that children have.

Sometimes the law is a good thing, especially if it protects the vulnerable in our society from those who would take advantage of them.

If we're going to have a conversation, please check your expectations and beliefs at the door.

As soon as you check yours.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


And the summation of your entire reply proves you did not read the other posts in this thread, even down to the fact that you miss the fact that I am a parent.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

And your last post does nothing to back up your proposal. I again repeat your words:

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
...and I think that parents should stay out of it if it is obvious that their daughter or son had sex of their own volition.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Your point is? Tweenagers and Teens need to be educated on sexuality, it is the parents responsibilities to make sure that happens (Whichever way it does). If the parents abdicate that responsibility, it doesn't mean that the tweenagers and teens are going to NOT have sex.

If the tweens and teens are having sex after being informed sufficiently about its risks, it is on their heads as a formal responsibility should anything happen.

This whole society of giving up responsibility and trying to shelter children and adults from responsibility for their actions has GOT to stop.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

This whole society of giving up responsibility and trying to shelter children and adults from responsibility for their actions has GOT to stop.

I agree with you on personal responsibility for adults, but children are not smaller versions of adults. They are better described as adults in training.

If you work at a dangerous job, and are assigned someone to train, do you give them the most dangerous job possible right off the bat? I certainly hope not. No, most trainers will work their proteges up to the more dangerous job, all the while assessing their performance to make sure they can handle it. Such as with parents, the purpose is to prepare those children for when they do become adults by monitoring and advancing their progress throughout training. Their learning curves will vary, as such would vary with any group of individuals, and thus the parents have to decide what are the appropriate ways in which to best train that particular child.

The reason I disagree so vehemently with that one statement you made is because you are advocating, whether you intend to or not, that parents simply step back and relinquish any authority over those children for any actions the children may take due to their inexperience and lack of forethought, both of which are inherent in a child. This is as much utter foolishness as giving a 6 year old boy the keys to a semi and walking away.

I am certainly not against the notion of personal responsibility, but do we not make exceptions for the mentally handicapped? It is my responsibility to enter a store I wish to shop at by my own volition, yet do we not make laws requiring easier access for those unable to exercise the same physical prowess as the average person? As we should do, for aiding those less fortunate is a noble cause. But why then would you suggest that children should not be given restrictions by the parents designated by nature and society to instruct them, when the possible results of unsupervised negligence are so painful?

I know, children will have sex regardless of what we say. People will take narcotic drugs regardless of what we say. Should we not have drug rehab centers? People will speed in their cars regardless of what we say. Should we remove all traffic laws? At least, as long as parents attempt to limit sexual activity to what they deem a child is capable of handling responsibly (typically none ), there will be some incentive to say 'no', whereas if parents deny that authority, there is no such incentive to combat natural desires.

We are not dogs. We are humans, and supposedly intelligent enough to understand and control our sexual urges in adulthood. A logical extension is to teach control of those urges to the children.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Yes it was... and somewhere along the line, an imaginary line was pulled out of a Rabbit's hat and what was previously adult became a secondary sub-category of "CHILD" with an extra included loss of rights and responsibilities!

After numerous threads i am increasingly concerned with your viewpoint on this issue. So lets be clear shall we.

As someone who has spoken to many abused people, i can tell you that none of them consented. They were often tricked and that felt like consent. Years later they are still traumatized. Predators use many tricks to convince their victims that it's normal and what other girls/boys do.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Statutory Rape laws exist Specifically, and ONLY, for parents who wish to imprison adults who have sex with their teenagers. Statutory Rape is NOT rape... it is Defined as Rape because someone wants penance for "Robbing their children of innocence", when really they are upset that they were robbed of their own innocent naivety about their tweens or teens.

When an underage girl is raped by force, coercion or domination by an adult with authority, that is classified as RAPE. Not Statutory, full on Rape.

As such, Statutory rape is for prosecuting one party of a couple for having consensual sex.

Not quite. Again as i stated above many children and even teenagers are "groomed" into these things. Maybe you need to do more research because i can tell you quite clearly that abused girls, even 14 year old girls are horrified by what happened to them. At the time the abuser tells them things like "This is what adults do" and "If you love me you'll do this". They don't understand the world at this point, they are vulnerable and predators take advantage of this.

You might see it as consensual, but any psychologist will tell you it's manipulation. The after effects are often terrible. Have you ever worked with abused people? I am willing to bet you havn't.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Unless they are a slut? Or a Nympho, or likes sex, or enjoys getting their freak on?

