Thursday, September 4, 2014

Dr. Helen hits USA Today

With her rhetorical six-guns blazing:
Imagine that your 14-year-old daughter engaged in sex with the 20-year-old man down the street. Anger would hardly begin to describe your feelings, but then imagine how you and your daughter would feel if she became pregnant and the man who abused her got custody of the child and your daughter had to pay him child support for the next 18 years.

This would not only be unthinkable in our society but most people would say that it bordered on abuse or worse. Yet, as reported in a recent Arizona Republic news story, this is what happened to Nick Olivas, who happened to be 14 at the time he had sex with a 20-year-old woman. The difference, of course, is he's not a girl.

At the age of 21, Olivas found out he had a child and that he owed over $15,000 in back child support plus interest. He was rightfully upset, stating: "It was a shock. I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It's unexplainable. It freaked me out."

When a state government finds out a 14-year-old girl is a statutory rape victim of a 20-year-old man, the common reaction would be to file criminal charges to put the predator in jail. But for male victims, child support laws turn state governments into the allies of abusers instead of advocates for the victims.

Why the double standard when the victim is male?
Now that is a lovely rhetorical start designed to punch right through the female imperative before the reader realizes it, then adeptly making the twist to appeal to the legal equality that feminists supposedly stand for.

She's right, of course. The law holding male statutory rape victims responsible for their children is absurd. That being said, female rape victims who bear their rapist's children do assume responsibility for them, so the correct thing to do would be to give a male victim the right to claim paternal responsibility and/or custody without either being imposed upon him.

58 comments:

Crowhill said...

When you say "claim paternal responsibility," how far should that go? I think he should be able to claim custody of the child if he wants. That should be the trade-off.

This case is different because he was a minor, but in general, when two consenting adults have sex, if the woman wants to name the father then she should relinquish custody to him. If she wants to raise the child on her own, that's her business.

Glen Filthie said...

It brings up a very uncomfortable topic? At what age do we consider it pedophilia?

Up here in Canada various homosexual liberals want the age of consent lowered to 11. (And no, you cretins, there is absotively posolutely NO CONNECTION between homosexuality and pedophilia, no no no no...).

But, the fact is that with the human animal women are ready to reproduce at 12 and men at 13 or 14 - and some disturbing reports are citing kids hitting puberty at much younger ages.

Given the degenerate and depraved people out there these days, I wonder if Helen isn't opening a can of worms that maybe she shouldn't. If the liberals, progressives and queers have their way we will have kids hooked and trapped on welfare before they even have a chance to grow up.

Hanns Strudle extra gooey said...

One has to wonder how far reality can be bent and distorted before the inevitable snap-back. Sadly, that usually happens too late.

Vox said...

When you say "claim paternal responsibility," how far should that go? I think he should be able to claim custody of the child if he wants.

Agreed. I modified the post accordingly.

Lamont Cranston said...

I liked this to facebook. Within two comments a woman was saying it was too bad for him, but it was in the best interest of the child.

Trust said...

"it was in the best interest of the child"

That's the justification all feminist use, but they only use it when the woman benefits, never when the child benefits at the expense of a woman.

It's a way of painting detractors as mean people who hate children. They cannot very well admit "if my husband divorces me because I got knocked up by a parolee, I still want him to pay me."

Owen said...

"best interest of the child" is the catch-all

In my divorce, I was accused of physically abusing one of my children. Custody evaluator brought in, conducts interviews. My children, including the one I 'abused" (who later recanted, but that's always dismissed) wanted to live with me. They are at the age in which they can offer "well reasoned preference."

Conclusion? I alientated the children against the mother and she gets 80% custody.

Heads she wins, tails I lose.

We're heading back, again, to court.

Something I've found is that the judges can claim impartiality, but the system is gamed so that the only results to present to the judge are, "Man bad, woman saint."

Ghost said...

Yes, it's always better for a child to be raised by a confirmed rapist than a *shudder* man.

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

Based on what is afford women, a male rape victim should have the absolute right to
1) Be able to force an abortion
2) Be able to deny paternity and all the responsibilities associated with it
3) Be able to force the pregnancy to term, and claim sole custody severing all right of the rapist to the child while still collecting child support.

The thing I never understood in any of these cases, is if I smash your car, you have the right to be made whole, which means me either replacing the car or repairing it. In this case the woman's illegal actions caused the man substantial economic harm, and thus dollar for dollar she should be responsible for his child support. It violates about 800 years of common law for it to be otherwise.

That's the justification all feminist use, but they only use it when the woman benefits, never when the child benefits at the expense of a woman.

The best interest of the child is for it to not be raised by a psychopath. And the science is pretty clear on divorce not being in the best interest of the child.

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

The law holding male statutory rape victims responsible for their children is absurd.

The law holding that a 14-year-old boy who has sex with a 20-year-old girl is any kind of victim is also absurd. I wish I'd been so "victimized" when I was 14.

