!%!%!%!%!%: Leagal Liability in California

I am only waiting for the day when hordes of Castraticops stop people who look like they may be male and conduct a mandatory !%!%!%!%!% check. I wonder what the punishment will be for possessing a !%!%!%!%!%... A fine? Jail time? Confiscation? Eek! To be a white, teenage male in California is like being a Jew in early Nazi Germany. Femgroms randomly attack you for seemingly no reason!

You see, to be honest, I am horrified at the moment to find out that I came very close at one point to being a felon, and not only a felon, but one who would have to register consistently as a sex offender, along with rapists and child molsesters. That's right, I almost had sex with a girl my own age which was, at the time, fifteen. Luckily I wasn't that into her so my mancherry remains unpopped to this day, but suppose I like the next one better? I will be the first to admit that my !%!%!%!%!% often monopolizes all functions of higher thought and who knows what may happen between now and my eighteenth birthday; but does this really mean that my !%!%!%!%!% should be a leagal liability?

Even though both the male and female minor between the ages of 16 and 18 (I think) are both leagally raping eachother, it is ok for the male to be punished while the female is not.

If an 18-year-old girl has sex with a 17-year-old boy, even though she is technically raping him, he still has to pay child support if she gets pregnant.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn." Tell me about it. My mother put my father through half-hell for years irking every dime she could from him. California believes that women are incapable of getting off of their feet for themselves after divorce and must be supported by their (evil, always dealers with the devil) ex-husbands.

I'm pretty sure that the statutory rape laws were formed based on the premise that only the males are the instigators of sex and that by effectively horrifying them, teenage sex will be greatly reduced. Oh my, if only it were true! I've met girls that were hornier than drunken bunnies watching bunnieporn in Spring! I'm pretty sure that the anti-man divorce laws are just the result of some P-whipped politicians trying to please their wifes. Ah well.... maybe we should take a look at some of Saudi Arabia's ideas.... only we'd replace the black robes with.... saran wrap bikinis? hehe http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

All of this information is second hand, but both of the sources I learned this from have law degrees, so corrections are welcome. Look foreward to your comments. Later all.

[paulgro]

That I know of the statutory rape law was made that way because a female and not a male can get pregnant. Do I think the law is right always blaming the male, no! We agree on this one...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

[Serendipity]

Originally posted by paulgro:
That I know of the statutory rape law was made that way because a female and not a male can get pregnant.


Huh? So rape is illegal because of the risk of pregnancy?!? That's the first I've heard of it. As a man, I don't want women (or men) to attack me sexually, and I can't get pregnant. Surely rape is about personal violation, not risk of pregnancy? And pretty much all rapists are men.

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator

[cleoeo]

There is no need for any kind of discussion. Nancy Reagan told youth to, "Just say No." So did knowlegable televangalists Swaggart and Baker. So there.

Well, I love Ronald, but I just decided I'm not too fond of his wife! hehe http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

[paulgro]

Dippy, if a 15 yearold boy goes to bed with a 17 year old girl that is willing her parents can have statutory rape charges put on him even though the girl is older, but both are minors. Pregnancy is the reason the law was made.

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

[URL=http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=true[/URL]

[Sjax]

Such laws is actually sexist towards men. They can be used be jealous ex-girlfriends to get their ex-boyfriends down. but what are you gonna do.
Evig Natt, I just have to ask you if you speak Norwegian or something? I think your name "Evig Natt" is norwegian for "eternal night"

[Idnew]

Welcome Evig and Sjax

Just keep it zipped up until your older and then make sure your with somebody else that is "legal" and you won't have any problems. I also agree that the law sucks because their are women that will rape men, but very rare I'm sure.

------------------
(ô¿ô)A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

[RayH]

I once knew a guy who spent three years in San Quentin for statutory rape! I think they are good laws. I'm tired of supporting someone else's kids!

[paulgro]

The point is, it's a one sided law! Females get charged with nothing or they receive a lesser charge for the same act in reverse...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)

[~wildangel~]

Thats just cause were cuter http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"Don't fear the dog, the shotgun or the man of the house....fear the pregnant wife!!"

Click here for adorable faces!" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/babyface.html)

It's because nobody wants to believe that a woman could force a man -- & really how many men would admit to being raped by a woman?

I think child support laws are HIDEOUSLY unfair to men. Men really don't have a say in whether the woman has the baby. It's as though ALL the responsibility for birth control is on them. If a woman really wants to get pregnant, she will. And if the man doesn't want the baby, he still has to pay.

Unfortunately, the only rape men can testify to is the rape committed by the court system.

