Indian police charge 12 year old with rape for getting an 18 year old girl pregnant

India proves yet again that it is a terrible place for male rape victims. In case that I cannot begin to explain, Indian police charged a 12 year old boy with rape after an 18 year girl gave birth at a hospital:

Kalamassery police have registered a case against a 12-year-old boy and a private hospital here after an 18-year-old girl gave birth to a baby.

While the boy was booked under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act for allegedly impregnating the girl two months before she turned 18, the hospital was charged for breaching the POCSO Act by not informing the police.

According to the Juvenile Justice Act, the boy faces a potential three in prison for:

[…] having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering […]

If it seems like you are missing something, you are not alone. I looked up as many articles about this case as I could find, and not one of them explained how anyone determined that the 12 year old fathered the child, let alone why he and not the girl was held responsible. This was the best explanation: Continue reading

Ontario court finds lying about taking the pill is A-okay

Oh,  Canada. The phrase takes on a different meaning considering how often the Canadian government screws over its citizens. In their latest instance of legal stupidity, a court ruled that lying about taking birth control is not grounds for a lawsuit:

In upholding an earlier ruling on the case, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the woman’s behaviour was not enough to open her up to the man’s highly unusual claim for damages.

“I see no basis on which to impose liability on the mother for any net negative impact (he) may consider that he has suffered due to his having fathered the child,” Justice Paul Rouleau wrote for the court.

That is right. Tricking a man into parenthood and essentially raping him by deceiving him into giving consent under false pretenses should result in zero liability. Go on and lie to get someone to have sex with you. Go on and get pregnant and later sue the man for child support. This is apparently legal in Canada.

As the Justice explained:

Allowing the father to recover damages from the mother for the unwanted birth would run counter to a clear trend in family law to move away from faulting one partner over another, Rouleau said.

That is interesting considering that Canada allows mothers sue sperm donors years after insemination, despite the obvious intent of the man to never have any financial or physical responsibility for the child.

Would that not “run counter to a clear trend in family law to move away from faulting one partner over another”? Or does this only apply to men?

The situation in the current case is simple: the woman claimed she was on birth control and the pair had unprotected sex. After they broke up, the woman texted the man (because calling him would have been too hard) to tell him she was pregnant.

The man sued the woman:

for more than $4 million for fraudulent misrepresentation, arguing he suffered emotional harm from his unplanned parenthood. He claimed DD’s deception over her use of the pill had deprived him of the benefit of choosing when and with whom he would become a dad.

“He wanted to meet a woman, fall in love, get married, enjoy his life as husband with his wife and then, when he and his wife thought the time was ‘right,’ to have a baby,” PP said in his statement of claim.

The $4 million suit is ridiculous as it would never be paid. However, given what the man would pay for child support, the amount seems rather tame. And make no mistake, the same system ignoring this clear act of deception would have no problem forcing the man to pay for the child.

In January last year, Superior Court Justice Paul Perell struck the claim without a hearing on its merits after deciding PP had no legal grounds to sue. Perell also banned publication of the couple’s names to protect the child, who might one day discover the “salacious and ignobly pleaded” facts of the case.

Or rather, the judge banned the release of the mother’s name to protect her in case she attempts to rape another man via deception to get pregnant.

Essentially, Perell ruled that fraudulent misrepresentation could only give rise to a claim for financial damages —not for emotional distress. He also decided any emotional harm PP suffered did not amount to a personal injury.

How does discovering you are an unexpected father via deception not cause financial damages? As I noted, this woman is likely to sue for child support. Does that not count?

Secondly, how does one not suffer personal injury from emotional harm? Are one’s emotions not part of a person? Would not damage to one’s emotions damage one’s person? Or does the judge mean physical injury? Is emotional damage prohibited in civil suits?

The judge did concede that the deception was tantamount to rape, but argued that this was immaterial because the suit was about unwanted parenthood.

The man appealed the decision, arguing:

On appeal, PP argued among other things that he should at least have been allowed to take his novel claim to trial, and that he should have been allowed to assert that the unwanted child would harm him financially.