Trust said...

We need to do away with back child support when fathers aren't told about the child. If you rob him if his child's life you shouldn't get money for it.

Owen said...

So, you'd enjoy being held legally and financially responsible for this child, too?

Vox said...

The law holding that a 14-year-old boy who has sex with a 20-year-old girl is any kind of victim is also absurd.

How about the law against a 14 year-old girl having sex with a 65 year-old man? Is that also absurd?

Ghost said...

Trust,
Absolutely. And, absent any abuse toward the child, if the mother prevents the father from seeing his children, he should be allowed to refuse payment until visitation is resumed.

Trust said...

@ 2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73

Following that logic, a grown man can have sex with a minor as long as she really wants it. If he brings her to orgasm and she wants it again, then it must be okay?

A 14 year old cannot legitimately consent to an adult, especially one much older than him/her. It isn't about what the minor wants. It is about holding the adult responsible for their actions.

Just because a kid really enjoys drinking it smoking doesn't mean it is okay for an adult to light them up.

ray said...

A system of 'justice' which effectively applies only to half the population is called 'tyranny'. It doesn't matter if every single one of you 'votes' for it, approves of it, enforces or enables or profits from it. It's still iniquity and evil accomplished to serve personal and selfish agendas, whether psychological or material.


All these issues were settled long ago in Der Matriarchy. Males cannot be victims of females (sexually, legally, or otherwise) because Der Matriarchy says all males are Privileged and all females are Oppressed. It's the de facto law of the land. Don't think so? Go sit in a criminal or civil courtroom for a week, and watch.

The Almighty People heartily (and violently) approve, e.g., Barack 'n Biden X 2. So the Almighty People deserve the results of their own malevolence, subtle predation, and self-deceit. Eventually the Gynogulag won't be able to hire enough cops and build enough mancages to continue the Beatdown. Then they'll move to wider measures instead of just singling out males unable to defend themselves from collective targeting oops I mean Corrections.

tacticaltoolbox said...

I do believe consent laws are completely absurd.

Just a couple of days ago Vox is saying entrusting the state with your protection is wildly ignorant and stupid. But when children are involved, this state sponsored protection is now magically transformed? The principle holds true under all scrutiny.

The legal fiction of consent is just ridiculous. The same acts (fornication of any type) are fine and not damaging to the youngster as long as both are under 18? Why 18? Why not 21? Why not 16?

The moral issues inherent in statutory rape laws are one issue to discuss here. In all criminal law prior to statutory rape and other wholly statutory crimes, each law required a guilty act paired with a guilty mind. Statutory crimes remove the guilty mind element and therefore do not care why the actor might have transgressed the law. This helped bring about firearms laws and the myriad of law we see now. So, the inherent evil of this crime lies in the law, not so much in the actors.

Secondly, giving the state the primary protection duties of children has both barred actual authority from their fathers and lulled fathers into a false state of security. The state bars fathers from their natural rights to interfere in their daughters' lives (marriage, sex, freedom) for the daughters' protection as well as his natural remedies which have existed from time immemorial. The resulting false sense of security the high punishments (and attendant low evidence standards) have people wrongly believing their child should be safe jogging in the park at midnight, because law. It is ridiculous and has actually been damaging to men, law, and children.

Thirdly, let us speak of rightness. As a Christian, can one find a sense of rightness aside from the law God has set forth for us? Do we have the right to determine right and wrong? I believe not. If we do have a right to make up laws, where in Scripture would we get this idea? Study of God's laws brings us to both Deut 22 and Exodus 22 (as well as other areas to help define things). The underlying theme of God's rightness is a father's absolute right over his daughter's sexuality, marriage, etc. for the purpose of her protection. Similarly, sons would fall under this, too, though not quite so completely (while the law mentions a father's right to release his daughter from a vow, no such law mentions sons).

Fourth, there is no indication in God's laws about age of consent, etc. It is just an invention of man and does not actually pass the smell test.

everybodyhatesscott said...

Just a couple of days ago Vox is saying entrusting the state with your protection is wildly ignorant and stupid. But when children are involved, this state sponsored protection is now magically transformed?

Don't let the state tyrannize raped children =/= trust the state

Bike Bubba said...

Regarding age of consent, there is a hint of it Biblically when the Song of Songs notes that one should not awaken love until it so desires (until the person is mature for it), and that the bride and her friends will shelter who sister, whose breasts are not yet developed. That said, it is worth noting that many Biblical scholars and historians believe that many/most Jewish girls were married pretty close to when their breasts became noticeable--which is at least close to most states' ages of consent. So it's not our modern idea of an age of consent, but the cultural assumption was there.

Plus, I would assume that a seductress would, under the Torah, be treated as a seducer or possibly as a rapist--with some lenience on behalf of the child if one were conceived. In other words, the punishment could range from payment of a dowry to execution by stoning.

