So I know it's completely possible for a man to be rape by a woman. So since a female victim or rape can sue if she gets pregnant I want to know what would happen if the roles were reversed. If the man was drugged, tied up, and forced to have sex against his will with a female and the woman who rape him ending up becoming pregnant can the man be forced to pay child support for the baby if she sues.

Being has it's harder to prove if a man was rape by a woman than it is when the role are reversed I am curious to know if the victim would end up having to suffer even more than what has already happened.

Mostly it is going to depend on if the rape was reported or not. Was it reported? Was there an arrest or conviction ?

This is a hypothetical question?

Assuming that the victim can prove he was raped, presumably the perpetrator would end up in prison and, if the father didn't ask for custody, the child could become a ward of the state. In theory, the state could then sue him for chid support, yes.

This is a hypothetical question?

Assuming that the victim can prove he was raped, presumably the perpetrator would end up in prison and, if the father didn't ask for custody, the child could become a ward of the state. In theory, the state could then sue him for chid support, yes.

I disagree. If the victim is the male and there was a conviction (which means it was proven in a court of law) then they wouldnt and can't sue for child support as that would further harm the victim.

If it were never reported then yes they can go after him for child support.

Rape is hard to prove. I'm the victim of rape, I didn't report it because I knew it would end up as a he said she said thing. I didn't get a rape exam after it happened. I scrubbed myself raw obliterating all evidence. Pointing the finger at my rapist without proof of what happened, would lead nowhere.

Many people cry rape. I don't doubt that a man can be raped. I do find it a bit out there though. In order for sex to happen a man has to have an erection. You get an erection when you're aroused. So how can you be raped without an erection, without being aroused? If you were aroused enough to get an erection, how is it rape?

But that's another topic of discussion.

Bottom line, if you didn't report it, didn't go to trial to establish you were raped, you're out of luck. There's nothing proving that this wasn't consensual sex unless you took the steps necessary to prove you didn't consent. The courts know that most men that impregnate a woman and are going to have to pay child support, will do anything they can do get out of it. Rape has to be proven, it can't just be a "I was raped" statement.

Rape is hard to prove. I'm the victim of rape, I didn't report it because I knew it would end up as a he said she said thing. I didn't get a rape exam after it happened. I scrubbed myself raw obliterating all evidence. Pointing the finger at my rapist without proof of what happened, would lead nowhere.

Many people cry rape. I don't doubt that a man can be raped. I do find it a bit out there though. In order for sex to happen a man has to have an erection. You get an erection when you're aroused. So how can you be raped without an erection, without being aroused? If you were aroused enough to get an erection, how is it rape?

But that's another topic of discussion.

Bottom line, if you didn't report it, didn't go to trial to establish you were raped, you're out of luck. There's nothing proving that this wasn't consensual sex unless you took the steps necessary to prove you didn't consent. The courts know that most men that impregnate a woman and are going to have to pay child support, will do anything they can do get out of it. Rape has to be proven, it can't just be a "I was raped" statement.

I understand what you saying, but there are a few things wrong with it. First a man doesn't have to be willing to get an erection there are many ways. The simplest way it just by physical touch that alone it enough to get a man to have an erection because it isn't a emotional response, but a physical one and can and will happen even if you're unwilling. The second is by the use of drugs to ensure that a man has one.

This is a hypothetical question?

Assuming that the victim can prove he was raped, presumably the perpetrator would end up in prison and, if the father didn't ask for custody, the child could become a ward of the state. In theory, the state could then sue him for chid support, yes.

A little, but it does stem from article I've read where a man was rape and other where a woman had stolen sperm. I can link you if you want.

I understand what you saying, but there are a few things wrong with it. First a man doesn't have to be willing to get an erection there are many ways. The simplest way it just by physical touch that alone it enough to get a man to have an erection because it isn't a emotional response, but a physical one and can and will happen even if you're unwilling. The second is by the use of drugs to ensure that a man has one.

I agree with you.

That still doesn't prove rape unless the male charged the female and proved rape.

Rape is called out so many times now, it's no longer a defense unless it can be proven. Those that are actually raped are at a great disadvantage because of the many people that cry rape, when rape didn't happen. For those of us that are actually raped, when we report it, we're not the victim, our lives are torn apart, everything ever done in our lives is called into question. We get to relive the rape over and over again, not only in our dreams, in our every moment, but in a courtroom. I chose not to do that because I knew it would be next to impossible to prove that the sex wasn't consensual. But I know it was rape. I know. Knowing something and proving it, two very different things.

Rape is one of the hardest things to prove for female victims. That makes male victims even harder to prove because a woman doesn't have to be aroused to be raped. If you get what I'm saying.

So, unless the person in your post, if it's not you, gets a conviction for rape against this women, he's responsible for child support. Obviously the child is already born. So what steps did this person take after the rape? Can rape be proven in court?

I agree with you.

