Forums / Discussion / General

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/headlines/11-year-old-boy-impregnates-friend-s-mom

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/06/15/10/20/auckland-boy-fathers-child-after-sex-with-friend-s-mum

Shouldn't it be "36 years old woman rape son's friend" or "36 years old women get a child from a 11 years old kid"?

I suppose it could. It would be more accurate.

But it wouldn't work as well.
 
I'll go ahead and say that I find a lot of people in Web Culture to be pretty ignorant about social issues (women in Web Culture included.) So know that before reading on.

First off, consider the nature of vaginal sex. No matter what kind of position you're in or who's doing most of the action, the penis will be penetrating the vagina. And when people think of sex, they're usually thinking "missionary" or "from behind" before they think of the woman being on top. That fundamental fact will generally play into the perception of "who is raping whom." So the male is generally considered to be doing the "violating" (unless he himself is penetrated with an object or fingers,) even if he can't consent to the sexual encounter in the first place.
 
Second, the boy doesn't appear to be traumatized by this. The boy went to the principal and simply said he wanted it to stop. We don't have full quotes from him in either article, so we can't really say, but it seems like he just knows he shouldn't be having sex with someone three times his age. It doesn't seem like he was forced into having sex (at this time) or that he was traumatized by the experience.

Of course, that's still statutory rape (in addition to giving a minor alcohol,) even if the law doesn't say it's rape due to how the law is written. But the woman still faces the same maximum sentence as a man who would have done the same thing: 20 years in prison. So in actuality, the only difference is in what it's called legally.
 
Third, think of how a newspaper will try to hook its consumers. You could simply say that a woman raped a boy, but (as I said before,) it doesn't appear to be the coerced or directly forced rape that is normally associated with rape. It's not what people think when they read a headline and they see "rape."

Also, rape of this nature is not really new. Heck, there are other news stories this month that have female teachers who have sex with their male students (example 1, and example 2. And if you're thinking the women get off scot-free, then check the bails set for each of the women: one is for $100,000 and the other is for $2,000,000. These crimes are not being taken lightly, even if they can't be called "rape.")

But an 11-year old boy being a father to a woman in her mid-30's is new. So that's what the headline is for a newspaper article. So you use that to hook your audience. Not the same old "Older Woman has Sex with a Minor" or "Adult Rapes a Minor" line that's been done before.

All-in-all, I think it's part of the attitude where people think women have it easy in matters such as this when that really isn't the case if you look at other levels of the matter. The woman will likely get as much jail time as a male in a similar situation, and her bail will likely be set just as high as a male in a similar situation. The headline appeals to the audience and is made as such to get more eyes on it.

That's why this is presented as such.
 
Not because of a lack of "sexual parity." There is evidence for that lack of parity and for double standards, but this isn't it, I'm afraid.
 
Now if you want to have a discussion about why the boy isn't traumatized (or assumed to be traumatized) while a girl would almost certainly be traumatized, then that's a different topic altogether.

Was the title and OP like you bring it here really necessary? Anyways:

Verbose wrote:

First off, consider the nature of vaginal sex. No matter what kind of position you’re in or who’s doing most of the action, the penis will be penetrating the vagina. And when people think of sex, they’re usually thinking “missionary” or “from behind” before they think of the woman being on top. That fundamental fact will generally play into the perception of “who is raping whom.” So the male is generally considered to be doing the “violating” (unless he himself is penetrated with an object or fingers,) even if he can’t consent to the sexual encounter in the first place.

Correct and incorrect. Due to the simple concept of penetration it is of course much easier to assume that the male is doing the rape. However, a simple fact you're forgetting here is that sexual assault does not have to contain penetration to be labeled as sexual assault. Inappropriate touching or forced kissing also fall within sexual assault. Because the term however contains "sexual", many keep it limited to actual rape (thus penetration), which is too simple minded.

I of course can't deny that sexual assault contains a huge majority of males onto females, but that doesn't exclude females from the act. But you seem aware of this, so we'll leave this alone now.