Probably smarter than what we do today--pass statutory rape laws, ignore the need to enforce them when we've got proof that the crime was committed, and then charge the victim for child support.

And the need for statutory rape laws? Well, look at what happens to marriage stability among women when N> 1. Not so hot among men, either, and you've also got a pretty much 100% STD infection rate among promiscuous adults. Sounds like a very real wrong is being committed here.

tacticaltoolbox said...

So, Bubba, it's pretty obvious you've not studied any Biblical law much. First study the relevant passages in Deut 22 and Exodus 22 and get back to me about seductresses and interpreting those laws in a sex-neutral manner.

Also, are you saying the N of a woman is 0 if she's slept with hundreds of boys who are also under 18?

Breasts being noticable at age of consent? You're losing a lot of credibility here. Girls are sexually mature enough to bear children typically a lot younger than 18. I watched a documentary on Netflix the other day entitled "Are all men pedophiles?" It was a reasoned approach showing that all of history didn't worry about consent laws, but women were married a lot younger typically than 18 and still are in most the world.

The true protection model is the father with proper authority to restrict his daughter and give her in marriage to a suitable man (his daughter protected so her N is 0 at the time of marriage).

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Surprised they published her.

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

The law holding that a 14-year-old boy who has sex with a 20-year-old girl is any kind of victim is also absurd. I wish I'd been so "victimized" when I was 14.

Curious, do you also feel that women who wear slutty clothes and get drunk should be held accountable to what happens? Because the 14-year old boy is no more asking for it than a woman who wears slutty clothes, and no more mentally capable of giving consent than a drunk woman.

And just so we were clear you wish you could be "victimized" in the manner in which some 20-year old sleeps with you and you find out at age 20 that you have a six year old and owe $15k in back child support?

Bike Bubba said...

Toolbox, maybe you ought to work on your reading comprehension. I noted the "N" count as a very real harm of statutory rape, and anyone who is really familiar with the Torah knows that the Jews have a millennia-old custom of using the 600-odd laws in the books of Moses to discern moral law in more complex cases. All I do here is to assume that, as the Torah discusses male perpetrators, rabbis and village elders back in the day would address the (unlikely?) case of a female perpetrator in a modified version of how a male perpetrator would be treated.

And regarding the age of marriage vs. the age of physical development, a few corrections. First of all, the most common age of consent is 16, not 18, in this country. Second, it is believed that the onset of puberty was 15 prior to the industrial age and readily available protein and vitamins in the diet--and now it has decreased (for women) to 10-14 years of age.

So if we assume that in ancient times to early modern times, a girl would get married as her breasts developed, that would be about age 15-17 years, matching well the statutory rape laws of 32 states.

Congratulations for showing your ignorance!

Hanns Strudle extra gooey said...

Put a milestone 'round her neck.

JCclimber said...

Bike Bubba, cheers to you. So many people demonstrate appalling ignorance of how late girls used to develop sexually even as recently as 100 years ago.

You can still see remnants of this in the Quinceara ceremony, which directly derives from the spanish word for 15. At that age it was expected to be about the time the girl got her first period and she would be fully a woman.

Plus, women back then were not treated as precious little snowflakes who never cooked, cleaned, took care of younger siblings, and worked full time around the household, basically being a young adult - for YEARS before they had their first period.

Owen said...

Because the 14-year old boy is no more asking for it than a woman who wears slutty clothes, and no more mentally capable of giving consent than a drunk woman.

Bull.

Aristotle tackled this eons ago. If you know the effects of drinking and continue to drink, you accept all consequences that follow from a deliberate loss of metal capacity.

A child can't "decide" to be fully mature by will.

Owen said...

Although I applaud you for putting adult women and children on the same mental level.

Methinks this is a regular troll, under a new name.

subject by design said...

Statutory rape laws are arbitrary and capricious. By that metric, they don't pass Constitutional muster. Regardless, they are also nonsensical. If a person is mentally incapable of consenting to sex (a complete fiction, of course) until a certain age, then how can there be exceptions? According to the source I checked, the lowest age of consent in the 50 states is 16. But in many of those states, there is an exception for marriage. Marriage requires consent in all 50 states, so how can woman be old enough to consent to marriage but not old enough to consent to sex? Also, in many states, the girl CAN be considered mentally capable of consent if the sex partner is under a certain age or withing a certain number of years of the age of the girl. What sort of nonsense is that? Either she has the capacity to consent, or she doesn't.

Under God's law, a young man of any age who has sex with a married or betrothed woman was put to death. There is no age specified. If a man can engage in sex, he is a man, not a child. If he has sex with an unmarried virgin, that woman's father decides whether or not he will marry her. Having sex with an unmarried, non-virgin is not even mentioned. Sluts get no protection from the law, as it should be. If her father doesn't protect her, no one else should either.

