Picture this, June 2010. A man has his drink tampered with, in his own house. He. Is drugged with a "mickey" against his will and knowledge. The woman leads him into his own bedroom and rapes him. She gets pregnant. The man reports this act to the police and the police's response is" sorry Charlie. Face it, no man will ever be awarded judgement in court for rape charges against a female. There's nothing we can do because the charges will never be allowed to stick."

Now, the woman files paternity against the man, quits her job, and tries to seek child support. I ask you, is this fair? Seems like she is doing this to get free money so she doesn't have to work a day in her life anymore. How can the Justice system allow such an atrocity?

... "no man will ever be awarded judgement in court for rape charges against a female. ..."

The officer quoted, if that's what he/she said, was confused about the system. In a criminal case, the victim is not "awarded a judgment". The state is given a judgment against the criminal defendant. An "award of judgment" would pertain to a civil case. The man could sue the woman for damages and, perhaps, he could ask for, among other things, whatever he might be obligated to pay to support a child conceived by such rape.


... Now, the woman files paternity against the man, quits her job, and tries to seek child support. I ask you, is this fair? Seems like she is doing this to get free money so she doesn't have to work a day in her life anymore. ...

Did this really happen, or are you posing a hypothetical question?

If this is for real, consider asking for child custody.

She is not entitled to quit her job so as to increase the amount of child support due to her. She will have income imputed to her in the amount she was earning at her job, so as to calculate the child support owed.

How are you going to prove what happened and that you had no participation in the act that created the child ? Think about that. What you need to do is focus on the here and now. You have a child. Seek the courts permission and garner as much time as you can with your child.

If you try going into court with this it will be thrown out for lack of evidence, SO its time to deal with this before the future slips away.

Yes, this really did happen. The man was harassed by this woman and he family for over a year. She turned out to be an avid drug user, and a past history of serious psychological issues as well. There was no way for this man to know before hand or he never would have allowed her into his home. She, as well as her degenerate family, had made a series of death threats towards the man and his other family members. He has proof of this, and filed a PPO against her and won.

Yet, this innocent man is being rail roaded by the system. The judicial system has refused to take into consideration the woman's instabilities as a potential mother. This poor guy has been run out of his home, due to the lack of personal safety, his business has been ruined because of her stalking and slanderous remarks to his clients, he had to file bankruptcy, and to top it all off he's now homeless and unemployed.

What's worse, is there's an innocent child caught in the middle, where the woman is using the child as a "meal ticket" and its absolutely disgustinghow the system turns a blind eye. It's amazing, after all this man has been put through, that he hasn't opted out by suicide. No man deserves to be put through such atrocities, especially since he's completely innocent of the night in question. Oh, did I mention the woman leaves the child in care of her father, who happens to be a heroine addict. Of which, she posted publicly on Facebook, as well as soft core porn pics of her while she was pregnant, showing off her stomachs as she spread her legs!!

Now, you tell me how the courts feel its OK to look past that? Concern for the child? I agree to that, because the child is being kept in a terrible environment, and everyone knows this. Typical of society to look away, all the while cast judgement upon the man. Why? Because in today's day and age, it is now socially acceptable, to act like that. Shame on them all!!

Istandup, what is your role in all of this? It could be that you are only getting one side of the story.

For purposes of my own, I prefer not to say. Yet, I assure you, my role is completely unbiased. All sides have been considered. The facts described, are simply that. The facts. The truth. End of story. Is it really that unbelievable? I think you know it really happened the way the facts were described. Or, you never would have asked that question.

Being a guy myself, I just don't see how a woman could have actually raped a guy to the point where he was able to get an erection and do what needs to be done. She drugged him and he was able to perform but was raped? Maybe he made a mistake and had sex with her willingly but then she got pregnant and now is simply trying to find a way to get out of his responsibility? That seems more likely to me.

It is more than possible for a man to be drugged into a partial comatic state, and be stimulated by touch to get an erection. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me you've never gotten "morning wood"? Same difference.

See people? Just what I was talking about earlier. Society is quick to lay judgement against the male in matters like this; even AFTER hearing all the facts, which substantiate the man's claim. Shame on you!

It is more than possible for a man to be drugged into a partial comatic state, and be stimulated by touch to get an erection. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me you've never gotten "morning wood"? Same difference.

See people? Just what I was talking about earlier. Society is quick to lay judgement against the male in matters like this; even AFTER hearing all the facts, which substantiate the man's claim. Shame on you!

Excuse me? What "facts" have we heard. All we have heard is the man's side of what happened. Yes it is certainly possible for a man to be drugged in such a state as to be able to harvest sperm.

My question is whether the man was aware the next morning that he had been drugged. If so, did he try to get a drug screening to prove he had been drugged. If he did not do this, then he lost his chance.

As for your indictment of the justice system, I agree it is not always fair. But its built on the analysis of evidence. Without proof of being drugged we have a he said/she said situation. And it would appear this man did not have good legal representation. There are many things the man could have done to protect himself. Apparently he did not do what he could or had bad advice in dealing with this situation.

And finally, you condemn our justice system because of an unusual case. Shame on YOU! While I'll be the first to admit our system is not perfect and sometimes the law fails justice, it is the fairest system it could be.

I agree with Califdad... this is crap. If it were true, he would have done something about it when it first happened. I still think he had a night with her and then regretted it... oops.

On top of that, the way you comment on here makes it seem utterly crazy. You have people (other than me) that are trying to explain the legality of it all to you and why it isn't possible at this time, yet you blow up about it and carry on like as if they were the ones making the law.


Thank you for reinforcing and substantiated the facts as described earlier, as very possible.

Nope... you still haven't presented any facts other than your opinions and crazy rantings.


However, since the man cannot afford that luxury, the poor get rail roared, so the courts make thier money back. It's a business, plain and simple

Now you're saying this guy has no money? I thought the whole purpose of this "rape" was for this woman to quit work and get a free ride from him. Seems to me she could have picked someone better if he's poor.



So next time, before you open your mouth, don't forget to have an idea of what you think you might know on which you're talking about.

Yeah... Scott knows quite a bit about law... quite a bit more than you do obviously. Even though you try to write like you're legally educated and such, it doesn't really show.

Good day to you!

... If you knew anything about the judicial system, then you should know the golden clause "beyond a reasonable doubt". ...

If you knew anything about the judicial system, you would know that the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt only pertains to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases concerning child support.

If it were a criminal case, against the mother for an alleged rape, the reasonable doubt standard would work in her favor. The state would have to prove that she actually did what you are suggesting she did, beyond a reasonable doubt. And since the alleged victim didn't make any attempt to preserve the evidence of the "crime", it isn't going to be able to do that.


... the poor get rail roared, ....

The word you were looking for is "railroaded", as in "railroad".

Closed, OP taking third party and may not have true knowledge of events since they will not say their role in it ( perhaps police officer who ignored the poor man ?)

Next starting to be a rant on constitutional law which is not the issue, criminal law which are accepted law and no grounds for challenge laws shown.

I'm going to add one more thing here. If you want a reasonable and civil discussion of this situation I will be glad to do so. So far you haven't come close to doing so. You have done nothing but rant and insult the people you asked to provide you feedback. We gave you honest feedback based on what you provided as information. We did it from an unbiased viewpoint based on our knowledge of the law.

So if you want a reasonable and civil discussion PM me and I'll reopen the thread. But you will be on a short leash to keep it civil and reasonable.

Agreed, the OP to this point is not being honest of their role, and not willing to discuss the legal aspects of it, actual state law that is there. In fact in some states, the actual rape laws may not allow a women to "rape" a man, it may be sexual misconduct but each state has its own laws.