As for the nature of the header, this point of you Verbose:

But an 11-year old boy being a father to a woman in her mid-30’s is new. So that’s what the headline is for a newspaper article. So you use that to hook your audience. Not the same old “Older Woman has Sex with a Minor” or “Adult Rapes a Minor” line that’s been done before.

Explains it perfectly imo. A unique case simply requires a unique headline, which is what caused these headlines here. Sexual parity and double standards exist, but these headers are no examples of it.

This feels more like OP wanting to feel superior for discovering what he believed is a case of sexual parity in the media. Unfortunately for him he picked a wrong example.

@Vebose
I believe a double standard does exist here. Not only among the perpetrator, but the victim.
Imagine, just imagine the uproar, and outrage, these media outlets would receive if the roles were reversed, and, subsequently titled the article "11 year old gets knocked up". Heh, you can bet some heads would roll that day.

Adversely, if the perpetrator had been a man, I have absolute certainty that social justice would rear its ugly head with death threats, and "I hope he gets what he deserves in prison". From the commentary, this womans reception to the public, was quite tame in comparison to other sexual offenders. Even in another article, they point out that this now warrants further examination on female perpetrators (as, by default, we always assume them to be male). And, as a side note, if you think women having lesser sentences/public reception is just a singularity, you might want to reconsider as it has been proposed multiple times within several Justices systems, that women be given lesser sentences , for the same crimes. And of course, no such parallel has ever been conceived about male criminals. Just food for thought.

To say that Jurisprudence principles do not generically favor women (not just in sexual crimes, but also civil cases like child custody and domestic violence , and other violent crimes) would be a flat out lie. And, I would be so bold as to say that if one were to claim "women have it easier" when it comes to legal justice systems, such claims wouldn't be far off-base.
-
At any rate, my point is the public and media reception, would not be anywhere near the same if the roles were reversed (for both victim and perpetrator), and although it is only based on assumption, I'd be willing to bet the jury will feel far more sympathetic for her than if it was a male counterpart in her place.
Assertions on psychological impact are too soon to tell, and, as you said, not enough information is given to assess (which, I found rather odd.) And those are really for another subject to debate.

lol your a sexual parody in the sack lol

@Kyntak

Of course, there's a difference, but it is a different situation. That precludes it from being a double standard.

When an 11-year old girl is impregnated, she must deal with the child in one way or another. She must either abort the child (if possible) or have the child and then either put it up for adoption or somehow take care of it and be responsible for it. This being before she gets into middle school.

When an 11-year old boy gets a female impregnated, he won't have to deal with the kid in any meaningful context. He's a minor, he has no physical bond to the child outside of his genes, and he's not expected to take care of the kid.

As such, this instance is not a double standard. It's a different situation with different outcomes for the two victims. I might even argue that the crime isn't a crime against the boy (again, it appears that he only admitted what was going on because he knew it was wrong, and not because he was tormented by it.) The crime is a crime against the law (e.g., speeding without injuring someone.)
 
Also, remember what I said to conclude my previous post:

Now if you want to have a discussion about why the boy isn’t traumatized (or assumed to be traumatized) while a girl would almost certainly be traumatized, then that’s a different topic altogether.

If the boy here was seen and presented as being traumatized (also remember, he's not having to carry the child to term or deal with "killing" a human growing inside itself like a girl would, not to mention that the abortion procedure isn't simple or painless,) then I think you'd see comparable amount of anger from the "ugly head of social justice"
 
(I'll have you know that I think my head is quite the opposite of ugly, thank you very much.)
 
But even among 11-year old boys, they aren't going to cry and appear as depressed as girls about their age, either due to nature or nurture. It's hard to call for the head of a perpetrator who committed a crime that got herself impregnated and (apparently) didn't traumatize the boy.

Again, the case for this being similar to a case where an 11-year old girl gets impregnated by a man in his mid-30's isn't very strong. This isn't a double standard.

As for the links, I am almost certainly positive that you're misreading them in multiple ways. I'm not sure if you're in the area of the social sciences like me, but I'm pretty decent in terms of research.
 
@"you might want to reconsider" (Caylee Anthony case)

That is up in the air as to why Anthony went free. As the Wikipedia article says, this was determined by a citizen-based jury. The law let a few people determine whether or not Caylee Anthony was guilty.