[~wildangel~]

Lackowitz...is this basically what your saying..."I dont have to wear a condom if I dont want to, and if she gets pregnant I want to choose to kill it!"???
I really hope not because thats a sad decision...its not the babys fault http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

Another thing is a man should go no choice in weather the child lives or not. If you dont know if shes on birth control or not and YOUR not wearing a condom you should'nt stick your STICK in her in the first place....
HELLOOOOOOO....then she wouldnt get pregnant! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"Don't fear the dog, the shotgun or the man of the house....fear the pregnant wife!!"

Click here for adorable faces!" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/babyface.html)

[paulgro]

Let's not forget, condoms do break...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)

It seems to me, that every male teenager is not allowed to do what he is finally able to enjoy:
Sex is bad- you can get her pregnant, you can get a disease
Beer is bad- It can kill you, its bad for your health
Sports are bad- they can be dangerous to your health
What the hell are red-blooded teens to do these days?!?!

[paulgro]

Welcome to the board!
Do you knit? Forget it, you might stab yourself with the needle...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)

Originally posted by ~wildangel~:
Lackowitz...is this basically what your saying..."I dont have to wear a condom if I dont want to, and if she gets pregnant I want to choose to kill it!"???
I really hope not because thats a sad decision...its not the babys fault http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

Another thing is a man should go no choice in weather the child lives or not. If you dont know if shes on birth control or not and YOUR not wearing a condom you should'nt stick your STICK in her in the first place....
HELLOOOOOOO....then she wouldnt get pregnant! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif




No -- He should still wear a condom or get a vasectomy. But no birth control is 100% guaranteed (except abstinence & even then there was that chick Mary from Bethlehem).
If he can show that he was indeed using a condom (or had a vasectomy) then he should have the right to refuse to pay child support. There is NO WAY a woman would allow a man to make the decision to abort a child, BUT if he can show he was using appropriate birth control on his part (pun intended), he should not be forced to support an unwanted child.

[~wildangel~]

Ok, sorry Lack, I thought you meant it differently last time, but I understand what you mean now. But I still think the baby is half the responibility of the man, not just the woman. Babies are too expensive to do it on your own and accident or not sex causes pregnancy and to participate you also take risk in pregnancy and diseases. Sad isnt it?!
But it's true...as dad always told me "you made your bed, now lie in it!" http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"Don't fear the dog, the shotgun or the man of the house....fear the pregnant wife!!"

Click here for adorable faces!" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/babyface.html)

[Ada_Doom]

I agree that men shouldn't have to pay for kids they don't want, but neither is it fair for the mother to have to bring up a child she didn't want either. Accidents happen, and both parties should take responsibility. If the woman deliberately came off the pill without the man's knowledge or something, that would be different. And stupid.

------------------
A tractor driver will never know the small pleasure of overtaking another vehicle, just the huge happiness of stopping others from overtaking him.

The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

Originally posted by ~wildangel~:
Lackowitz...is this basically what your saying..."I dont have to wear a condom if I dont want to, and if she gets pregnant I want to choose to kill it!"???
I really hope not because thats a sad decision...its not the babys fault
Another thing is a man should go no choice in weather the child lives or not. If you dont know if shes on birth control or not and YOUR not wearing a condom you should'nt stick your STICK in her in the first place....
HELLOOOOOOO....then she wouldnt get pregnant!

SOMEONE has SERIOUS problems!!!! I think a woman SHOULD know to not screw the dumb@$$ w/o a condom! It isn't like guy is in a store and says, "I think I'll impregnate THAT one."!!! It's called SEX 'cause BOTH sexes are doing it! If a couple doesn't want a baby, the woman should keep her legs closed and the guy should keep his shlong in his pants!

------------------
I AM MOOGLE!!! HEAR E ROAR!!! KUPO!!! I'm kupo for kupo nuts!

[Ada_Doom]

Hi Square. Welcome to Dumb Laws. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Heaven is where the police are English, the cars are German, the chefs are French, the lovers are Italian and everything is organised by the Swiss. Hell is where the chefs are English, the police are German, the cars are Spanish, the lovers are Swiss and everything is organised by the Italians.
The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

[aclu14]

In my humble opinion, as a female, men seriously need to control themselves.

To be honest, women have sex drives too. Now we are talking about statitory rape. This is very diffrent then rape.

Statatory rape is, in it's generic sence, a person who has sex with someone under the age of concent. Defined diffrently in each state.

Rape, is the forcing of someone to have sex, again, each state is a touch diffrent. Rape is very diffrent from statory rape.

If someone commited an act of rape, then it's likely they were to be charged with rape. Well maybe this is true or not true, but rape is sex by forse. Oral / anal / !%!%!%!%!%!%l, whatever.