The customs of the Jews is not authoritative in applying the Law of God. They used their customs to make the Law of no effect, as Jesus pointed out. A high "N" count is not caused by statutory rape, it is caused by women choosing to have sex. The age of the woman does not determine the harm. How can it be more harmful for a 15 year old women to choose to have sex with a 20 year old man than for a 16 year old woman to do the same? Where is the "very real harm"? Putting a penis into a vagina is not a harmful act.

tacticaltoolbox said...

Bubba,

You're going to have to work harder on that one. First of all, if Jews apply law meant for women to men, then they're friggin' wrong. Their 600 laws were, at least in part, denounced by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. Tell me, show your work, dissect Deut 22 for me. I have. I have done it several times so far on this blog.

The end result is, rape is punished by forced marriage for a virgin, not at all for non-virgin non-married, death for one party if the woman was married. There is NO reason to believe the laws would be applied in reverse. Show your work, Bubba. Show were the age of consent is in Biblical law, not that Jewish stuff that missed the very point of the law altogether like Corban. I looked for regular forcible rape in the law of God. I looked for age of consent issues. If they were going to be somewhere, they'd be in one of those two chapters (though I've looked through the rest). There is nothing and consent laws are all made up. Sexuality in Biblical law is determined not by consent, but rather is restricted by God. Certain relationships, no matter how consensual, no matter how adult, are just restricted: homosexuality, adultery, bestiality.

Again the issue is protection of the state in consent laws does not fix the N issue for girls as they wholly support her N becoming worse due to no protection or restriction for her having sex with any boy under the age of consent. You're not reading what I've said.

Concerning nutrition and puberty, I agree in that it has a role. So that invalidates your argument for consent laws as they're no longer even based in reality but are even MORE arbitrary now than ever.

I think you're showing the usual situation whereat you believe in the underlying statutory law and you would like to view the whole universe in accordance with it instead of really looking at the issues with mind ready to be transformed by the word of God.

mindstar3000 said...

Part of the problem is that in some states the trigger for child support responsibility is the birth of the child (REGARDLESS of whether the father knows about it). Thus making it retroactive to birth even if that was years before Mommy goes to court. That appears to be law in Arizona and its the law in Texas as well and likely in many other states.

I had a case where a woman in Texas tried to get support for her 15 yr old. The father was a New York resident and had no clue he was the father. He hadn't seen her in years.

In New York support is only retroactive to the date you apply for it NOT back to the date of birth. DNA showed him to be the father but thankfully since mother brought the case in NY the judge applied New York law and told her she could only get $$$ retro to date of application. She withdrew her application

At the end of the men generally get the short end of the stick. Thankfully that was a rare exception

Bike Bubba said...

Toolbox, take a look at the hard cases of Moses, Joshua, Solomon (e.g. 2 women/1 child case), and elsewhere; the Scripture commends to us the process of applying the law to new cases. Christ only condemns the practice when the 'Oral torah' ends up contradicting the law of Moses, really.

And really, statutory rape is merely a modern interpretation of the ancient (Josiah, Roman law, Galatians 4) principle that one must attain an age of majority prior to making certain contracts, of which the marriage contract is one.

Now would I believe the world would be better if dads did a better job protecting their daughters? Absolutely. Death for forcible rape? You got it--and for false reporters of rape, too. That said, as the dad of daughters, I'm going to take what I can get to protect them.

tacticaltoolbox said...

Bubba,

You need to be specific about the law. Where is this age of majority to which you reference? What cases of Moses and Joshua are the reference you are making? How does the case of Solomon give us direction as to the righteousness of statutory rape?

I am pointing out the "help" you are getting precludes you doing your job as a dad. It would be better to have the law leave those cases alone and not protecting or "helping" those who stand outside the law. For those cases standing inside the law, the remedies are clear. Forcible rape requires you to marry your daughter to the rapist. No man wants this, and the result is him actually, physically making sure this forcible rape doesn't happen. There exist no child molestation laws (except those of consanguinity) in the law. This has the same effect, someone touches Jimmy's pee pee, the "better luck next time" result of the law incites the father to actually physically make sure it doesn't happen instead of this after the fact "let's nail his balls to a stump and push him off" reaction that does no good for Jimmy or Jenny's psychological situation of having been introduced to sex long before it is time and outside of marriage. The law in this case, adding to God's law (because you've still not shown where it is), is damaging to society and civilization building.

Brad Andrews said...

The child should never be put to death (abortion) for the father's sins.

Tactical is way off since fathers don't have the right to protect their own children from this in today's society. You can only remove the state if you allow private response to such things. That would generally be better, but we also need a society that views punishing those who take advantage of the children of others as the scum they are.

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

At the end of the men generally get the short end of the stick. Thankfully that was a rare exception.

