Triggering (Abuse): Woman Ordered To Pay Spousal Support To Ex-Husband/Rapist

[FlyingTrue]

W...T...F...

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/loca...acker-20111121

[Cosmo]

I am so angry right now. Only partially at the fact that she has to pay.

Mainly because this wouldn't even be on the news if it was the other way around, as it often is. It only makes news when it's a woman suffering at the hand of the ridiculous custody laws.

[Revolution]

And, well, he raped her, and she has to pay him. That also may be why it's on the news.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

And, well, he raped her, and she has to pay him. That also may be why it's on the news.

There's an equally shocking story of a man, raped by a woman, who had to pay child support for the kid when she got pregnant and decided to keep it. That got no coverage on major news stations. Only difference is reversal of genders.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

There's an equally shocking story of a man, raped by a woman, who had to pay child support for the kid when she got pregnant and decided to keep it. That got no coverage on major news stations. Only difference is reversal of genders.

I'd really want to see that example... do you have any links? I'm not asking with intent to "challenge" you or anything.. I'm just interested. I've heard of such things going on of course, but very rarely does anyone draw any attention to it.

[dr2005]

At face value this seems to set a very worrying precedent. That said, I think it is fair to say basing one's opinion of the family courts and the wider judicial system on the Fox Network and its various offshoots is just asking for trouble - that article was for me loaded with emotional arm-twisting and moral outrage such that it can hardly be deemed an objective source to put it mildly. In instances such as these, where a limited set of facts is presented (and the case report is not available to corroborate it), we are quite clearly only receiving a partial picture. As such, I cannot in good conscience pass any real comment on this, because I do not have the rationale available to critique. What I would say, though, is that the justice system does not produce such rulings for the hell of it - some are dubious, granted, but there has to be an underlying reason for it.

[tilldeath]

so sad. He's pretty much getting a slap on a wrist.
What kind of justice is this?

[John Osborne]

Originally Posted by dr2005

At face value this seems to set a very worrying precedent. That said, I think it is fair to say basing one's opinion of the family courts and the wider judicial system on the Fox Network and its various offshoots is just asking for trouble - that article was for me loaded with emotional arm-twisting and moral outrage such that it can hardly be deemed an objective source to put it mildly. In instances such as these, where a limited set of facts is presented (and the case report is not available to corroborate it), we are quite clearly only receiving a partial picture. As such, I cannot in good conscience pass any real comment on this, because I do not have the rationale available to critique. What I would say, though, is that the justice system does not produce such rulings for the hell of it - some are dubious, granted, but there has to be an underlying reason for it.

I am pretty sure I also saw it on CBS quite awhile ago, so it isn't just coming from Fox.

Obviously we don't have the full picture, but keep in mind he was convicted of raping her and that was proven in court.

Alimony has its origins in helping women due to in the past women were extremely dependent on their husband for financial support. This blatently goes against the spirit in which these laws were originally intended. I believe that spouses shouldn't be forced to pay alimony to someone who commits a crime.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by BDF

I'd really want to see that example... do you have any links? I'm not asking with intent to "challenge" you or anything.. I'm just interested. I've heard of such things going on of course, but very rarely does anyone draw any attention to it.

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art199903.html


http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...-case-08022011


Just two, I could probably find more but my history has been cleared numerous times since I first started hearing about these things.

[John Osborne]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art199903.html


http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...-case-08022011


Just two, I could probably find more but my history has been cleared numerous times since I first started hearing about these things.

The first link I won't respond to because I am far to busy to actually read through the article objectively.

I hardly find Fox to be fair and unbalenced. I mean I find the story very hard to believe. The man was in a car and she jumped on him and started having sex against his will? How hard is it to simply open the door and get out? Even if it did happen it hardly can compare with the large amount of women who have been raped often violently. (unlike this victim)

I would also advise you to keep in mind 99% of offenders are men. (I will provide citations if you want) So argue all you want that men are somehow victims of some form of reverse sexism all you want, but statistics argue against you.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by John Osborne

The first link I won't respond to because I am far to busy to actually read through the article objectively.

I hardly find Fox to be fair and unbalenced. I mean I find the story very hard to believe. The man was in a car and she jumped on him and started having sex against his will? How hard is it to simply open the door and get out? Even if it did happen it hardly can compare with the large amount of women who have been raped often violently. (unlike this victim)

I would also advise you to keep in mind 99% of offenders are men. (I will provide citations if you want) So argue all you want that men are somehow victims of some form of reverse sexism all you want, but statistics argue against you.

I'd bet that more then 90% of rapes by women on men go unreported out of shame. This is my own opinion, but there is even more stigma against men in regards to rape.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

There's an equally shocking story of a man, raped by a woman, who had to pay child support for the kid when she got pregnant and decided to keep it. That got no coverage on major news stations. Only difference is reversal of genders.

For that story, I understand your anger, but most rapes happen upon women by men. But I do feel bad for that particular man. You should put that article in debates, I would love to see reactions. So many people think men cannot be raped, particularly cannot be raped by women. Sex without consent is rape, just because a man gets an erection doesn't mean he wants to. Anything can happen.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by John Osborne

The first link I won't respond to because I am far to busy to actually read through the article objectively.

Thanks for putting in the effort.

