Acquittal of Female Stripper for Male Rape Demonstrates Discrimination Against Men

August 9, 2009 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Australian Law Reform, Australian News 

Last week, female stripper Linda Naggs was acquitted of raping a man by shoving a sex toy into his anus, during a performance at a buck’s night. This article is not about whether that particular act should be considered rape, but the double standard applied by the law to the accused, depending on whether they are a man or a woman.

I am 100% certain that if Ms Naggs were male, and the participant were female, Ms Naggs would now be in the slammer getting ready to be the participant in another inmate’s act.

Most members of the public who commented on this case (see the article linked above) have also expressed outrage at the verdict. This article analyses the case and discusses other instances of sex discrimination in law.

Read more

Women Falsely Claiming Paternity Benefits

The Child Support Assessment Act was recently amended to allow men who have been falsely paying child support payments to apply to recover their money. This has generated much controversy:

Paternity Tests Prove Hundreds of Men Duped

SMS after DNA test: You’re not the father

Australian men’s group seeks tests before child support

There is no doubt that the decision of a man and a women to have intercourse requires considerable understanding of the potential consequences.

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is clearly established in law. The retired tennis champion, Boris Becker, learnt this valuable lesson after being forced to pay millions of dollars for a child conceived during a brief liaison with a waitress in a restaurant broom closet in 1999.

Similarly, the responsibility of the woman to be truthful about her relationships is equally serious.  A women knows exactly whom she has slept with and would certainly know if there is any doubt about paternity.

To extract money out of an innocent person by making false claims of paternity is a very serious matter which also has serious consequences on the other party, both psychological and financial

  • It is a gross betrayal of trust
  • It is traumatic for the man and the child. The man may have formed a close emotional bond to a child, only to find out that he is not the father
  • A man may be deprived of his livelihood for almost two decades until the child reaches adulthood and becomes independent

Apparently, some feminist groups are up in arms stating that the only person that will suffer will be the child. To this, I say that the same argument could apply to a woman who obtains support money by robbing a bank or stealing from her workplace. Does this make her any less culpable for the crime? Of course not.

So not only do I fully support this reform – I feel it should be made even stronger in the following ways:

  • In the case of false paternity, child support money must be repaid WITH INTEREST to compensate for the man’s lost opportunities
  • Mandatory DNA testing of both parents and children must be performed in all custodial disputes
  • Where there has been a proven element of deception or fraud on the part of the woman who has falsely claimed child support, she should be subject to all applicable criminal law concerning fraud and theft
  • In the above case, the man should also be entitled to seek civil damages as considered appropriate for the case

What are your thoughts?

  • Subscribe by Email

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Most Viewed
  • Recent Comments
  • Recent Posts
  • Archives