You still have to watch the Statute of limitations and he might be SoL in states with different choice of law rules. The entire US has become this guy's minefield. For example, if he steps foot in Texas before the kid turns 22, he can eat the full back child support. In other states it could be even longer if they use long statutes of limitations but apply Texas law.

tacticaltoolbox said...

Brad,

You have to reasonably advocate for the state to get out of the business before men will get their children back. I am advocating for the state to get out. Where is the harm in that now?

You are stating that a father cannot now protect his child? Um, I will never call the state to report a "crime" against my child. That is because I will not allow the crime to take place in the first place. Without these laws, my children are already protected to the utmost, I personally prevent the harm. I am more concerned about it not happening than the people cowering behind the empty promises of the state.

It's like trusting no school shooting is going to happen because it is illegal for someone to come onto school property with a gun. You're trusting in the law. That is always a mistake. I ensure my children will not get shot at a school, first by not being there. Secondly, I am either there to protect them (in other locations, home, shopping, etc.) or put in place other people I trust to protect them.

We as people are trusting in a false god, and have given up our duties to protect. In doing so, we are neither protected, nor free. Laws protecting children have not protected them against real harm, and in the process have stripped men of their freedoms and rights in trials. Now a prosecutor can get a conviction on the word of one witness (result: date rape) who is immune from cross-examination. In Oregon, a police officer can testify in court as to the testimony of a woman who has recanted her prior statements or refuses to testify in court. Talk about losing everything for the trade off of nothing...

Jack Amok said...

The moral issues inherent in statutory rape laws are one issue to discuss here. In all criminal law prior to statutory rape and other wholly statutory crimes, each law required a guilty act paired with a guilty mind. Statutory crimes remove the guilty mind element...

The "statuatory rapist" is guilty becuase they have usurped the authority of the parents over the minor child. Until a child has reached the age of majority, they are not allowed to make major decisions without the supervision of their guardian. I assume you've raised no children or you would understand a proper upbringing requires gradually turning over adult responsibilities to youngsters. Letting some slut jump-start a kid's sexual education is not responsible parenting.

As a Christian, can one find a sense of rightness aside from the law God has set forth for us? Do we have the right to determine right and wrong? I believe not

Believe what you want, but God has pretty clearly left us in charge of things on this side of the Pearly Gates, so we have to do the best we can sorting out right and wrong. What age someone can legitimately consent to sex is one of the things we've got to decide.

subject by design said...

Jack Amok:

You are conflating parental responsibility with state power. The state has no business determining when a woman can or cannot consent to something. If a parent lets "some slut jump-start" their kid's sexual education, what business is that of yours? What business is that of the state?

Jack Amok said...

You are conflating parental responsibility with state power. The state has no business determining when a woman can or cannot consent to something.

Oh, get off the 'state power' hobbyhorse. What the fuck are the parents supposed to do, go out and shoot the woman?

tacticaltoolbox said...

"I assume you've raised no children or you would understand a proper upbringing requires gradually turning over adult responsibilities to youngsters. Letting some slut jump-start a kid's sexual education is not responsible parenting." <-- Amok

I am having trouble understanding what your point could be and how raising children requires state interference to protect them via statutory rape laws. As a matter of fact, I have had seven children in my household at one time. At this point, one has been given in marriage (in which I had a major hand in arranging).

You misunderstand my point in assuming that if there is no state action regarding a sexual liaison between a daughter and some creep, that there could not be at all any action. The biblical solution is forcing marriage or forcing the paying of a bride price. Deut 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 are passages which speak directly to virgins (which your daughter better be). If she is not, I can find no remedy. If the state is prohibiting you from doing anything, which is as wrong as statutory rape, this is a tough situation. The true solution is to be a friggin' man and make damned sure nothing happens. Yes, your life will be restricted... but that comes with the territory of being a Christian and a father.

"Believe what you want, but God has pretty clearly left us in charge of things on this side of the Pearly Gates, so we have to do the best we can sorting out right and wrong. What age someone can legitimately consent to sex is one of the things we've got to decide. " <-- Amok

Got any Scripture which says that right and wrong are decided by men? I mean, that's quite the statement you've made. I see God saying in the law that we should serve no other. Serving another's law system would be worshiping another god. That's the basis of statism, the largest source of idolatry in the modern church.

This is quite well illustrated in an episode of The Simpsons whereat the town is deciding whether to make gambling legal. All turn to the Rev. Lovejoy and Lovejoy responds with a telling insight: "If it's legal, I don't think God has any problem with it." I am not good at verbatim, but that's at least the gist of what was responded.

Jack Amok said...

I am having trouble understanding what your point could be and how raising children requires state interference to protect them via statutory rape laws.

Why don't you think about it and see if you can puzzle it out?

If the state is prohibiting you from doing anything, which is as wrong as statutory rape,

So, if I think someone has had sex with my minor daughter, I can go demand the SOB pay me money. And if he refuses, what am I allowed to do?

