We always cringe and yell when the roll is reversed; when a under-age woman has consensual sex with someone who is legal, even if the age difference is between a 16-year-old and 18-year-old, we recoil in horror that some sick pervert would do such a thing. In the metal world, the story of Tripp Esien is infamous his under-age encounter of meeting under-aged women online to have sex with them, and in the case where he was busted, it was with a 14-year-old. He was 40 at the time.
As a culture and society, we seem to think men are morally inferior to women. The problem, though, is that we're not. In essence, there are very few differences between men and women on a mental level and that we still have all the basic needs and urges.
When I speak to these grief counselors, social workers, and victims, sometimes we go to the topic of the roll a man has in such an event, or more specifically, this: What roll does a man have in determining the life of a child?
There is something unsaid in this country, a debate that is rarely ever brought up, discussed, and mentioned. The reality is this: Men get the short end of the leash when it comes to kids. Men rarely get custody of a child over a woman, men are rarely given any real chance to decide if a woman he gets pregnant should have the child or not. If a man and women have sex and the woman decides they want the kid, despite the fact both of them used safe sex, the man rarely has any recourse in forcing the woman not to have the child. Is that right? Is it right to force a man to support a child they may not have spawned and, if they did, did all they had to in order to prevent it?
So now we reach this point: A 15-year-old boy had consensual sex with a 19-year-old woman which resulted in a pregnancy.
It's a situation fraught with so many twists and turns that if you saw it on a movie screen you might not believe it.
It began when a 19-year-old girl from the town of Lancaster, Ohio was accused of molesting a 15-year-old boy. Jane Crane was allowed to stay at the child's Columbus-area home when allegations surfaced that her stepfather was being abusive.
But something apparently clicked between the girl and the underage son of those providing her temporary refuge. She's since been charged with unlawful sexual conduct, after allegedly having physical relations at least twice with the underage boy.
So far, the story is somewhat sad, but not that unusual.
But here's where it takes an odd turn. The teen became pregnant as a result of the encounter and paternity tests prove the boy is the father of the little girl, who was born in late April.
Now a court has ordered the youngster to pay $50 a month child support, despite the fact the act that resulted in the child's birth was apparently illegal.
Who's to blame here? The sex was consensual, but at the same time, it was done outside the law and is considered rape. the woman, who was the one who decided to have sex with this boy, got pregnant. Instead of aborting the child or giving it up for adoption, she decided to keep the child. This rapist, this criminal, violated the law in order to have sex with a minor and she is now suing for CHILD SUPPORT?! And a court has agreed with this?!
We have just seen a precedent that states that rape victims should pay for the results of what someone else did to them.
I'm left questioning if the boy had any chance to ask her to abort the child, put it up for adoption, or anything else. The boy obviously isn't ready to be a father and isn't old enough to work a full-time job. When I was 18 working part-time, I was lucky to get $50 every two weeks working weekends.
In the end, I can only hope that this idiotic ruling is over-turned and doesn't pave the way for more such suits.