The Appeal Court, however, found that a fraud that causes no loss cannot give rise to a lawsuit for damages, and that PP’s emotional distress didn’t count as a loss. It also said he suffered no physical injury or “pathological” emotional harm.

“The damages consist of the appellant’s emotional upset, broken dreams, possible disruption to his lifestyle and career, and a potential reduction in future earnings, all of which are said to flow from the birth of a child he did not want,” the Appeal Court said.

And the fact that this happened as a result of of someone tricking him into unprotected sex simply does not matter. Again, women can sue anonymous sperm donors for child support and win the suit, yet this man cannot even get the court to acknowledge that he is emotionally harmed by being raped by deception and forced into fatherhood. The court took it one step further:

The court, which looked to Britain and the U.S. to find similar cases, also ruled that DD’s deception about her use of the pill did not expose PP to the risk of serious physical injury during sex he willingly took part in. As a result, the court said, DD did not violate PP’s right to physical or sexual autonomy that could be viewed as an assault.

Except he only engaged in the sex under the false notion that the woman was taking birth control. This circumvents his sexual autonomy via the lie. He would not have had sex with her if he knew she could get pregnant. The woman lied in order to get him to have sex. What part of that is not a violation of his sexual autonomy?

The panel also trotted out the potential for pregnancy even when taking the pill. While this can happen, the risk is rather low, particularly if the pill is taken regularly. This argument then makes no sense outside of trying to excuse this woman’s behavior.

The reason the court rejected this suit is because the victim is male. If the situation were reversed, the man would be financially liable for claiming he was infertile or had a vasectomy if that proved untrue.

Of course, Canada has a long history of ignoring men’s rights, so the decision, as idiotic as it is, comes as no surprise.

Bulletin Board v303

2 Former Penn State Administrators Plead Guilty To Roles In Abuse Scandal — Two former high-level Penn State administrators pleaded guilty Monday to misdemeanor charges of child endangerment, for their roles in covering up child sex abuse by disgraced assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Former Vice President Gary Schultz and former Athletic Director Tim Curley each took a plea bargain that — if accepted by the judge — will carry a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. As part of the plea bargain, the felony charges they originally faced were reduced to misdemeanors.

Battered Men: The Hidden Hurt — Battered men desperately sought help for years in California, but their efforts consistently fell on deaf ears. It took four battered men and a 2008 lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men for the California Supreme Court to recognize that men are entitled to equal protection and advocacy support from domestic violence shelters. Domestic violence accounts for a surprising proportion of violent crime in the United States. Close to one in six murder victims is killed by an intimate partner. Nearly three-fourths of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner.

Dozens Say Christian Leader Made British Boys ‘Bleed for Jesus’ — Having disclosed his “sin” of masturbation, Mark Stibbe, age 17, was ordered to strip naked and lean over a wooden chair in the garden shed of a lavish Hampshire mansion on the southern coast of England. Then came the first blow from a cane, its impact so ferocious that it sent the boy into a state of paralysis that lasted through at least 30 more strokes that left him collapsed on the floor, blood oozing down his legs. Continue reading

6 Things Milo Yiannopoulos Never Stated About the Sexual Abuse of Boys

I do dislike when feminists who do not care about men’s issues consider themselves authorities on the matter. I particularly dislike when a feminist with a history of treating men’s issues as a joke decide to “educate” people about those issues. I truly hate when someone who has attacked male rape victims presumes to defend them.

Enter Joanna Schroeder. She is a member the Good Men Project, and has previously maligned male victims for challenging feminism and speaking about their experiences on their own terms. She has spent her time at GMP and on other sites like the Daily Dot periodically virtue-signalling about sexual violence against boys by repeating the same things actual advocates and male victims have stated for years. She then goes silent about the topic until another a major news story hits that she can use to tell people what they already know.

Like many people, she wrote an article about Yiannopoulos’s statements regarding older men having sex with boys. Yet Schroeder decided to take a different approach, claiming that Milo “minimizes the impact that abuse like this can have upon the boys who are victimized” and perpetuates myths about male victimization.

