Is “pregnancy pact” the new MSM code for child rape?

The West proclaims: “Parents form bizarre pregnancy pact with teen”.

The article opens with a description of what initially is made out to sound like a (bizarre and exploitative, but mutually agreed) surrogacy arrangement between mother, stepfather, and 15 year old daughter:

A man had sex with his stepdaughter as part of a pact with his wife to get the teenager pregnant because they wanted another child, a court has heard.

The Brisbane District Court was today told the 35-year-old man and his 39-year-old wife – the teenager’s mother – came to an agreement with the girl in May 2006.

More details, and things start sounding dodgier:

The court was told the couple, who cannot be named, convinced the then 15-year-old girl to have sexual intercourse with the man because they desperately wanted another child.

Prosecutor Catherine Semmler told the court the couple already had two sons, but both had been born with a congenital disorder. It was the fear of passing on this disorder that prompted them to manipulate the girl into participating in their bizarre scheme, she said.

The court was told the girl initially used a syringe to try to artificially inseminate herself with her stepfather’s semen.

Below the fold, the actual details start to come out.

However when this was unsuccessful the man started having sex with the girl up to three times a day at their home at Russell Island, southeast of Brisbane, between April and August 2006.

How many times do we have to say “IT’S NOT SEX”? This is rape. A stepfather raping his minor stepdaughter. Three times a day, for five months.

And then? A rather key detail, relegated to near the bottom of the article.

However, Ms Semmler said, the man had already been sexually abusing his stepdaughter since she was just 12.

Yeah. Not a mutual “pregnancy pact”, people, and not “sex”.

WA Today adds another choice detail:

As he was being arrested, the man indignantly declared: “Did you not see the fucking contract?”



Categories: gender & feminism, media, violence

Tags:

8 replies

  1. I know, I saw this today too and just felt incredibly frustrated. Enough, enough, enough.
    You’d think even for the idiots that this one would be an obvious one, that this is rape and not sex. I mean, you’re not sus on the idea that a fifteen year old is willing to agree to have a baby for her parents?!

  2. Yeah, as if a dependant minor has even the slightest degree of “choice” about whether to agree to a “contract” in a situation like this.
    Also, relating back to your last post, Lauredhel, I notice that there have been no calls for federal army intervention in this case. I’d say that the term “whitewashing” is rather appropriate here.

  3. Yeah, as if a dependant minor has even the slightest degree of “choice” about whether to agree to a “contract” in a situation like this.

    Let alone the legal capacity. That’s what legal adulthood basically is – whether or not one has the legal capacity to enter into contracts on one’s own behalf. People under 18 cannot enter into contracts on their own behalf.
    Then of course there’s the issue that a coerced contract is not valid at law. How could this girl who had been abused for years by this man possibly be considered uncoerced into this contract? (This is, of course, the same problem with so-called “sex contracts” between consenting adults – there is absolutely nothing stopping a rapist coercing a victim into signing one.)
    Without the other story in the Times about the pregnancy-pact-that-wasn’t in the US, I doubt that the media would have used the word in this headline. I suspect they were simply overexcited that this time there was a physical contract, even if it was a legally invalid one.

  4. This girl has shown amazing courage in going to the police. So often girls will go along with abusive practices because it enables them to maintain at least the illusion of loving bonds with their parents. That is not consent that is accepting the f***ed up conventions of your family just so you can survive. So very sad and once again, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Less than 3% of abusers ever see the inside of a courtroom.

  5. Just wanted to add that accepting the family conventions can sometimes mean internalising them so thoroughly that one doesn’t even understand certain actions as ‘abuse’ until many years later, if at all. How do you then understand such seemingly straightforward concepts as agreement and consent? I really feel for this girl, she would have had to abandon completely the illusion of loving parents in order to make this complaint. She must feel utterly bereft.
    Dr Caroline Taylor, author of “Court Licensed Abuse” (which is on my must-read list – hopefully winging its way from Ballarat bookshop right now) has set up a foundation Children of Phoenix which aims, in part, to support survivors of abuse through financial assistance with education expenses.

  6. “This girl has shown amazing courage in going to the police.”
    I agree, totally. If abuse constitutes part of your formation as an adult subject, it must involve an incredible act of will and determination to reject it.
    As for the media thing: representing abuse in this way amounts to complicity in this and other crimes. Misusing these terms will give an inappropriate framework to other abusers to allow them to justify abuse.

  7. Courier Mail reports that the step-dad
    got sentenced to 8 years jail.
    But still says “sex” and “maintaining a sexual relationship” rather than rape, ongoing peadophilla.
    They don’t have one of those comment options to remind them that jail + rape + minor = time to use the criminal wording already.

  8. What is wrong with these people?

%d bloggers like this: