What safeguards are there against poverty for teenage dads?

[Galloism]

I'm going to essentially concede the point that the current system is biased against the autonomy of men, but I just want to address the below point.

It's true that mothers have, for centuries, perhaps millennia, had their rights cared for more than their children or men's.

This system didn't exist because past societies were particularly concerned with women's autonomy. It existed because men under these societies had nearly unlimited severability of parental responsibility towards children they had with any woman they weren't married to, whereas women were required to find someone to take the baby before severing their responsibilities. Before this system existed it was tacitly acknowledged that parents had the right to kill or sell very young children if they didn't want to take care of them.
Every society has some solution to the percentage of parents that want to alienate themselves from their parental responsibilities. It is entirely possible our current society's solution is the worst of all possible worlds. But I don't see a meaningful alternative- the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, the public won't stand for children just not being taken care of, and we lack large social institutions such that unwanted children can just be handed over to the nuns.

It's true - past societies had near limited severability for both men and women when it came to children's responsibilities in unmarried situations (although it maintained severability only for mothers in married situations when they led to divorce, but not fathers. It also *forced* severability on mothers and forced inseverability on fathers in that scenario, whether either of them liked it or not. Lots of problems there.). It also had lots of other problems.

I wouldn't say our system is the "worst of all possible worlds". The aforementioned selling your own children into slavery is certainly worse. Because slavery is bad and stuff.

But it is pretty bad.

The thing is though, people are ok with the state picking up the responsibility - if the person not taking responsibility is the mother. It's not that the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, rather, it is ONLY willing to take on such responsibilities when the people requesting it are by and large women, and not men. Put another way, it's willing to take on those responsibilities only on the basis of sex of the person requesting it.

[Incelastan]

I'm going to essentially concede the point that the current system is biased against the autonomy of men, but I just want to address the below point.

This system didn't exist because past societies were particularly concerned with women's autonomy. It existed because men under these societies had nearly unlimited severability of parental responsibility towards children they had with any woman they weren't married to, whereas women were required to find someone to take the baby before severing their responsibilities. Before this system existed it was tacitly acknowledged that parents had the right to kill or sell very young children if they didn't want to take care of them.
Every society has some solution to the percentage of parents that want to alienate themselves from their parental responsibilities. It is entirely possible our current society's solution is the worst of all possible worlds. But I don't see a meaningful alternative- the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, the public won't stand for children just not being taken care of, and we lack large social institutions such that unwanted children can just be handed over to the nuns.

It's true - past societies had near limited severability for both men and women when it came to children's responsibilities in unmarried situations (although it maintained severability only for mothers in married situations when they led to divorce, but not fathers. It also *forced* severability on mothers and forced inseverability on fathers in that scenario, whether either of them liked it or not. Lots of problems there.). It also had lots of other problems.

I wouldn't say our system is the "worst of all possible worlds". The aforementioned selling your own children into slavery is certainly worse. Because slavery is bad and stuff.

But it is pretty bad.

The thing is though, people are ok with the state picking up the responsibility - if the person not taking responsibility is the mother. It's not that the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, rather, it is ONLY willing to take on such responsibilities when the people requesting it are by and large women, and not men. Put another way, it's willing to take on those responsibilities only on the basis of sex of the person requesting it.

Because holding women accountable is somehow blasphemy or sacrilege in our present society.

[FutureAmerica]

The best safeguard is the proper use of contraception, otherwise it's grim.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

Where I went to junior high, we were taught that boys often say they love their girlfriends then abandon them when they fall pregnant. Putting aside the assumptions about how many sexual encounters are casual vs. how many sexual encounters are in relationships, this framing made it sound like, even if she admitted before sex that she'd keep the baby (let alone if she didn't), there was nothing she could do about him leaving to avoid falling into poverty with her. They didn't tell us that she had the right, even if she claimed she wouldn't keep the baby, let alone if she admitted she would, to go after him for child support and drag him into poverty with her. What possible incentive is there to avoid mentioning that?

The two possibilities that come to mind are:

A: Deterring girls from consenting to premarital sex, even though marriage doesn't magically make having kids affordable anyway. (Wouldn't subsidizing couples for staying together be more effective an incentive for marriage than threatening those who don't with poverty?) And yet, the same plurality of voters who have allowed the status quo on child support law to continue are the same plurality of voters who have; at least until recently; protected abortion rights; most of whom seem to treat "they're just trying to deter pre-marital sex" as a valid assumption to make about the voters who would try to have abortion criminalized. Is this a more valid assumption in one context than the other? Why or why not?

B: Pandering to voters who don't want their sons and daughters to find out that this exact same scenario could have happened to literally any of them; or their parents; and that it is a 100% pure matter of chance that it didn't.

I suspect it's more so B than A, but even B would leave the question of what incentive they have to avoid facing it. Is it just something they don't want their sons and daughters talking to them about or something?

. . .

Personally, I think junior high should mention this aspect of child support law. However, it would be interesting to incrementally introduce it in some districts before others, to see if that has any effect on teen pregnancy in the first districts to introduce it. That way, we can finally determine conclusively, once and for all, whether teen sex proves the average male is "so horny that the risk of a lifetime of poverty cannot hold back his sexual urges" or just "unaware of that particular aspect of child support law."

[Jello Biafra]

Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

How much time did junior high sex ed spend talking to you about the vagaries of child support law?

Where I went to junior high, we were taught that boys often say they love their girlfriends then abandon them when they fall pregnant.

I feel like you've got it backwards. Saying this part seems like it's primarily done to deter girls from consenting to premarital sex.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

How much time did junior high sex ed spend talking to you about the vagaries of child support law?

I didn't claim they went into it directly, but saying guys just skip out on them as if there's nothing she could do, combined with the fact that he has no right to make her abort, made me interpret it as "not his decision therefore not his responsibility" until the Internet clarified otherwise.

I feel like you've got it backwards. Saying this part seems like it's primarily done to deter girls from consenting to premarital sex.

Read the post again. I already acknowledged this possibility as part "A". I just also outlined why I'm skeptical this reason and this reason alone would explain it.

Also, another thing I forgot to ask last post; who if they are so adamant about this wants teenagers to hear this from the junior high health curriculum, which already tarnished its own credibility in the eyes of teenagers through its lies about weed?

[Farnhamia]

Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

Where I went to junior high, we were taught that boys often say they love their girlfriends then abandon them when they fall pregnant. Putting aside the assumptions about how many sexual encounters are casual vs. how many sexual encounters are in relationships, this framing made it sound like, even if she admitted before sex that she'd keep the baby (let alone if she didn't), there was nothing she could do about him leaving to avoid falling into poverty with her. They didn't tell us that she had the right, even if she claimed she wouldn't keep the baby, let alone if she admitted she would, to go after him for child support and drag him into poverty with her. What possible incentive is there to avoid mentioning that?

The two possibilities that come to mind are:

A: Deterring girls from consenting to premarital sex, even though marriage doesn't magically make having kids affordable anyway. (Wouldn't subsidizing couples for staying together be more effective an incentive for marriage than threatening those who don't with poverty?) And yet, the same plurality of voters who have allowed the status quo on child support law to continue are the same plurality of voters who have; at least until recently; protected abortion rights; most of whom seem to treat "they're just trying to deter pre-marital sex" as a valid assumption to make about the voters who would try to have abortion criminalized. Is this a more valid assumption in one context than the other? Why or why not?

B: Pandering to voters who don't want their sons and daughters to find out that this exact same scenario could have happened to literally any of them; or their parents; and that it is a 100% pure matter of chance that it didn't.

I suspect it's more so B than A, but even B would leave the question of what incentive they have to avoid facing it. Is it just something they don't want their sons and daughters talking to them about or something?

. . .

Personally, I think junior high should mention this aspect of child support law. However, it would be interesting to incrementally introduce it in some districts before others, to see if that has any effect on teen pregnancy in the first districts to introduce it. That way, we can finally determine conclusively, once and for all, whether teen sex proves the average male is "so horny that the risk of a lifetime of poverty cannot hold back his sexual urges" or just "unaware of that particular aspect of child support law."

Yes, well ... you should have come to Moderation and asked. I'm sure the bump would have been allowed. Doing it like this might give the impression that grave-digs are okay.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

Where I went to junior high, we were taught that boys often say they love their girlfriends then abandon them when they fall pregnant. Putting aside the assumptions about how many sexual encounters are casual vs. how many sexual encounters are in relationships, this framing made it sound like, even if she admitted before sex that she'd keep the baby (let alone if she didn't), there was nothing she could do about him leaving to avoid falling into poverty with her. They didn't tell us that she had the right, even if she claimed she wouldn't keep the baby, let alone if she admitted she would, to go after him for child support and drag him into poverty with her. What possible incentive is there to avoid mentioning that?

The two possibilities that come to mind are:

A: Deterring girls from consenting to premarital sex, even though marriage doesn't magically make having kids affordable anyway. (Wouldn't subsidizing couples for staying together be more effective an incentive for marriage than threatening those who don't with poverty?) And yet, the same plurality of voters who have allowed the status quo on child support law to continue are the same plurality of voters who have; at least until recently; protected abortion rights; most of whom seem to treat "they're just trying to deter pre-marital sex" as a valid assumption to make about the voters who would try to have abortion criminalized. Is this a more valid assumption in one context than the other? Why or why not?

B: Pandering to voters who don't want their sons and daughters to find out that this exact same scenario could have happened to literally any of them; or their parents; and that it is a 100% pure matter of chance that it didn't.

I suspect it's more so B than A, but even B would leave the question of what incentive they have to avoid facing it. Is it just something they don't want their sons and daughters talking to them about or something?

. . .

Personally, I think junior high should mention this aspect of child support law. However, it would be interesting to incrementally introduce it in some districts before others, to see if that has any effect on teen pregnancy in the first districts to introduce it. That way, we can finally determine conclusively, once and for all, whether teen sex proves the average male is "so horny that the risk of a lifetime of poverty cannot hold back his sexual urges" or just "unaware of that particular aspect of child support law."

Yes, well ... you should have come to Moderation and asked. I'm sure the bump would have been allowed. Doing it like this might give the impression that grave-digs are okay.

For the record, I did, in fact, go to moderation and ask.

EDIT: While I have your attention, might I inquire whether it's possible to edit a poll into the OP or I would need a new thread for that? I'm curious who the average NSer attributes the status quo on child support law to.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

My position is that a father should only owe any child support at all if he actively demonstrated a willingness to be a father to the child in question. The current system is, as good folks like Gallo has already pointed out, way too open to less than desirable implications.

This ties in to my stance on abortion, too. I hold that nobody who doesn’t want to raise a child should be on the hook for one just because of a biological accident, which is one of the major reasons why I tend to back things like abortions and no-question drop-offs at orphanages.

But this has to apply to the father too, of course, not just the mother. Since obviously it is gravely unethical to allow prospective fathers to demand that their partners get an abortion, the state must provide some other pathway by which a prospective father can avoid taking on the responsibilities of parenthood.

If the prospective mother hides from the prospective father that she is pregnant, or if the prospective father makes clear during the pregnancy that he has no willingness to take on the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, then the father should not be under any obligations to pay child support at all.

[Nilokeras]

Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

all this neurosis about child support is clear and undeniable proof that reproduction is too important to be left to the straights. especially straight men. ban heterosexuality.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

all this neurosis about child support is clear and undeniable proof that reproduction is too important to be left to the straights. especially straight men. ban heterosexuality.

Just because it didn't ruin my life before and probably wouldn't now doesn't mean that I should be 100% indifferent to the fact that it could've ruined my life under the most slightly different circumstances and probably is ruining other people's lives as we speak.

[Jello Biafra]

How much time did junior high sex ed spend talking to you about the vagaries of child support law?

I didn't claim they went into it directly, but saying guys just skip out on them as if there's nothing she could do, combined with the fact that he has no right to make her abort, made me interpret it as "not his decision therefore not his responsibility" until the Internet clarified otherwise.

That's interesting. Obviously, they just meant he would skip out on the custodial responsibilities (feeding, changing diapers) and not the financial responsibilities, though I suppose I can see why someone would interpret it as both.

Read the post again. I already acknowledged this possibility as part "A". I just also outlined why I'm skeptical this reason and this reason alone would explain it.

Nah, society is highly puritanical when it comes to discouraging women, especially teenage girls, from having sex.
Of course, I have no idea as to what their actual motivations are, but I think that alone seems sufficient to explain them.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Nah, society is highly puritanical when it comes to discouraging women, especially teenage girls, from having sex.

And yet, their current methods have been profoundly ineffective. Hell, we can't even tell how ineffective they've been, with multiple birth control methods available along with back alley abortions. So if they don't want their own daughters having sex, why do they leave them unattended in places where they have access to boys?

When it's something people actually object to, like stealing, they are not content to only ruin the lives of a small fraction of perpetrators and hope that'll scare the rest. They set up surveillance cameras. They equip them with facial recognition. (Even the people who claim to object to this sort of thing subsequently pay good money for a flat in London.) So why if they object to teenage girls having sex would they settle for deterrence and only deterrence, when that alone hasn't done the trick anyway?

As well, we're all descendants of people who not only had sex in their teen years but kept the baby, if you go back far enough in history. So where would this instinct to prevent one's own teen daughters from having sex come from?

[The Rich Port]

I think it says a lot OP thinks this only happens to teenage dads and not... Pretty much everyone, because the US government doesn't really have a social safety net until your Social Security kicks in... Assuming you qualify for the scraps you get if you're poor, even.

[Major-Tom]

What safeguards are there against poverty in general is the real question?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

What safeguards are there against poverty in general is the real question?

There aren't. Even Scandinavia has some of it. You can't save everyone.

But right now people are being thrown into poverty by the exact same decision made by a supposed majority of guys; to have sex in their teen years. For any one of those guys, if his girlfriend kept the baby after saying she wouldn't, and went after him for the child support money, he'd have had to drop out and have all his ambitions and dreams ended. It is purely a matter of chance that it didn't happen to them. So why are they so averse to using the tax dollars they can more easily afford to spare, to offer anyone to whom that did happen a way to reconcile that circumstance with continuing to follow his ambitions? Is it because they are in denial that it could have happened to them, or are they just indifferent solely because it didn't?

[Diopolis]

What safeguards are there against poverty in general is the real question?

There aren't. Even Scandinavia has some of it. You can't save everyone.

But right now people are being thrown into poverty by the exact same decision made by a supposed majority of guys; to have sex in their teen years. For any one of those guys, if his girlfriend kept the baby after saying she wouldn't, and went after him for the child support money, he'd have had to drop out and have all his ambitions and dreams ended. It is purely a matter of chance that it didn't happen to them. So why are they so averse to using the tax dollars they can more easily afford to spare, to offer anyone to whom that did happen a way to reconcile that circumstance with continuing to follow his ambitions? Is it because they are in denial that it could have happened to them, or are they just indifferent solely because it didn't?

As has been previously shown to you in this very thread, the majority of teenaged boys are virgins. Media gives a different impression because sex makes for entertainment and individual teenaged boys are loathe to contradict it because being a virgin is low status.
American society in general is not very sympathetic to sexually active teenagers, in part because it's comparably uncommon. You don't need much explanation beyond "the average american thinks asking teenaged boys to keep their pants on is a reasonable expectation and doesn't want to bail them out when they don't do that".

[The Rich Port]

What safeguards are there against poverty in general is the real question?

There aren't. Even Scandinavia has some of it. You can't save everyone.

But right now people are being thrown into poverty by the exact same decision made by a supposed majority of guys; to have sex in their teen years. For any one of those guys, if his girlfriend kept the baby after saying she wouldn't, and went after him for the child support money, he'd have had to drop out and have all his ambitions and dreams ended. It is purely a matter of chance that it didn't happen to them. So why are they so averse to using the tax dollars they can more easily afford to spare, to offer anyone to whom that did happen a way to reconcile that circumstance with continuing to follow his ambitions? Is it because they are in denial that it could have happened to them, or are they just indifferent solely because it didn't?

Yes... But nobody starves to death in Scandinavia and they somehow don't freeze to death outside.

That's what a social safety net is for, to make sure people don't suffer from poverty.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Bumping because I've since thought of another idea. What of "child support insurance"? You can incentivize people to pay into it by getting a card showing they're insured so that if a woman or girl intends to keep the baby she doesn't have to pretend she wouldn't in order to get him to have sex with her, and that way everyone who took the same risk chips in instead of leaving only the few for whom it ended badly in poverty?

. . .

(Oh, and TRP, I'm all for Scandinavia-level social spending, it's just that I'm not sure it'd take in the US, what with Bernie Sanders losing primaries multiple times in a row and all. Nor in Canada what with the NDP almost never gaining much traction. Not sure why I didn't mention that sooner.)

[Risottia]

Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

This.

[Malacanos]

Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

This.

Tell that to Dave Foley, who was infamously told that his child support wasn't based upon his current ability to pay, but upon another metric entirely. Courts are not necessarily the best at following realistic measures for determining fair payments.

Frankly, what young men should all do is apply for vasectomies, and for the greater good, the State should cover them. They can reverse them later, if they want to have children at that point. Everyone will be a lot happier as a result.

[Stellar Colonies]

When Male Rape Victims Are Accountable for Child Support (Psychology Today)

When Shane Seyer was 12, he was sexually exploited by his 16-year-old babysitter Colleen Hermesmann. She became pregnant with Seyer’s child in 1989 and was charged with statutory rape shortly afterward. Instead of being convicted of rape, Hermesmann was declared a juvenile offender under the non-sexual offense of “contributing to child misconduct.” Seyer was subsequently court-ordered to pay child support.

In 1993, at the age of 15, Seyer appealed this decision to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing he should not be liable for these payments. He maintained that his babysitter (Hermesmann) took advantage of him sexually when he was too young to give consent.

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled against him. The judgment stated that because Seyer initially consented to the sexual encounters and never told his parents what was happening, he was responsible for supporting the child.

This court case set a precedent for male rape victims to make child-support payments. The financial needs of the children outweigh the court’s interest in deterring sexual crimes against male minors, even if statutory rape is the cause of conception.

More recently, in 2014, Nick Olivas of Arizona was forced to pay over $15,000 in back-payments to a woman who had sex with him when he was 14. She was 20 years old at the time. Commenting on the Olivas case and others like it, Mel Feit, director of the New York-based advocacy group the National Center for Men, told the Arizona Republic newspaper:

“To hold him unresponsible for the sex act, and to then turn around and say we’re going to hold him responsible for the child that resulted from that act is off-the-charts ridiculous… it makes no sense.”

Peter Pollard, a co-founder of 1in6, an organization designed to help male assault survivors, explained in an interview with the Good Men Project why we downplay the severity of male sexual assault:

“We’re all raised in a culture that says boys are always supposed to initiate and enjoy a sexual experience and males are never supposed to see themselves or be seen as victims. The easiest default is to blame the victim, to say ‘he wanted it,’ ‘he must have chosen that.’”

These attitudes toward male sexual assault are apparent even in the way these men are treated during their court cases.

In 1996, the court heard the case of County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J in which a 34-year-old woman became pregnant after sexually exploiting a 15-year-old boy. He was also forced to pay child support, and then Deputy Attorney General Mary Roth alleged:

“I guess he thought he was a man then. Now, he prefers to be considered a child.”

Some professionals, such as Mary Koss from the University of Arizona, who published the first national rape study in 1987, even argued that men and boys cannot be raped by women. In a radio interview, Koss stated:

“How would [a man being raped by a woman] happen… how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen? I would call it ‘unwanted contact.’”

Research indicates, however, that men can be stimulated and achieve an erection in times of fear and terror, despite not being aroused. Studies range from cases where men report arousal during assault, to scientific experiments that find men have erections under many non-sexual circumstances, including when they are unconscious.

In her research, Myriam Denov, a professor at McGill University who holds the Canada Research Chair in Youth, Gender and Armed Conflict, asserted:

“The professional assumption that sexual abuse by women is less harmful than similar abuse by men has potentially dangerous implications for [male] victims of sexual abuse. If professionals fail to recognize sexual abuse by women as potentially serious and harmful, child protection plans will not be made.”

She goes on to say that, as a result, the experiences of male victims who come forward to disclose sexual abuse by women may be trivialized. These misconceptions can lead to a delayed referral to social services or failure to provide victims with the care and support they require.

Until the idea that women cannot rape men and other rape myths are dispelled, cases where victims are misunderstood and mistreated, and even made to pay child support to their former abusers, are likely to continue.

[Galloism]

When Male Rape Victims Are Accountable for Child Support (Psychology Today)

When Shane Seyer was 12, he was sexually exploited by his 16-year-old babysitter Colleen Hermesmann. She became pregnant with Seyer’s child in 1989 and was charged with statutory rape shortly afterward. Instead of being convicted of rape, Hermesmann was declared a juvenile offender under the non-sexual offense of “contributing to child misconduct.” Seyer was subsequently court-ordered to pay child support.

In 1993, at the age of 15, Seyer appealed this decision to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing he should not be liable for these payments. He maintained that his babysitter (Hermesmann) took advantage of him sexually when he was too young to give consent.

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled against him. The judgment stated that because Seyer initially consented to the sexual encounters and never told his parents what was happening, he was responsible for supporting the child.

This court case set a precedent for male rape victims to make child-support payments. The financial needs of the children outweigh the court’s interest in deterring sexual crimes against male minors, even if statutory rape is the cause of conception.

More recently, in 2014, Nick Olivas of Arizona was forced to pay over $15,000 in back-payments to a woman who had sex with him when he was 14. She was 20 years old at the time. Commenting on the Olivas case and others like it, Mel Feit, director of the New York-based advocacy group the National Center for Men, told the Arizona Republic newspaper:

“To hold him unresponsible for the sex act, and to then turn around and say we’re going to hold him responsible for the child that resulted from that act is off-the-charts ridiculous… it makes no sense.”

Peter Pollard, a co-founder of 1in6, an organization designed to help male assault survivors, explained in an interview with the Good Men Project why we downplay the severity of male sexual assault:

“We’re all raised in a culture that says boys are always supposed to initiate and enjoy a sexual experience and males are never supposed to see themselves or be seen as victims. The easiest default is to blame the victim, to say ‘he wanted it,’ ‘he must have chosen that.’”

These attitudes toward male sexual assault are apparent even in the way these men are treated during their court cases.

In 1996, the court heard the case of County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J in which a 34-year-old woman became pregnant after sexually exploiting a 15-year-old boy. He was also forced to pay child support, and then Deputy Attorney General Mary Roth alleged:

“I guess he thought he was a man then. Now, he prefers to be considered a child.”

Some professionals, such as Mary Koss from the University of Arizona, who published the first national rape study in 1987, even argued that men and boys cannot be raped by women. In a radio interview, Koss stated:

“How would [a man being raped by a woman] happen… how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen? I would call it ‘unwanted contact.’”

Research indicates, however, that men can be stimulated and achieve an erection in times of fear and terror, despite not being aroused. Studies range from cases where men report arousal during assault, to scientific experiments that find men have erections under many non-sexual circumstances, including when they are unconscious.

In her research, Myriam Denov, a professor at McGill University who holds the Canada Research Chair in Youth, Gender and Armed Conflict, asserted:

“The professional assumption that sexual abuse by women is less harmful than similar abuse by men has potentially dangerous implications for [male] victims of sexual abuse. If professionals fail to recognize sexual abuse by women as potentially serious and harmful, child protection plans will not be made.”

She goes on to say that, as a result, the experiences of male victims who come forward to disclose sexual abuse by women may be trivialized. These misconceptions can lead to a delayed referral to social services or failure to provide victims with the care and support they require.

Until the idea that women cannot rape men and other rape myths are dispelled, cases where victims are misunderstood and mistreated, and even made to pay child support to their former abusers, are likely to continue.

Sadly, “best interests of the child” according to American courts means <checks notes> giving custody of children to known child rapists.

[Stellar Colonies]

When Male Rape Victims Are Accountable for Child Support (Psychology Today)

When Shane Seyer was 12, he was sexually exploited by his 16-year-old babysitter Colleen Hermesmann. She became pregnant with Seyer’s child in 1989 and was charged with statutory rape shortly afterward. Instead of being convicted of rape, Hermesmann was declared a juvenile offender under the non-sexual offense of “contributing to child misconduct.” Seyer was subsequently court-ordered to pay child support.

In 1993, at the age of 15, Seyer appealed this decision to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing he should not be liable for these payments. He maintained that his babysitter (Hermesmann) took advantage of him sexually when he was too young to give consent.

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled against him. The judgment stated that because Seyer initially consented to the sexual encounters and never told his parents what was happening, he was responsible for supporting the child.

This court case set a precedent for male rape victims to make child-support payments. The financial needs of the children outweigh the court’s interest in deterring sexual crimes against male minors, even if statutory rape is the cause of conception.

More recently, in 2014, Nick Olivas of Arizona was forced to pay over $15,000 in back-payments to a woman who had sex with him when he was 14. She was 20 years old at the time. Commenting on the Olivas case and others like it, Mel Feit, director of the New York-based advocacy group the National Center for Men, told the Arizona Republic newspaper:

“To hold him unresponsible for the sex act, and to then turn around and say we’re going to hold him responsible for the child that resulted from that act is off-the-charts ridiculous… it makes no sense.”

Peter Pollard, a co-founder of 1in6, an organization designed to help male assault survivors, explained in an interview with the Good Men Project why we downplay the severity of male sexual assault:

“We’re all raised in a culture that says boys are always supposed to initiate and enjoy a sexual experience and males are never supposed to see themselves or be seen as victims. The easiest default is to blame the victim, to say ‘he wanted it,’ ‘he must have chosen that.’”

These attitudes toward male sexual assault are apparent even in the way these men are treated during their court cases.

In 1996, the court heard the case of County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J in which a 34-year-old woman became pregnant after sexually exploiting a 15-year-old boy. He was also forced to pay child support, and then Deputy Attorney General Mary Roth alleged:

“I guess he thought he was a man then. Now, he prefers to be considered a child.”

Some professionals, such as Mary Koss from the University of Arizona, who published the first national rape study in 1987, even argued that men and boys cannot be raped by women. In a radio interview, Koss stated:

“How would [a man being raped by a woman] happen… how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen? I would call it ‘unwanted contact.’”

Research indicates, however, that men can be stimulated and achieve an erection in times of fear and terror, despite not being aroused. Studies range from cases where men report arousal during assault, to scientific experiments that find men have erections under many non-sexual circumstances, including when they are unconscious.

In her research, Myriam Denov, a professor at McGill University who holds the Canada Research Chair in Youth, Gender and Armed Conflict, asserted:

“The professional assumption that sexual abuse by women is less harmful than similar abuse by men has potentially dangerous implications for [male] victims of sexual abuse. If professionals fail to recognize sexual abuse by women as potentially serious and harmful, child protection plans will not be made.”

She goes on to say that, as a result, the experiences of male victims who come forward to disclose sexual abuse by women may be trivialized. These misconceptions can lead to a delayed referral to social services or failure to provide victims with the care and support they require.

Until the idea that women cannot rape men and other rape myths are dispelled, cases where victims are misunderstood and mistreated, and even made to pay child support to their former abusers, are likely to continue.

Sadly, “best interests of the child” according to American courts means <checks notes> giving custody of children to known child rapists.

While being subsidized by said child rape victim.

[Malacanos]

Sadly, “best interests of the child” according to American courts means <checks notes> giving custody of children to known child rapists.

While being subsidized by said child rape victim.

Instead of, oh, I don't know, putting said rapist behind bars where she belongs, preferably for life?