Now statitory rape has nothing to do with this what so ever. It's possible to rape someone under the age of concent, in which case, the charge of statatory rape and rape can possibly stick. But it's possible that two concenting partners, one below the age of concent, it is very possible that this would be considered statitory rape. It's possible that statatory rape wouldn't stick if the person not of the age of concent was un a bar, with a fake ID, but that's kinda up to the judge. That is kinda up in the air. It's generally accepted that adults who are 21 years of age that go after people under the age of 18 have something wrong with them. and adults 25 doing the same thing, have something even more then wrong with them. 30, we are intering the catagory of sick bastered, this person is old enough to be your child. 40 and beyond, ick!

The cali law on the subject is dumb, because pentalies exist for both parities who are both under the age of concent. This in the normal sence in MOST states isn't statatory rape. Such a charge would be reserved normally, let's say, an 28 year old and a 15 year old.

As a 16 year old, I would have had sympathy for the 30 year old who was suduced by a 15 year old, but now that I'm a 28 year old, no sympathy what so ever. At 16, a 15 year old would have been considered to be someone whom I might have considred to be attractive, and would have some empathy. being 28 now, I think the idea is REPUGNET AS ALL HELL.

Assuming a 15 year old boy and girl, who concent to have sex, I'd say it's rediclious for the state to press charges, now I'd say that 16 might be a more fair age of concent, but hey. This is actually a HEALTHY exploration!

15 and 17 year old, well, still within pretty good form, some would agrue minimum age of concent should be 16, and I wouldn't press the issue at all. Kids in highschool.

15 and 18 year old, well, that's kinda pushing it. starting highschool vs leaving highschool..... ICK

Now a 15 year old girl seeking an older man, this has been known to happen. depeding on their age, most states would say anything older then 18 would be considered statitory rape. 30 for example there is NO DOUBT in any state i'm aware.

Now a 15 year old boy seeking an older woman, this too has been known to happen. The same rule applys, 18 might be considered statitory rape, and this is subject for some debate. but 30 year old, no doubt in any state i'm aware.

And the same would apply for boy seeking man, or girl seeking woman.

----------------

As far as responcibility. A concenting girl is just as powerful a statement as a concenting boy. Rather simple idea, "pardon me sir or man, would you like to have yes" careful thougt, "why yes, yes I would" CONCENT.

Now as far as pregancy is concerned, this is something both parties need to discuss. A lady who want's to have sex has the option for oral birth control, foam, film, or a diaphram.

Men have a choice of a condom, and that's about it. it being a very akward subject for youths to talk about, i'm going to be a touch sexist and say, "guys, you don't know this person well enough to know if they are birth control, wear a condom". Disease, pregancy, that sort of thing. It's common sence. Sorry, but if you don't know, GO RUBBER. Details as to birth control can be descussed after, condom and pill, condom and foam, condome and diaphram, that sort of thing.

But statatory rape for two people UNDER the age of concent, SILLY. Who commited the offence, when both people didn't have the right under the law to say yes?

As far as choice vs birth, well, I do believe that the guy should have some say, and I limit that to some say, i.e. a conversation establishing his wishs on the subject. pretty limited to that. A girl with child, has the choice to have child, abort child, put child up for adpotion. Possession is 9/10th of the law, and while this is sexist in the extreem, girl has the final control. Why, cause she has the child. It's sad but true, it's nature. Boy, well, boy is responcible for child support, unless girl is unfit mother and child goes go boy, in which case, she needs to pay child support.

Is boy bad for getting girl prego? well that's subjective, don't know don't care, but boy has urges, girls have urgas. Boys push, girls push. there is no cut and dry rule here. boy girl + baby = responciblity.

"Just keep it zipped up until your older and then make sure your with somebody else that is "legal" and you won't have any problems."

To prove this statement stupid, I would like you to read the following Native American fable.


Once upon a time, a scorpion needed badly to cross a river. Why exactly he needed to cross the river is a fact long lost to the ages and many retellings. He walked along the river, looking for a point where he might cross, but no area seemed to be shallow or calm enough, so he became depressed and laid down to think. Just when he was at the threshold of giving up, a beaver came trotting out of the woods on the opposite bank and swam accross. The scorpoion ran to the beaver as soon as he came up out of the water and asked if he would be so kind as to take him accross.

The beaver laughed and said, "No, I will not take you accross. You will sting me."

The scorpion said, "I cannot sting you, or we shall both drown."

At this, the beaver agreed to take him accross. The scorpion climbed onto the beaver's back and held on tightly to his fur, and the beaver began to ford the eddie. About half of the way accross, the scorpion stung the beaver. The beaver was angry and as the world began to grow slowly black the beaver asked why the scorpion stung him.

He answered, "Do not take it personally, for I am a scorpion, and it is my nature."

Both drowned, never to be heard from again.

The point of this story is that something will always obey its nature, even at the grave cost of its own self-destruction. It is the nature of young, healthy, viril, curious, and most importantly horny, teenagers to explore their feelings. "Keep it in your pants" is like telling a scorpion not to sting or a wolf not to howl at the moon.

p.s. I also just love any story that involves putting ones "stinger" in a wet beaver.

[aclu14]

Ooookay.

------------------
Don't sweat petty things. Don't pet sweaty things.

Welcome to the club (http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/popculturesucks)

For (http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/ozzy) Ozzy (http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/kickassozzyclub) Fans (http://www.ozzyhead.com)

Lots of good points ya have there zake

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[~wildangel~]

Originally posted by SquareSoft0:
Originally posted by ~wildangel~:
Lackowitz...is this basically what your saying..."I dont have to wear a condom if I dont want to, and if she gets pregnant I want to choose to kill it!"???
I really hope not because thats a sad decision...its not the babys fault
Another thing is a man should go no choice in weather the child lives or not. If you dont know if shes on birth control or not and YOUR not wearing a condom you should'nt stick your STICK in her in the first place....
HELLOOOOOOO....then she wouldnt get pregnant!

SOMEONE has SERIOUS problems!!!! I think a woman SHOULD know to not screw the dumb@$$ w/o a condom! It isn't like guy is in a store and says, "I think I'll impregnate THAT one."!!! It's called SEX 'cause BOTH sexes are doing it! If a couple doesn't want a baby, the woman should keep her legs closed and the guy should keep his shlong in his pants!



I think you need to re-read the topic because I said nothing about it being only the 'mans' fault. Maybe you should also grow up and not tell people that you don't know that they have serious problems. I was also replying to something Lackowitz said and I mistaked their meaning and summed that up with Lackowitz. I thought Lackowitz was saying a man has a right in choosing to abort a baby and I believe killing a child for that type of reasoning is absurd. A child does not need a father, ofcourse that would be best for the child if the child is born and is unwanted by the father does not mean he won't be loved just as much as if he had both.
Maybe you should go relax or something. It's nothing to get that upset over...really!

------------------
~Wild, the angel of the Mod Squad~
Friendship is heavenly
My kids adorable faces! (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/babyface.html)~The MOD Squad~ (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html)

Hello:

Let's have a look at the California statute, excerpts of which I include. Unless you are over 21 OR are at least three years older than your partner, you can't be charged with statutory rape--especially if you are under 18. It is possible that you and she could be charged with some sort of juvenile delinquency offense, but nothing more if the act was consensual.

Pay particular atention to subsection C. The age of majority in CA is 18, but if an 18 yr old boy had intercourse with his 17 yr old girlfriend he really can't be charged with stat rape according to the statute.

Age of consent varies in each state and country and never think penalties are based on what you hear.

Here's a hypothetical based on case law:

In NY age of consent is 17. Let's suppose a 23 yr old male has sex with a 17 yr old female and it was consensual. While I'd advocate abstinence this does happen.

That said, the male can't be charged with stat rape, but as the girl is still a minor CAN be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Not likely if he is a boyfriend and the parents approved at one point or another, but if he is a teacher or coach he will surely be charged and lose.

California Statute:
PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269


261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor.

For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person
under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person
who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either amisdemeanor or a felony, andshall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
(d) Any person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in
violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the
following amounts:
(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).
(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable
for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000).
(2) The district attorney may bring actions to recover civil
penalties pursuant to this subdivision. From the amounts collected
for each case, an amount equal to the costs of pursuing the action
shall be deposited with the treasurer of the county in which the
judgment was entered, and the remainder shall be deposited in the
Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund, which is hereby created in the
State Treasury. Amounts deposited in the Underage Pregnancy
Prevention Fund may be used only for the purpose of preventing
underage pregnancy upon appropriation by the Legislature.

261.6. In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289,
in which consent is at issue, "consent" shall be defined to mean
positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of
free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have
knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.
A current or previous dating or marital relationship shall not be
sufficient to constitute consent where consent is at issue in a
prosecution under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289.
Nothing in this section shall affect the admissibility of evidence
or the burden of proof on the issue of consent.

261.7. In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289,
in which consent is at issue, evidence that the victim suggested,
requested, or otherwise communicated to the defendant that the
defendant use a condom or other birth control device, without
additional evidence of consent, is not sufficient to constitute
consent.