Men's Rights

Post Reply New Topic

No, he's suggesting that the woman that victimized the father whom was a child himself, might actually start sexually abusing her child like she abused the kid's father, which is a legitimate concern.

You are drawing an inappropriate parallel. A sexual relationship with a young man who is too young to legally consent to the sexual relationship is a very different thing than an incestuous sexual relationship with a person in relation to whom the perpetrator is in a position of trust. There is absolutely nothing in a woman's inappropriate relationship with a fifteen year old man (for example) that even remotely points to the likelihood of abuse of her own child.

Leaving aside the offensive nature of the presumption, "once a criminal always a criminal," the state retains its parens patriae jurisdiction and is always able to intervene in the best interests of a child. No child in the custody of an abusive parent should be left without intervention. Period. It doesn't matter if the abusive parent has a completely spotless criminal record.

I have to disagree with you on this point, visagrunt. In the same way that it is abhorrent for a female rape victim to be forced to carry to term and even raise the child of her rapist, which amounts to a continued relationship with her rapist, it is abhorrent for a male rape victim to be forced to continue a relationship, through a child, with his rapist. It might mean that the state has to step in with support for the child, but a rape victim should not be forced to bear that burden.

I'm saying if the father in a case like what I mentioned wants the kid in his family's custody, that's fine by me; it is also fine that the woman whom basically raped the underage father of the kid should not be allowed custody (I would even suggest be denied visitation rights), and have to pay child support. Reason being is that the child would be in danger from their own mother whom may want to sexually abuse her own kid.

I am concerned that the focus is entirely on the victim of the sexual offence and not on the best interests of the child. The state can provide money, but it can't be a parent.

It may be that the best interests of the child lie with being adopted--but in order to do so, that means severring both of the parent-child relationships. To do so in an involuntary fashion is an enormous intervention on the part of the state, and should not be undertaken uncritically.



You seem to think that visitation is a right of the parent. It is not--it is a right of the child. This is not a "right" to be taken away from a parent, it is a right which the child can exercise, or not, depending upon what is in that child's best interests. The sooner that you refocus your attention onto the best interests of the child, and away from demonizing the mother, the sooner that you can find an argument that is consistent with law and public policy.

You aver definitively that, "the child would be in danger from their (sic) own mother whom (sic) may want to sexually abuse her own kid." Well, in the first place there is nothing to demonstrate your inference that a woman conceiving a child in those circumstances would present any danger to her child, whatsoever. You seem to take it as an article of faith that the artificial label, "sexual offender," is equivalent whether we are dealing with a 17 year old woman having a consensual (though not legally consensual) sexual relationship with a 15 year old man, or a paedophile who is guilty of sexual interference with that paedophile's own child. The latter is malum in se and of a distinctly different character from the former--but your averral provides none of that nuance.

I'm talking the incidents where we have seen 13-15 year old boys being raped by one of their Female Teachers. I'm not talking a 15 year old and a 17 year old. I'm talking about someone abusing their position of authority.

Nonsense. Those types of cases may have been uppermost in your mind, but you certainly didn't use language to suggest that.

Where in this statement do you restrict yourself to cases of sexual interference?



Or here?



And even if we are dealing with a case of sexual interference, there is still no causal link between the sexual interference and a risk to her child.

!
!
Visagrunt, a rape victim has no responsibility to 'be a parent' to the offspring of his or her rapist.


I don't think that it could ever be in the best interests of a child to be forced upon a parent who could only ever look on it with loathing, as the offspring of a rapist.

I actually have friends who are the result of exactly this situation. The only difference being that their mothers decided to keep them. I know people like Martin Sheen can be very persuasive when talking to about this matter but I doubt I could ever tell a woman in that situation that she HAD to keep the child. I do not however agree that no parent could love the child of this eventuality nor do I think there is no responsibility to the child. It is not so clear cut as that.

My question is, who does?

I am not unsympathetic to the victim of a sexual offence--regardless of the sex of the victim. And I don't doubt that in the vast majority of cases, appropriate provisions can be made for the care and maintenance of a child without resorting to compulsion on the unconsenting parent.

But there will always be the exceptional case that must be provided for. And when it comes to the rights of children, the fact that the law provides for 99% of case is not good enough. The courts must protect the best interests of each and every child before it--and in some cases, the individual child's best interests are going to trump those of the adults involved.



If the parent is not mentally healthy enough to look past the rape to the child, then perhaps you are right. But you are applying a generality, and the courts do no have that luxury. They must deal with the individuals in front of them, where labels like "rapist" and "victim" must fall away to the actual circumstances of the people involved.

Why? Why are the child's rights allowed to infringe on the parents? I might understand this being true to some degree in consensual situations but the current situation(being discussed I mean) is one where the 'parent' in question has been raped. In that situation what justification are you using for infringing on the rights of the unconsenting adult? And why are you holding the rights of the children above every other citizen or at least every other citizen involved?(this is at least what it seems to me you are saying.)

Don't know if this has been mentioned in all these pages, but as a mom, I am very aware that many schools in the US have actually adopted policies that are highly ANTI-boy, which has resulted in less men entering universities, and the income potential for the average man is starting to fall behind the income potential for the average women. When I grew up in 70's, we were clamoring for EQUAL opportunity, not to turn the tables 180. But that is, actually, what is happening in some aspects of our society, and it is a problem with profound long term social implications. I am raising both a boy and a girl and I want them BOTH to have hopes for a successful life without discrimination and limiting role assumptions.

So, I'm not sure that as a general broad concept, "men's rights" is that far out in left field. They may make mistakes in their specific agenda, and not identify the sources properly, but they are feeling a trend that is very real: men do get the short end of the stick in certain aspects of this society. The longer stick in others, yes, but if that is not an aspect the guy talking has experienced, can you blame him for wanting change?

I don't think any of these statements is even remotely true.

It's actually beautifully documented in a book called "The Trouble with Boys" by Peg Tyre. It's not like anyone set out to make education unfriendly to boys. It was inadvertent and subtle, but still quite real. This is a common topic of discussion in education and among parents. Ask your favorite university what their female to male enrollment is.

^Many universities now have affirmative action for male applicants.

Ewww... couldn't they just solve the problem the right way by looking at the differences in learning style or is that still a good 20 years too taboo at this point?