Got any Scripture which says that right and wrong are decided by men?

Got any scripture that says we're supposed to live like uncivilized beasts?

standingagainsttheworld said...

@Glen Filthie

Stick to the clinical definition of pedophilia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

standingagainsttheworld said...

@subject by design

Jewish customs and traditions set the minimum age of marriage of 13 for young men and 12 for young women:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm

tacticaltoolbox said...

"So, if I think someone has had sex with my minor daughter, I can go demand the SOB pay me money. And if he refuses, what am I allowed to do?" <-- Amok

Allowed? What kind of a ninny are you? First off, how are you allowing a man to have sex with your daughter? Are you not protecting her in the first place? Because Christians have rejected the laws of God, all they have are to worship at the altar of an idol, the state when this stuff occurs. Until they reject the state's help, there will be no alternate solution (by force).

Personally, I will tell you that my lack of complaint leaves me in an evidentiary black hole of potentially righteous anarchy. But the real solution is a hard one for the time being. We should suffer loss, pick up the pieces and move on. 1 Cor 6:1-8 A father today can demand justice through church court, but I'm going to assume that the young creep isn't even subject to the church. Used to be, we had shotgun weddings.

Keep lookin' to the state, Jack, see how that works out for you and your children. Why don't you just send your kids off to schools run by them, and college? See how the law protects them so well.

"Got any scripture that says we're supposed to live like uncivilized beasts? " <-- Amok

If you are equating Biblical justice to living uncivilized, well then, I guess I have nothing for you. May your judging of God's laws grant you the same judgement in return.

Romans 8
"6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

The reverse is true, the spiritual man is subjects himself to the law of God and cares to be subject to it. David spent the longest Psalm in the book singing the praises of the laws of God.

It is obvious you've got nothing in return. I didn't think you did. I happen to have read the Bible. I was mistaken to have believed the same about you.

Here's a little something for the people who want the state to protect their own children. I am not going to protect your children. No one wants to protect your children. No one else has the duty. Do it yer fucking self. I have taken measures to do so and it cost me my "life". My life doesn't look like mainstream America. I don't send my children to schools. We do things as a family, not as a group of cohabiting individuals. It's not easy as there's not many who are going to support little ol' me, let alone commiserate with me. Boo hoo. Doing the effective and right thing ain't a picnic, that's why few do it.

I don't need the state to help me raise my children. I have never needed the state's protection. I have been threatened by the state should I ever do their job for them, I will be pursued worse than the crooks I have thwarted. I have been threatened on this forum that I won't get far with some alpha gallyvanting around my place, trying to seduce my daughter--because I'd be in jail. (thanks for the support in doing right, there Christian guys...).

I will tell you this, also. Should I ever serve on a jury for a trial in which some man was defending his daughter, he will have my support, the law be damned. I hope the same pact can be made between all fathers and mothers everywhere. Jury nullification, baby.

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

Vox:

The law holding that a 14-year-old boy who has sex with a 20-year-old girl is any kind of victim is also absurd.

How about the law against a 14 year-old girl having sex with a 65 year-old man? Is that also absurd?

Of course not. But the law against a 14-year-old boy having sex with a 65-year-old woman is. Do I really need to point out to you, of all people, that boys and girls aren't the same?

Jack Amok said...

Allowed? What kind of a ninny are you? First off, how are you allowing a man to have sex with your daughter?

Right, see, I'm not. He's doing it without my permission. Or is your contention that I must not have said the right prayers so God would keep the guy away from my family? Or perhaps I'm supposed to sit on my front porch all day with a shotgun? Here in the real world, protecting your family requires some help from the rest of the community. Do you equate "the community" with "The State"?

Here's the question, toolbox. A man is believed to have raped a girl. Don't worry about whether it's statutory or not, let's just say it happened.

What should happen next? Who should make it happen?

tacticaltoolbox said...

He's doing it without my permission. Or is your contention that I must not have said the right prayers so God would keep the guy away from my family? Or perhaps I'm supposed to sit on my front porch all day with a shotgun?

I am implying you did not do your physical job. It doesn't require you sitting on your front porch with a shotgun all day. It requires you taking charge of your charges and keeping tabs on them and physically ensuring her protection. Anything less is not moral. When your daughter was born, did you protect her from the cold or did you just entrust the state to make a law declaring she be warm and leave it at that?

Here in the real world, protecting your family requires some help from the rest of the community.
False choice and incorrect. I do not require, nor do I get help from the rest of the community. In fact, in today's atomized society, I get only flak and encouragement/enabling for my daughter to rebel and shun her father's authority/protection. I build my own protection net that physically ensures no assault happens to her or other members of my family. I do my best to take care of my own. You too can do this. But what I hear are excuses for why you need state law and prosecutors and police to protect yours. Sad.