That still doesn't prove rape unless the male charged the female and proved rape.

Rape is called out so many times now, it's no longer a defense unless it can be proven. Those that are actually raped are at a great disadvantage because of the many people that cry rape, when rape didn't happen. For those of us that are actually raped, when we report it, we're not the victim, our lives are torn apart, everything ever done in our lives is called into question. We get to relive the rape over and over again, not only in our dreams, in our every moment, but in a courtroom. I chose not to do that because I knew it would be next to impossible to prove that the sex wasn't consensual. But I know it was rape. I know. Knowing something and proving it, two very different things.

Rape is one of the hardest things to prove for female victims. That makes male victims even harder to prove because a woman doesn't have to be aroused to be raped. If you get what I'm saying.

So, unless the person in your post, if it's not you, gets a conviction for rape against this women, he's responsible for child support. Obviously the child is already born. So what steps did this person take after the rape? Can rape be proven in court?

And you see that's why I needed to ask. Because now rape is so hard to prove and it is even hard to proved than a man was raped than is a woman was. Though there are very few cases I had found a few where a man was raped by a woman, but I can never find was the results of the case were letting me to believe a female rapist would most likely wake away free knowing what she did as with a few man rapist do.

And you see that's why I needed to ask. Because now rape is so hard to prove and it is even hard to proved than a man was raped than is a woman was. Though there are very few cases I had found a few where a man was raped by a woman, but I can never find was the results of the case were letting me to believe a female rapist would most likely wake away free knowing what she did as with a few man rapist do.

Actually, most rapes aren't convicted, and most rapes are against women. Male rape is present, but not as wide spread as rape against women. It's a tiny percentage of the rapes that are reported.

The majority of women never even speak about their rape. Those that do, only a small percentage ever see a conviction against their rapist.

You seem to be trying to step on a soap box for male rape, and the injustice of it, especially if the female that raped gets pregnant and then goes after child support (that woman has balls to spare, rapes and then goes to court for support for the child that was conceived during a crime. Wow!)

Fact is, most real rapes never even make it to court, and those that do, most aren't convicted because rape is nearly impossible to prove. The majority of women that are raped, never report it, that number is even higher for men that are raped (especially because most men that are raped are raped by other men and the shame from that prevents them from filing charges). In order for your post to make sense, the female that raped the male, would have to be convicted of rape. Good luck with that. You'd need a lot of luck to make that happen.

So to break it down, unless the person in your post has gone to court charging this female of rape, and won, there's no way he's getting out of paying child support. Welcome to the real world. Welcome to the pain the majority of rape victims feel, because they can't prove what happened to them.

It is what it is.

I disagree. If the victim is the male and there was a conviction (which means it was proven in a court of law) then they wouldnt (sic) and can't sue for child support as that would further harm the victim.
...

If you can cite statute or case law for your opinion that would be fine, but your mere opinion is of no weight.

Treveyon, what is your reason for asking this? Are you studying law? Or is it just a matter of curiousity?

Bottom line here, is it is difficult to prove rape, even more difficult to prove a male was raped by a female. So unless rape is proven then the bio parent could still be responsible for child support.

Even if rape was proven, the male parent might still be held responsible for the child. This would be a matter for the court to decide because I doubt if the law (in any locale) is specific enough.

If you can cite statute or case law for your opinion that would be fine, but your mere opinion is of no weight.

Office for Victims of Crime - Victim Rights’ Laws (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/rights/legislation.html)

Male Victims of Statury Rape Pay Child Support (http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm)

The decision of the courts was that the sex was agreed upon and that the ruling stood in favor of support. In the case of the OP is would not be agreed upon. Therefore a release from child support would be possible. It is done all the time in adoption cases.


For further study:

Rape Victims Ordered To Pay Child Support « Family Scholars (http://familyscholars.org/2011/08/16/rape-victims-ordered-to-pay-child-support/)

Office for Victims of Crime - Victim Rights’ Laws (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/rights/legislation.html)

Male Victims of Statury Rape Pay Child Support (http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm)

The decision of the courts was that the sex was agreed upon and that the ruling stood in favor of support. In the case of the OP is would not be agreed upon. Therefore a release from child support would be possible. It is done all the time in adoption cases.


For further study:

Rape Victims Ordered To Pay Child Support « Family Scholars (http://familyscholars.org/2011/08/16/rape-victims-ordered-to-pay-child-support/)

I have read all three links you gave. There is but one mention of a court deciding that the victim of rape (statutory rape in the examples in your links, but nevertheless) would not have to pay CS. The closest it gets is this:


"Tennessee: A third case has been submitted to the Court of Appeals for the western section of Tennessee, home of the Davis v. Davis case, which said that the party wishing to avoid procreating should normally prevail (that's good). The man's argument in this case looks pretty good to me. "
The trial court opinion would perhaps be authority for your position, if it were in a reported appellate opinion.