In that, people wondered if the jury knew or understood what "reasonable doubt" meant. As such, they might not have ruled as well as a judge would have. Let's not forget that the prosecution focused less on the evidence and more on the character of Anthony.

And finally, this was notable, because most everyone who knew of the case believed Caylee Anthony should have gone to jail. If you put a jury together again 100 other times for that same case, then I think you'd agree that most of those juries would have found Anthony guilty.

@"multiple times" (Judges being advised to show more leniency to female criminals)

Note the entire context.

The controversial advice comes from the Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training the judiciary.

Advice can be turned down.

Also note that judges will always consider the situation. They're probably not just walking into a training session and saying "Go easy on the women, eh? They've had a tough life. Off for tea now!"

It's probably a consideration of the issues that women tend to have that men tend to not (or simply can't) have. If a person is attacking their spouse and the murderer assaults and kills the person in rage, then that person will likely get a lesser sentence than a person who simply decided to kill a person with a less reasonable cause.

That's the case here, I'd bet. If anyone has mental illness or mood disorder (and many women do, especially in terms of depression) or if they have a really difficult living situation when they commit a crime, it is in the best interest of justice to consider those factors before giving a sentence. Women often have these factors going against them (especially in regards to children), so when you see a woman, they're advising them to consider lesser sentences if the women has those things going against her.

If a woman is single, has no kids, no mood disorders or other ailment, and simply kills a person for the lulz, then I don't think judges are going to let her go with a "slap on the wrist" because she's a woman.

Also, note that this is from the UK. Extrapolations should be taken with a grain of salt and a crumpet if you're wanting to take that "across the pond."
 
@"women be given lesser sentences" (Women's prisons should close)

Well, it's odd you said "women be given lesser sentences" when the article you linked to under that actually calls for women's prisons to be closed. Not for women to be treated differently for crimes that are violent and actually affect another person like burglary, assault, and the like.
 
I might even say it's misleading?
 
Anywho, this is based on whether or not prison actually serves the purpose it's supposed to. Women often go to jail for drug-related offenses (men do too, but men commit violent crimes far more often than women.)

Furthermore, prison is very expensive, and it's an ineffective way to rehabilitate a drug offender. To get off of drugs and the reasons people do drugs in the first place, that person needs support from people who aren't fellow convicts and prison guards (who have been known to rape the imprisoned.) Considering it costs so much more to serve an ineffective sentence in prison (£56,000/year, according to the article) compared to an intensive community sentence (it's not being set free) which would run £15,000/year and would yield better results, why wouldn't you close prisons that don't do what they're supposed to and are a drain on the economy?

From a public health-related class involving the prison population I took, it's much better for men and women to be in the community in order to rehabilitate them. And if you're talking about drug-related offenses, very rarely (outside of "3 Strikes" policies, which are failures which should be discussed in another thread on another day,) do drugs cause crimes that require a person be locked up for an extended period of time.

A link, in case people believe women are more violent than men in terms of crime. Page 9, if you want to open a .pdf page from an online forum in the first place.

Child Custody: From the Wikipedia article you linked to.

Tender years doctrine was also frequently used in the 20th century being gradually replaced towards the end of the century, in the legislation of most states, by the "best interests of the child" doctrine of custody. Furthermore, several courts have held that the tender years doctrine violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Domestic violence: About the academic article you linked to:

That's talking about what researchers do (to each other and of themselves) to yield certain data. As a researcher, I can say with great certainty that what goes on at an academic institution and in science often has little bearing on what is written in law. "Jurisprudence" isn't really applicable here.

All in all, I'm not really swayed by your links or your argument, I'm sorry to say.

@Verbose, dear lard you type fast x.x
Well, actually, I was careful in saying 'knocked up', not 'gives birth to 36 year olds spawn' :) Semantics is a game of mine, hehe
But, on topic, I was assuming if she were pregnant then had an abortion (which, I assume the family would want for various reasons). I totally agree that birth would be different altogether. However, I extend a dreaded 'but' in saying that in neither situation (abortion or birth), they would spin the title to something as "news circusy" as what they did here.