The oldest at home is reading your words as we speak. I'll get back to you on what she says...

Do you equate "the community" with "The State"?
Resoundingly, no. The state is a creation by majority vote, in which there is no choice to opt out. A community exists by choice of those involved in it. Opting out is done at one's risk. I find little community around me, and only that which I can trust is that which I make/organize myself. Tribe first.

tacticaltoolbox said...

Here's the question, toolbox. A man is believed to have raped a girl. Don't worry about whether it's statutory or not, let's just say it happened. What should happen next? Who should make it happen?
So glad you asked. The remedy depends upon the girl's status. Is she betrothed? Is she married? Is she a virgin? Those are relevant to biblical law. It is the standard for justice because only God can declare something justice and it be truly justice. All else is by definition injustice. The object of law is justice, not having a perfect society or to eliminate crime. Paul declared such in that God's perfect law was weak to change the insides of men. But that doesn't make it not the standard of right and of justice. That being said, what does the law say is the remedy?

Deut 22 clearly states that betrothed and married women, depending upon location and crying out, are innocent, but those who force the woman are subject to death. In vs 28-29, the remedy is different. It requires the virgin to marry the rapist and the father has no power to keep this from not happening. Also, the rapist pays a fine, probably to the father, which would likely go to the formerly virgin woman. In the case of non-virgins, crickets. In other words, if you are a whore, you are outside the protection of the law. The way back into protection of the law is to be married. Harsh, yes, but that is the harsh incentive of the law. Her choice, though.

The biblical system didn't have professional prosecutors. The primary witness threw the first stone and the aggrieved parties pursued persons to a judge. The way things apparently worked was according to the doctrine of unclean hands. You voluntarily submit to a judge suitable to both parties or you were outside the law and subject to anarchy (family feud). This was its own incentive to go to court, because the alternative was much worse.

Because our state precludes true justice and would punish us if we were to seek it, this does not mean we should pursue the injustice of an unjust legal system. Better to suffer loss than give credence to an ungodly system. That is not to say we don't defend suits in court, just that we should not be the instigators of them. I like the way the Amish smartly pursue justice outside the legal system.

As for rape, it is best to ensure it doesn't happen. Hardly a man I meet takes it that seriously. Ok, that is your choice. If you think it better to prosecute some guy for giving your daughter a +1 N, that's your choice. My problem is, your system I cannot opt out of it. And the system required to prosecute the statutory rapist comes with all the trappings of the legal system that has created marriage 2.0 and every other tyranny. This is not a false choice. In principle, when you force unbiblical law upon people, you get the precedent for unbiblical law in all the other areas. So, you can have your precious statutory rape, but bear in mind, you're still pulling the pin on the grenade that destroys a whole civilization.

Brad Andrews said...

Tactical,

> am advocating for the state to get out. Where is the harm in that now?

A lot when that same state will penalize a father (or others) for acting. You must allow that or removing the state is just putting out fresh meat in front of a bunch of tigers.

> I am implying you did not do your physical job.

You need to broaden your views a little.

I am sure you could pick many flaws on how we raised our children (adopted sibling group of 4), but they all when bad and ultimately left home at 17, legal in Texas unfortunately. You can't prevent something from happening when society works against you and considers you "too controlling." It is a heck of a lot harder than your narrow worldview proclaims. Hopefully you never have to really realize that though.

I still stood up for some things, which is why none of them stayed at home longer than they had to, but that didn't prevent many bad things from happening since a parent cannot watch any child 24 x 7.

We had a crappier start than most, having children who rejected us as parents at the start, but the corrupt principles are there in even more traditional families.

> So, you can have your precious statutory rape, but bear in mind, you're still pulling the pin on the grenade that destroys a whole civilization.

Silly me, I didn't realize our societal implosion was that simple to identify. We can fix it all if we just eliminate statutory rape? And that is the only way we violate Biblical law, right....

Jack Amok said...

I do not require, nor do I get help from the rest of the community

Yeah, so, a gang of a couple dozen vibrants comes along and takes a liking to your family....to quote someone from earlier on this thread, good luck with that.

The remedy depends upon the girl's status. Is she betrothed? Is she married? Is she a virgin?

Well, I say she's a virgin. The guy says she was pulling a train on the football team. She says she was abducted and raped. So I ask again, what happens next? Who makes it happen?

It is the standard for justice because only God can declare something justice and it be truly justice

And so how exactly do we get a case on God's docket? To the best of my knowledge, He hasn't granted certiorari for quite some time. We live our mortal lives bereft of His justice. So either we cobble together our own as best we can, or we live as beasts.


LAZ said...

@ tacticaltoolbox: "The same acts (fornication of any type) are fine and not damaging to the youngster as long as both are under 18? Why 18? Why not 21? Why not 16?"

You'd be surprised how many states have a 5 year rule. Meaning she could be 16 and he could be 21 and everything is legal.