Rape IS Rape. Definitionally, Being a slut generally means you weren't raped but that you consented. Now, it could be STATUTORY rape, but look above at what that means.

Erm no sorry, being a slut as you call it means you enjoy sex, it does not mean that if a person has sex with you it was not rape because you're a slut. If someone forces them self upon you then it's still rape even if they are a "slut" as you call it.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
All salient points and I commend you. However, what I specifically refer to is sexual intercourse without coercion. If both parties are consenting, *I* don't classify it as rape, even if Law does.

However, if Force or Authority is used as leverage to enact against the minor, then the initial PURPOSE was force and control towards a sexual end.

If both participate and enjoy it, regardless of the law (And Statutory Rape), it isn't true rape.

This is where your logic is lacking. Say a 12 year old has sex with a 30 year old. That 30 year old often preys on the rather innocent way many 12 year olds look at sex. I know you think otherwise but i can tell you now that after speaking to many abused people they regret every second. Once they reach the age to understand what went on they are upset and traumatized. They understand they were taken advantage of and wish it had never happened. I know someone who commited suicide over it. So please don't tell me they consented and enjoyed it.

Predators are used to manipulating young children. They show sex films to them and tell them "this is what adults do, you want to be an adult right?". I know that phrase has been used because i spoke to an abused girl who had heard it. At the time she was convinced to have sex, during and after she was deeply upset.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Excellent post! Stared, and I wish I could give you an applause.


reply to post by TheRedneck


You are absolutely right. This is what you are arguing against... the twisted reasoning that somehow it's OK if it can be shown that the child "consented" to sex.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

Look, if you had read the previous several posts, you'd realize that the discussion taking place recognizes what the law is... but that you want to ignore the past, ignore cultures of the world, and to endorse the Law because it IS the Law and you want protectionism for sexually mature teenagers speaks directly to your level of dissemination.

I have nothing at all against you, Redneck. I merely view the situational world, where Relativism is considered above and beyond Absolutist Morality.

He is a "moral relativist". Anything goes, as long as it feels good. :shk: Lazy, sophomoric thinking for those who are afraid to make a decision on right or wrong. That type of logic usually goes away when one reaches intellectual maturity.

Anybody who says sex with a child is OK "IF < fill in your own stupid reason here >" is depraved.

Originally posted by jsobecky
He is a "moral relativist". Anything goes, as long as it feels good. :shk: Lazy, sophomoric thinking for those who are afraid to make a decision on right or wrong. That type of logic usually goes away when one reaches intellectual maturity.

Anybody who says sex with a child is OK "IF < fill in your own stupid reason here >" is depraved.

I understand what the colddragon is trying to get at, that all morals are relative. In this respect he/she is of course correct. However psychologists have documented over and over again the negative effects of children having sex. Even in small tribes it leads to difficulty in mental scaring. In Shakespeares time it was becoming mainstream and yet girls even at these times were in great difficulty.

Speaking out against this abuse was rare pre-1950 and yet when someone did speak out it was always the same story. Abused girls and boys always seem to have the same story. They are rarely forced, it's more manipulation of their innocence of sex.

I just cannot comprehend how someone doesn't understand the damage done to a child who is manipulated into sexual acts. Maybe they havn't researched it enough. Or seen the pain in the eyes of an abused person.

EDIT

Can i just say i'm trying very hard to contain my anger at some of these posts after someone i know committed suicide. She was abused from 10 years old and yet her abuser convinced her this is what adults do. I am truly trying to control my anger and having to carefully assess my posts before i put them up. The anger i feel is difficult to control.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Sorry i forgot to mention that i allow a 2-3 year window.

By this i mean a 14 year old can sleep with a 16 year old, a 13 year old can sleep with an 11 year old etc etc. This is a sensible stretching of the laws as we cannot hold teenagers up as the same kind of criminal as a predatory paedophile.

The general reason for pervs looking after children is institutions, in particular the ones dominated by men. Brother.

Originally posted by redled
The general reason for pervs looking after children is institutions, in particular the ones dominated by men. Brother.

Erm not sure i agree with this. Many of the people i have worked with were male and were decent people trying to help the best they could.

Interestingly the male people trying to help were often overlooked for female residential councilors as they were perceived as more trustworthy. I cannot tell you how much this upset me as it seemed a rather biased view based solely on being male or female.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Since the last time i posted here the thread seems now to be more about what is rape/statutory rape, and consensual/unconsensual sex'

my 2cents in a nutshell, for what its worth is, rape is when someone uses force to have sex with someone who does not want to have sex.

statutory rape is when someone 'society' deems to be under the age of consent, has sex with someone usually over the age of consent.

to a child who has been groomed the sex is consensual, because they know no different, they have been taught that this is normal, there is usually no force involved, so does not fall under the catergory of rape, so is statutory rape, rape by means of coersion and manipulation.

having worked with both abused and abuser i see this day in day out. there is a such fine line between whether or not someone knows the consequenses of a sexual relationship, that as a society we had to make laws, and the law says if you're under 16 you cannot give consent.