Originally Posted by John Osborne

I hardly find Fox to be fair and unbalenced. I mean I find the story very hard to believe. The man was in a car and she jumped on him and started having sex against his will? How hard is it to simply open the door and get out? Even if it did happen it hardly can compare with the large amount of women who have been raped often violently. (unlike this victim)

I don't either but at the same time, the point is that I've linked to a major news source to prove my point. It's not up to you to demonstrate why it doesn't.
Also, if you said the rest of what you said to a woman, you'd be called a rape apologist. Because that's all you are. A rape apologist. You're happy to see men be raped because you don't care. The fact that more women are raped than men doesn't mean that this man's case is irrelevant or that the case that OP posted is somehow still more important. Men can be raped, just as women can. Men report rape even less, statistics are estimated that about 90% of raped men don't report it, which is much higher than women.

Originally Posted by John Osborne

I would also advise you to keep in mind 99% of offenders are men. (I will provide citations if you want) So argue all you want that men are somehow victims of some form of reverse sexism all you want, but statistics argue against you.

Oh please, you quite clearly have a preschoolers understanding of statistics. Statistics don't argue either way, one interprets them into proving a point. The fact that 99% of rapists are men doesn't mean anything in regards to what I've said earlier. You're just being lazy, and shouting off how bad men are because you can't be arsed to come up with a decent argument.

[John Osborne]

Originally Posted by Guile

I'd bet that more then 90% of rapes by women on men go unreported out of shame. This is my own opinion, but there is even more stigma against men in regards to rape.

Possibly, but I find it somewhat unlikely due to basic gender role psychology.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by John Osborne

Possibly, but I find it somewhat unlikely due to basic gender role psychology.

Basic gender role psychology dictates that men are the strong, invincible ones. Therefore when in a helpless situation and raped by a woman, the shame far exceeds that felt by women in the same situation, because men are in a totally different social setup to women. Most men don't report it for fear they'll be laughed at, won't be believed or shamed. And when most men do report it, they are shamed by people.

[John Osborne]

Okay I will try to get through this as politely as I can in the quote.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Thanks for putting in the effort.

You're welcome.



I don't either but at the same time, the point is that I've linked to a major news source to prove my point. It's not up to you to demonstrate why it doesn't.
Also, if you said the rest of what you said to a woman, you'd be called a rape apologist. Because that's all you are. A rape apologist. You're happy to see men be raped because you don't care. The fact that more women are raped than men doesn't mean that this man's case is irrelevant or that the case that OP posted is somehow still more important. Men can be raped, just as women can. Men report rape even less, statistics are estimated that about 90% of raped men don't report it, which is much higher than women.

Name calling much? The only thing I found of relevence to the discussion was the last sentence which I googled and I can't find anything of the such. A link would be nice.



Oh please, you quite clearly have a preschoolers understanding of statistics. Statistics don't argue either way, one interprets them into proving a point. The fact that 99% of rapists are men doesn't mean anything in regards to what I've said earlier. You're just being lazy, and shouting off how bad men are because you can't be arsed to come up with a decent argument.[/color]

Can you please stop with the derogatory remarks? The fact that 99% of rapists are men has everything to do with the point because it gives an insight into male and female psychology.

And thanks for telling me that because I didn't know that statistics didn't really argue! I was clearly intending that not to be taken literally.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by John Osborne

I am pretty sure I also saw it on CBS quite awhile ago, so it isn't just coming from Fox.

Obviously we don't have the full picture, but keep in mind he was convicted of raping her and that was proven in court.

Alimony has its origins in helping women due to in the past women were extremely dependent on their husband for financial support. This blatently goes against the spirit in which these laws were originally intended. I believe that spouses shouldn't be forced to pay alimony to someone who commits a crime.

To be honest I don't regard CBS as particular more objective than Fox, but fair enough.

On a more technical point, the article refers to her ex-husband as a rapist yet according to other reports I have found he was convicted of sexual assault, with no verdict returned on the spousal rape charges. Had he been convicted of spousal rape, he would likely have been sent to prison for much longer under the terms of Penal Code 667.61. As such, he cannot correctly be referred to as a rapist as he has not been convicted of that offence. Admittedly the boundaries between the two offences are not particularly substantial, but it is an important distinction nonetheless as it indicates the severity of the act constituting the offence. It does not particularly help that the Fox article refers to the wrong part of the California Penal Code (it's section 262, not 261) either but that is a somewhat moot point. Ms Harris may well identify herself as a rape victim, and that is her choice, but applying the legal use of the term in the same way as the vernacular use of the term doesn't particularly help anyone. We are still talking about a serious sexual offence being carried out, but the debate will proceed better if we pick the right one to begin with. This point alone illustrates the problems caused by not having the judgment available to corroborate the article's claims, which was the point I was making.

On the alimony comment, while its origins are indeed in supporting women who are financially dependent upon their husbands it is now available to both genders if the financial situation demands it. As Mr Harris was dependent upon his wife for financial support, he is technically eligible for alimony under the divorce proceedings. The only circumstance in which he would not be eligible would be if he were convicted of her attempted murder, as the article says. I admit it sounds completely absurd, but the family courts and criminal courts operate under different jurisdictions and so matters from one cannot automatically be brought to bear in another (blame the double jeopardy principle for that one). The proposed amendment would seek to change that, but that is a separate debate and one which should be had on the full merits of the case and not as a knee-jerk reaction to an article majoring in emotional blackmail. All that is achieved by doing that is bad legislation, and there is plenty of that on the statute books already.

I feel I should point out that in general I agree that this is a worrying precedent to set, and one I do not fully understand; however, I cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance of having all the facts to hand before drawing conclusions. The law is not meant to be used for knee-jerk reactions.