I don’t keep up with the celebrity gossip, but apparently some woman that pop sensation Justin Bieber (allegedly?) had sex with is claiming that she is pregnant by him. The problem is that he was below the California age of consent:
Mariah Yeater, the woman who claims Justin Bieber fathered her baby in a backstage bathroom, could be investigated for having sex with a minor because the singer was 16 at the time.
While no crime has been reported, Los Angeles Police Commander Andrew Smith told The Associated Press on Thursday that the department could investigate after Yeater filed the paternity suit against the teen heartthrob in San Diego Superior Court.
“If it’s brought to our attention, of course we’ll look into it,” Smith said.
Of course, even if the child was a product of “rape”, Bieber would still be on the hook for child support:
“The issue of statutory rape, even if she’s guilty, hypothetically, that has no bearing on the duties to provide child support,” said one of Yeater’s lawyers, Matthew Pare. “It’s a totally separate issue.”
He absolutely should be on the hook for child support, if the kid is his. But that’s not indicative that it should be “separate issue[s],” but rather that the sex should not have been illegal in the first place.
Seriously, the age of consent in California is 18? I would not have guessed that it would be particularly high in that particular state.
Seriously, the age of consent in California is 18? I would not have guessed that it would be particularly high in that particular state.
Shouldn’t that be the default expectation? I remember an episode of “LA Law” 20 odd years ago in which age of consent was an issue. It was 18. Nobody even hinted that was an injustice.
Comment by ? — November 11, 2011 @ 9:48 pm
The more typical age of consent is 16. California is one of only a few where it’s a strict 18. I knew that there were some of those out there, but didn’t know that Cali was one of them.
Comment by trumwill — November 11, 2011 @ 10:42 pm
Yes, 18. I believe it’s the same in New York and all other wealthy states with large metro populations. It’s the poor/rural states that have the lower ages.
Comment by stone — November 12, 2011 @ 11:16 am
There actually doesn’t seem to be much rhyme of reason to where the states are, except that the only states that allow for 14 are not remarkably urban (Arkansas, Iowa, and Indiana).
States with a strict 18 AOC: Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin
States where the maximum age of consent is 18 but 16 is permissible within a certain age differential: Delaware, Florida, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
A few states (including NY) have 17 and most of the rest 16.
Comment by trumwill — November 12, 2011 @ 12:08 pm
I still think child-support should only be required if you are (or were) married at the time of conception. Otherwise, we taxpayers are just subsidizing women’s lack of self-discipline.
Comment by Kirk — November 12, 2011 @ 2:29 pm
“5.I still think child-support should only be required if you are (or were) married at the time of conception. Otherwise, we taxpayers are just subsidizing women’s lack of self-discipline. ”
Otherwise, we’re on the hook for welfare for the fruit’s of *men’s* lack of self-discipline. Take away the welfare? Then we’re on the hook for foster-care payments to people who often aren’t much more desirable citizens than the parents from whom we took the children away.
Our society’s condemnation of abortion (including refusal to fund it) guarantees our continuing upswing in irresponsible births to people who can’t afford to take care of the children themselves.
Comment by stone — November 13, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
Yes, 18. I believe it’s the same in New York and all other wealthy states with large metro populations.
Yes, I’m not surprised either, Will. Anything that enhances female legal power (like statutory rape laws do) is going to be more prevalent in SWPL states. I would love to know when the California law was established.
Comment by Samson J. — November 13, 2011 @ 4:11 pm
I still think child-support should only be required if you are (or were) married at the time of conception. Otherwise, we taxpayers are just subsidizing women’s lack of self-discipline.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Squabbling aside, it seems fairly clear to me that when an unintended pregnancy occurs, *both* parents are at fault.
Comment by Samson J. — November 13, 2011 @ 4:17 pm
@Kirk: I still think child-support should only be required if you are (or were) married at the time of conception. Otherwise, we taxpayers are just subsidizing women’s lack of self-discipline.
If I recall, your reasoning is that women are less careful with contraception because they erroneously believe that men will pay child support? I disagree with this premise. If anything, it’s welfare you would want to go after, but as Sheila points out that can be problematic as well.
Comment by trumwill — November 13, 2011 @ 6:58 pm
@Samson: Yes, I’m not surprised either, Will.
Except that it doesn’t exactly work out that way, unless we consider Idaho and Tennessee to be feminist strongholds. I think that there are primarily two groups out there that push for these laws: social conservatives and feminists. And I think feminists are more split. It was Ruth Vader Ginsberg who took some heat for suggesting the AOC be lowered to 14 (on the basis that such laws infanticize female sexuality). Social conservatives seem more consistent, partially because either every or almost every AOC law has an exception if you’re married.
Comment by trumwill — November 13, 2011 @ 6:58 pm
It was Ruth Vader Ginsberg who took some heat for suggesting the AOC be lowered to 14
Freudian slip on the name? LOL
In all seriousness, only a woman could suggest lowering the AOC without ending her career or being considered a creep.
As for child support, no man should be financially responsible for any child conceived out of wedlock. If you a woman can’t support a child on her own, she shouldn’t have one. It is her choice, ne c’est pas?For those who suggest the man made his choice when he chose to have sex, it is a false equivalency, so I don’t want to hear it.
Comment by Scarlet Knight — November 13, 2011 @ 10:49 pm
I’m not sure what you mean here. Squabbling aside, it seems fairly clear to me that when an unintended pregnancy occurs, *both* parents are at fault.
No. When a woman gets pregnant outside of marriage, it is because she chooses to do so. All the other choices are hers as well, so all the responsibility should rest on her.
I make an exception for married women, because I feel marriage is a commitment. The institution exists to bind the father to the mother. What else could marriage possibly be for?
Outside of marriage…you bring a child into the world, you are responsible for it. Not a thug “baby-daddy” with a spotty employment record, and definitely not the taxpayer.
Comment by Kirk — November 14, 2011 @ 11:02 am
Freudian slip on the name? LOL
Haha, oops. Fun fact: for the longest time I spelled MLK’s middle name Luthor (as in Lex).
Regarding child support, if I believed that abortion were a morally neutral choice and that we lived in a society that viewed abortion neutrally or as a social good, I would be more sympathetic to letting men opt out of child support (whether inside or outside of marriage, actually). In fact, I used to hold that position on abortion and my view of child support was along those lines. It gets more complicated when you don’t want women to abort.
Comment by trumwill — November 14, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
Are followers of Lex Luthor known as Luthoran?
On The Ron and Fez show, Fez Whatley is Lutheran. Ron Bennington says this means that he worships Luther Vandross.
Comment by Scarlet Knight — November 18, 2011 @ 12:28 am