(I’ll have you know that I think my head is quite the opposite of ugly, thank you very much.)

Psh, says you. lol, jk.

I will argue that the insinuation that she impregnating herself makes it, for lack of a better word, 'better', than if a man were to impregnate someone else. Because of reproductive rights, she got the final say in what happened (abortion, or birth), something the child or the childs family would never have even a glimpse of opportunity to object to (per example, they wanted an abortion because they think that will help them put this all behind them, the court will still rule: "Her body, her choice", oh the irony.)
In addition to that, in justice, intent is everything. The outcomes may be different but if a woman intends to take advantage of someone underage (which, I just realized, what would be the reception of the child was the same sex as the offender? because, then you have no pregnancy, but all the child abuse. What do you think?), she shouldn't be given any more or less punishment than a man who had identical intent.
In a case where you want to pursue the man for costs of abortion/pregnancy you would take him to civil court for emotional damages or child support for the child. (I'm not opposed to that, I just hate the amalgamation of two pursuits into one, i.e. sexual crime and pregnancy damages/costs, because then you have a clear cut difference within the same crime for different denominators, i.e. male, female, homosexual, heterosexual. If that makes sense x.x)

I'll concede to the Casey Anothny case, as it is more that just "she's a woman" but I will contend that if it were a man in question of harming the child, I don't think the jury would bat an eye as to whether they can define probable cause, or not.

Actually, I think you're missing the point in that, I stated that I've never once in my [albiet it short] life, come across the proposal of "lets close down mens prisons", or that we should go easier on men when it comes to criminal punishment (if anything, I'd say people believe in the opposite.) Even if a large portion, just like how you point out, are non-violent crimes (drug possession/distribution in particular). You show me that men commit the majority of violent crimes (which, I completely accept), but that doesn't mean the majority of crimes they commit are violent [.vs non violent ones]. So, why is it this concept is so vehement for female criminals that some insist they close down womens prisons altogether (in juxtaposition to where no one thinks the same about mens prisons, or cases where they suggest lesser sentences for certain crimes that are gender neutral, never explicitly about men).

In the case of emotional disturbance and crime, I'm not sure how to respond (besides the fact that, personally, I detest the twinkie defense of 'heat of the moment' protection clauses). I've said before that women act differently from men (on a hormonal level) much like you have just done, and been attacked as 'sexist' because 'men and women are the same'. Adversely, I then adapted to saying we are the same, and been attacked for being biologically unlearned. So, I'm between a rock and a hard place here as to how to respond, if the case of lesser sentencing is based on gender differences.
I will however say, as a side, that in the case of depression, there has been light cast on to whether we're seeing the full picture. It's been proposed that men suffer depression more than women but simply shrug it off (thus, explaining why women have higher rates of suicide attempt, but men have far higher suicide success, by about 4 or 5 times more.) That meaning that, like rape victim projections, there are more than we think because they refuse treatment or help, or even to identify as depressed. But, have at it what you will.

Um, I must point out with the Tender Years Doctrine, although it has been abolished, it still leaves an impression (trying to dismiss my example would be tantamount to dismissing racism existing because in Brown vs. BoE ended segregation. It still obviously exists, just as such does the courts favoring that women receive custody.)

Well, yes, it is. It's also about data manipulation. When you have certain groups who have a final say in the statistics or evidence, it can undoubtedly affect how laws will apply to such (thus my mention of jurisprudence--examining how laws are made). In Canada any research paper or report that is to be sent to the Minister of Justice (or any other Minister), must first be cleared by the Office of the Minister for the Status of Women, and in the US we have a similar chain of command. Not sure about the UK. Have at that what you will, as well.

(P.S. No, I'm not into social science work. I'm just a student and a scholar, not even in social sciences. I'm more fascinated by anthropology, biology and psychology, though, sociology is a rather interesting field too.)
(P.P.S. Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I disagree with what you say, well, not all of it, but I didn't think it was 'wrong' or outrageous. Sorry about mad peeps trying to put you down o.o)