Actually, I thought I addressed that when I stated that child support was for the child. If the father had custody and the mother didn’t then of course, she should pay support regardless of her victimhood or not. If the court found him to be the better parent, then he should collect support for said child.

Of course, if the boy is truly a victim AND isn’t demanding his parental rights and his parents aren’t demanding any claim to the child then maybe he shouldn’t be forced to support the kid. That isn’t the case here, is it?

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Don’t they?

Or do you stand with Mr. Sacks, who argues for equal victim status or equal non-victim status, but not unequal status?

Actually, I don’t stand with Mr. Sacks as it seems he very often argues in favor of men regardless of their guilt or innocence. He leans more towards making men the unjust victims of society rather than fighting that everyone be treated equally.

no I don’t think that implication is there.  perhaps it’s a sin of omission, but Oprah’s readership is probably very overwhelmingly women, and it would make sense for the author to tailor the article to reflect that.

P Mike,

I don’t think there was ever any assertion in the article that men enter teaching because they are pedophiles.  The article only states that a "classic pedophile" (regardless of gender since none is mentioned) would have entered teaching for the access to children, and draws a distinction there between (most) women teachers caught having sex with their students because they entered teaching for, in the author’s and some expert’s  opinions, the usual reasons.  It makes no comment on male teachers in general or even male teachers who have sex with their students specifically.

I think stat rape laws are nothing more than a means for angry parents to be vindictive when they find out their little darlin’ isn’t a virgin any longer.

Calling consensual sex rape because of an arbitrary age limit instituted by the state is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY, when so many people argue that a 13 y/o girl is old enough to decide to abort a baby but not old enough to consent to having sex.

That’s Mr. Sacks’s stated position as well.

Child support is about the innocent child’s needs and again arguing that a 15 y/o boy who got laid and made a baby is a "victim" because of his age is bullshit!

So then you’ve still left one question unargued: if the 19 year old man had custody, would you be OK with the court requiring the 15 year old mother to pay child support?

Mr. Sacks’s stated position is: a crime is a crime, regardless of the sex of the person committing it, and regardless of whether he agrees the action should be criminal; and if someone is statutorily a victim, then it is wrong for that person to be financially obligated due to that crime, regardless of the sex of the victim.

But at least on evidence presented so far, society’s position is: this crime is a crime, but if the person committing it is female, we don’t consider it to be serious; and if someone is statutorily a victim, then it is OK for that person to be financially obligated due to that crime, as long as the victim is male. So far, there is no evidence either way whether society would support financially obligating the female victim as well; but indicators are that female victims would receive preferential consideration.

So do you stand with society, with preferential treatment for female victims (regardless of whether you agree with their victime status)? Or do you stand with Mr. Sacks, who argues for equal victim status or equal non-victim status, but not unequal status?

By the way, if the option of adoption is always available–and it is–why should the boy be forced to pay child support?

I think stat rape laws are nothing more than a means for angry parents to be vindictive when they find out their little darlin’ isn’t a virgin any longer.

Calling consensual sex rape because of an arbitrary age limit instituted by the state is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY, when so many people argue that a 13 y/o girl is old enough to decide to abort a baby but not old enough to consent to having sex.

No Martin, I am even handed.

Child support is about the innocent child’s needs and again arguing that a 15 y/o boy who got laid and made a baby is a "victim" because of his age is bullshit! He’s a daddy now – just like all those little girls who became mommies for doing the exact same thing…

Re the article, I expect that some men are flattered and get a major ego boost when an attractive female pays them some attention.  I expect that (just like the women) some men have low self esteem and lots of societal pressures.  If that is some kind of justification for women…

I do not believe the teaching profession is rife with pedophiles; the implication in the story that men choose teaching because they are pedophiles is pretty vile.  I find it incredible that a pedophile would consciously choose the teaching profession specifically intending to support predation.  

(In my mind) there is a VERY large difference in the sexual nature between prepubescence and (particularly late) teens.  I tend to think of a pedophile as someone focused on children, not teens.   If you can get condoms in the school office, then there is a pretty blatant admission that kids are having sex.  If kids are having sex, I don’t know the basis for saying that they can’t have sex with someone from an older age bracket.  (My father-in-law was 15 years older than my mother-in-law.)  Maybe it is arguable that the teaching position inherently has too much authority to avoid coercion (or at least it used to).   

I would like to see some rational separation in the description of pedophile based on victim age; could be argued marriageable age, maybe something else.  If there is a rationale for singling out teacher-sex with students, make it a law.

The crime of theft is graded; there is petty theft and grand larceny and everyone knows there is a difference.  Sexual crimes are all kind of lumped together, and the heinous nature of some subset(s) of the named-crime does not fit well with others that are less clear cut. 

        There was a story in a college newspaper many years ago about a co-ed who ended up hanging with three guys in a bar.  They decided to go to another bar, couldn’t drive, and she fell down in the middle of the street and was too drunk to get up.  The guys had serial sex with her, but she didn’t know their names, couldn’t describe them, and couldn’t identify them.  Although I don’t condone, excuse, or support the guys, somehow in my mind that set of circumstances is totally different than where the guy who breaks into a house or kidnaps a victim. 

I only ask where was this chick when I was going to school? Awesome!

Seriously, society can see this any way it wants it’s when the law sees it differently that we have to worry. I hate double standards too, but this one exists because I never once in my years as a teenager ever cringed in fear at the thought of a hot female teacher trying to bang me.

I do see your point, but here’s how I saw the article:

1. There is a group of people.

2. This group is made up of teachers who have sex with students.

3. Of this group, we assert and specifically single out the females as not your classic pedophile.

I will concede that the author might not have had this intent, but doesn’t taking a certain group, and saying "This group is not X," seem to imply that things not in that group are X? In this case,  the things not in the "female" group, the males, are, classic pedophiles.

Please read more carefully. From the essay you mentioned:

[As an aside, I don’t believe a 19-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old should be statutory rape. However, legally in this case it is statutory rape–just as it would be if it were a 35-year-old with a 15-year-old–so demanding that the victim pay child support should be out of the question.–GS]

No double standard here.

Now ask yourself if you can be as even handed: if a 19 year old man impregnated a 15 year old girl, and if the court decided for whatever reason that he was a better parent and awarded him full custody, would you support him in suing the girl for child support? Or would you say, "Wait a minute, he raped her, and now she has to pay for it?"

I’m all for equality; and I agree that Mr. Sacks has a bit of a one-sided view on these cases. But as the Oprah article shows, he’s not the only one with a one-sided view. Women rapists are poor innocent victims in their eyes.