Owen said...

LAZ,
Pennsylvania does. Also, age of consent in PA is 14. West Virginia? 16. And folks in PA joke about WV.

Brad Andrews said...

What many of you are missing is that the outcry, as Dr. Helen notes, would be great if the sexes were reversed, no matter what the esoteric principles some of you argue for. That is the core problem at this point.

Trust said...

Brad's right.

Hell, there's more outcry over an 18 year old male who sleeps with a 16 year old female than over a 30 year old female teacher who sleeps with a 14 year old male student.

tacticaltoolbox said...

A lot when that same state will penalize a father (or others) for acting. You must allow that or removing the state is just putting out fresh meat in front of a bunch of tigers.

That is my point, when the state gets out, there is much more sympathy for fathers acting. This is not a simple approach. We need the state out of our lives so we father CAN act. The main issue here is people entrusting the state with any protection duties.

You need to broaden your views a little...

I understand your situation better than a lot of people do. I stupidly am involved in raising four steps. There are always family loyalty issues, but I have to say there is a lot to be said about training correctly. But I seriously do understand your particular difficulties, having had contact with enough other adoptive parents. You are very correct in that the whole world is against you as a father. I am saying that we as fathers will never make headway not standing on principle and righteousness (of God's laws).

Silly me, I didn't realize our societal implosion was that simple to identify. We can fix it all if we just eliminate statutory rape? And that is the only way we violate Biblical law, right....

I thought I was clear in my statement that the principle of statutory rape, adopting this and no other stupid statutory laws is not possible on a principled level. You want statutory rape, you actually do have to accept the whole gamut of other stupid laws. It's an issue in principle.

tacticaltoolbox said...

Yeah, so, a gang of a couple dozen vibrants comes along and takes a liking to your family....to quote someone from earlier on this thread, good luck with that.

I said I take care of my own. Do you?
http://www.thetacticaltoolbox.com/images/TTB2012.jpg

Well, I say she's a virgin. The guy says she was pulling a train on the football team. She says she was abducted and raped. So I ask again, what happens next? Who makes it happen?

This one first depends upon witnesses. Do we have witnesses to the abduction? Why not? Evidence is huge. Your case takes two roads. He's got say, what ten witnesses she was pulling a train? She's got, her... Now, if she's got brothers or a mother who saw her get nabbed forcefully from her front yard... now we're talking manstealing (kidnapping). Personally, I will not tell you what I would do in a kidnapping case.

In a Biblical law society, the men would be running to court to clear their case. Otherwise, should they shun legal recourse, they are outlaws. They then have no recourse should the girl's father decide to get his pound of flesh (as he sees fit, they are outside the law, outlaws). No one wants a feud happening in a community. All of civilization depends upon the parties agreeing upon a suitable judge (not like the forced system we have now) and getting the case cleared. If there is not enough evidence, too bad. God knows what happened. Why is it everyone who is a Christian seems to think that if no punishment happens to a man by civil authority in this life, that there is no punishment in the next? Remember, the issue is justice, not prevention.

And so how exactly do we get a case on God's docket? To the best of my knowledge, He hasn't granted certiorari for quite some time. We live our mortal lives bereft of His justice. So either we cobble together our own as best we can, or we live as beasts.

I would expect you as a regular reader of Vox's posts would be able to come up with something better than to pose another false choice. You are saying that we either make up our own justice or we can wait until God holds court Himself here on Earth. There is no in between? I am saying there is very easily an in between. In fact, as Christians it is our duty to advocate for Biblical standards, and to not legislate.

The arrogance of human legislation. The very basis of law is arbitrary. What is so magical about the democratic process that laws passed by a majority are now moral? Hello, Nuremberg? The nature of legislation and enforcing it is tyranny. This is why only God can do it. He gave life and He can define what is right and wrong about it. Otherwise it is just a group of men who are more powerful than another group of men who force their ideas/reason on other men. In principle, if man has the right to legislate, then tyranny cannot exist--because it was legislated and man has the right to legislate, how can what they legislate be immoral?

In the scope of this blog, Vox is identifying a problem and the short term solution to it (learning Game and operating in the broken environment). The extension of this is teaching future generations to fix the broken society.

tacticaltoolbox said...

What many of you are missing is that the outcry, as Dr. Helen notes, would be great if the sexes were reversed, no matter what the esoteric principles some of you argue for. That is the core problem at this point.

The core of the OP is not lost on me. The story is proof positive that feminists don't care a whit about equality of the sexes under the law. But this is not the core of the problem, this is a symptom of it.

Acksiom said...

>What many of you are missing is that the outcry, as Dr. Helen notes, would be great if the sexes were reversed, no matter what the esoteric principles some of you argue for. That is the core problem at this point.

They're not 'missing' it, Brad; they're *ignoring* it.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.