Yes some children will be mature enough to give consent before that age but there needs to be a line somewhere,

Originally posted by redled
The general reason for pervs looking after children is institutions, in particular the ones dominated by men. Brother.

Can you clarify what you mean by this statement?

are you saying that men working in these institutions are generally pervs (i assume you mean pedophiles)

or that pedophiles will actively seek out jobs, voluntery work etc that put them in close contact with children.

being such a volatile subject you need to be clear in what you say.

Originally posted by whoswatchinwho
Yes some children will be mature enough to give consent before that age but there needs to be a line somewhere,

Can i just say this is one of my favorite points of this thread. Whilst some kids may be able to accept sex for what it is, the majority cannot and that is what we have to apply our laws to.

The majority of children cannot deal with sexual acts, any sexual act ends up hurting the child long term.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


This can serve as a clarifying response for you, Friend; I haven't said anywhere in this thread that victims don't exist, that Predators don't exist. I haven't said anywhere that there are severe traumas enacted upon immature children who weren't aware of what was taking place.

I've never said any of those things, and I have never contended that such things happen and are something to worry about and to be concerned over. They should be actionable against the Predators in such cases.

What I rail against isn't the situations which clearly can be demonstrated as damaging, it is against the Society of Victimization which needs a victim and a perpetrator in ANY act which can be perceived as predatory by parties not involved.

Two thirteen year olds have sex, and everyone is fine with that. A thirteen year old and a sixteen year old have sex, less people are fine with it. A twenty year old and a thirteen year old, everyone jumps on the Pedophile bandwagon and accusations of child rape and molestation are thrown around.

And this is without any change in the given situation. Do you not think that there are (However rare they may be) couples whom are perfectly okay with the sex and relationship they may have, but the rest of society is not?

Again, I *HAVE* to clarify (Not that it will help with some of these folks), I have never EVER said that victimization doesn't happen, that child rape is a fantasy, and that it is NOT an issue.

I am merely against Moral Absolutism stating that "ALL CASES ARE RAPE".

P.S. - I am very sorry for your friend... I wish I could say more to make you feel better. Nobody should have to suffer with the sins of the past in such a way that ends their life. My sincere condolensces, and my prayers are with her spirit.

reply to post by whoswatchinwho


The line only exists to convenience the Lawyers prosecuting by having a standard to go by...

I think it should be a case by case basis of proving harm, because NOBODY is the same and no situation is identical to another.

That, however, would create too much effort and ambiguity for the law and culture in general. So, while I understand why the line exists, I'm not certain I agree how the line is used and interpreted.

Originally posted by Veritas Lux Mea
Its said that rapists in United States have paternity rights. I know for sure it exists in Maryland and Delaware, so it seems possible..

35 Year old man rapes 13 year old girl 10-20 times

This is a case of a 35 year old man raping (10-20 times) a 13 year old daughter of his girlfriend.

"According to court documents, Osterman is partially right. Under state statutes, a parent's rights must be initially protected until such a time a court can consider cause for the termination of parental rights. This is true even in a case such as this one, where the father is a convicted sex offender whose child exists solely because of his assault of an underage girl.'

"The court order mandated that DHHS make every reasonable attempt to establish that Rubens' rights were protected as the biological father..."

Why are rapists given paternity rights? Do you think they should have such rights? Why or why not?

No, but social workers are well sociable and in the case of Harringey, UK allowed the guilty worker to sign off her own account. The main problem with the system judging is that they can push the buck onto a plain Joe father, but they cannot be questioned themselves. None of their committee structures will ever allow anyone to take responsibility, despite the fact that they pass the buck.

This may be an ignorant question but how could anyone know or prove the child was from the rapist?

I mean, can the courts force the victim to have the offspring tested to determine if the rapist was the father? I know men can be forced to submit to paternity tests, but I have never heard of men forcing women to have the children tested when the woman denies that the child is his.

Now granted if the 13 year old showed up at trial obviously pregnant then to claim the fetus did NOT belong to the rapist would weaken the prosecutions case. I just wonder if perhaps the rapists could not sue for parental rights if the victim denied that the child was his.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Sonya610]