It is a bizarre claim because we can hear Milo’s words and he never claimed that boys could not be victims. He never stated that boys are not harmed by abuse. He never stated that adults could not prey on children. This makes Schroeder’s position that she wants to:

[…] take a moment to quickly debunk some very common myths about male survivors of sexual abuse, some of which Milo perpetuates in his interview.

Because male survivors deserve for the world to know the truth, so that they can get the support they need, and stop being blamed for the abuse they endured.

rather ridiculous, not only because that is not what Milo said, but also because her second sentence is the continuation of a clause and therefore should be attached using a comma.

But let us allow Schroeder to explain to us how Milo perpetuates myths about male victims: Continue reading

Bulletin Board v302

At Wisconsin Juvenile Prisons, Children Face a Nightmare of Solitary Confinement and Abuse — At the Lincoln Hills School for Boys (LHS), a juvenile correctional facility in far northern Wisconsin, two entire buildings called the Krueger Unit and the Roosevelt Unit exist solely for the purpose of holding children in solitary confinement for 22 to 23 hours a day. Each unit holds two-dozen isolation cells, which measure seven by ten feet and contain only a metal sink, a toilet, a mattress, and an odor of sweat and urine.

Falsely Accused of Rape, Brian Banks Recounts How He Was Railroaded Into Prison by His White Lawyer — Former football standout Brian Banks reveals how an innocence kiss in a known makeout spot ruined his life for years and how his lawyer helped orchestrate it by telling him an all-white jury would convict him because “he was a big Black teenager.” When Banks was 16 years old, he went to the spot with a young woman he found attractive. He’d known her since middle school and one day, they decided to go to the secluded location.

Former teacher at top London private school jailed for sexually abusing boys and teenagers — Patrick Marshall, 70, was today convicted of the abuse of ten boys in the sixties and seventies while he was employed first at Windsor Grammar School and then at St Paul’s School in Barnes, south-west London. Marshall, a rowing coach and geography teacher, used his position to gain the trust of the boys’ families, before plying the youngsters with alcohol and presents and making them perform sexual acts. Continue reading

This is what rape hysteria driven misandry looks like

When you deal in fear mongering, it is only a matter of time before your response becomes completely unreasonable. Such is the case with Kasey Edwards’s reaction to all the hyperbolic concern over child sexual abuse.

No one can fault a parent for wanting to protect their children from abuse. However, Edwards’s method is pure stupidity:

When our first daughter was born my husband and I made a family rule: no man would ever babysit our children. No exceptions. This includes male relatives and friends and even extracurricular and holiday programs, such as basketball camp, where men can have unrestricted and unsupervised access to children.

Eight years, and another daughter later, we have not wavered on this decision.

Edwards argues that it is too easy for men and boys to lure her daughters away without being noticed. Never mind that the vast majority of men and boys are not child abusers. Never mind that despite all her efforts would not prevent a woman or girl from abusing her daughters. No, Edwards is convinced that men are a threat to be avoided. Continue reading

Milo Yiannopoulos accused of supporting pedophilia

One lesson very controversial people must learn is that they will eventually say something they ought not say. This is not a matter telling them to silence their free expression. Rather, it is a basic truth. It is not because what they say will be wrong, but that it can easily be used against them.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-professed provocateur. He says things he does not necessarily believe because of the reaction it will get. He also happens to say things he does believe that prompt the same outrage. Unless you follow his comments and understand his mannerisms, it is easy to confuse one of his jokes for his actual opinion. He also tends to mire his genuine opinion in with outrageous commentary, making even more difficult to parse his intention.

I think this is what happened with his comments about cross-generational sex. The Reagan Battalion released an edited version of a Drunken Peasants podcast Milo was on in 2016. In the podcast, Milo makes several statements regarding adult men having sexual encounters with teen boys. I think it is important to hear the exchange in context to understand precisely what Milo said. Here is the beginning of the exchange: Continue reading