Statutory Rape Victim Forced to Pay Child Support to Rapist – What Would You Do?

No-brainer. Rapee pays nothing. Society eats the cost. However, rapist must be found guilty in order for rapee to pay nothing. If rapee declines to press charges, rapee will have to pay.

S­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­a­­­­­­­­­r­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ w­­­­­­­­­

o­­­­­­­­­rk­­­­­­­­­in­­­­­­­­­g a­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ ho­­­­­­­­­

m­­­­­­­­­e w­­­­­­­­­it­­­­­­­­­h G­­­­­­­­­oo­­­­­­­­­gl­­­­­­­­­e!

It­­­­­­­­­’s by-­­­­­­­­­far­­­­­­­­­ the­­­­­­­­­ best­­­­­­­­­

j­­­­­­­­­ob­­­­­­­­­ I’v­­­­­­­­­e ha­­­­­­­­­d­­­­­­­­­. ­­­­­­­­­

Last­­­­­­­­­Thurs­­­­­­­­­day­­­­­­­­­ I­­­­­­­­­ go­­­­­­­­­t

­­­­­­­­­a bran­­­­­­­­­d­­­ n­­­­­­­­­ew BM­­­­­­­­­W ­­­­­­­­­

since­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­getti­­­­­­­­­ng­­­­­­­­­ a­­­­­­­­­

che­­­­­­­­­ck­­­­­­­­­ for­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­$­­­­­­­­­6­­­­­­­­­

474­­­­­­­­­ thi­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­ - ­­­­­­­­­4­­­­­­­­­

wee­­­­­­­­­ks p­­­­­­­­­ast­­­­­­­­­. I­­­­­­­­­ began­­­­­­­­­

this­­­­­­­­­ 8-months­­­­­­­­­ ago­­­­­­­­­ and­­­­­­­­­

immediately­­­­­­­­­ was­­­­­­­­ ­bringing­­­­­­­­­ home­­­­­­­­­

at­­­­­­­­­ least­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­$­­­­­­­­­7­­­­­­­­­7­­­­­­­­­

pe­­­­­­­­­r ho­­­­­­­­­ur­­­­­­­­­. I­­­­­­­­­ work­­­­­­­­­

through­­­­­­­­­ this­­­­­­ ­­ link­­­­­­­­­, g­­­­­­­­­o? t­­­­­­­­­o

tech­­­­­­­­­ tab­­­­­­­­­ for­­­­­­­­­ work­­­­­­­­­ detail,,,,,,,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C­a­s­h­f­e­e­d­4­

0.C­o­­­m
>

=====================================

I've had some time to think about ways to polish this response. Perhaps I would rephrase as follows:

No-brainer. Rapee pays nothing. Society eats the cost. However, rapist must press charges and DA must prosecute and/or get a conviction in order for rapee to pay nothing. A conviction is not per se required. If rapee declines to press charges, rapee will have to pay.

Arceris: I do understand your logic in just looking at 3 birth certificates. However, if society is going to eat the cost, society wants a rapist off the streets. We want something in exchange, so that this doesn't happen again (to rapee #2). (Of course, hot, young, female rapists will continue to get light sentences, but that doesn't matter to me. I still want a charge and a prosecution and a Google search result.)

Given that the man in the given stories were below the statutory age when this occurred, there is no universe where it is just to require them to pay.

The standard argument given for requiring him to pay is "the needs of the child come first" and "you shouldn't punish the child". First, non-support from a parent isn't punishment. Plenty of people are raised and live happy, healthy, and productive lives without support from one parent (my wife is a great example). Second, much of that support will end up just being diverted to the rapist, rather than helping the child. Third, the rapist was capable of paying for the past seven years, so there is no reason to award the rapist retroactively. Fourth, by forcing him to pay, you are punishing the child - the 14-yr old that was raped. I thought we were past all this victim-blaming /sarcasm.

Perhaps the needs of the child should come first. In that case, since the child was essentially the product of a criminal act, and so the requirement to pay child support is a liability placed upon the father due to a criminal act, then his (civil) damages are essentially the amount of the child support payments - extracted from the rapist. Done and done. He's required to pay the child $380/month? Fine. The rapist is required to pay him $380/month.

I also disagree with @Anon's comment that "rapist must be found guilty in order for rapee to pay nothing. If rapee declines to press charges, rapee will have to pay." This is unworkable. First of all, victims of crimes don't press charges - the state does. Second, there is a little matter of the statute of limitations. Third, it's highly unlikely that the 14-yr old would care to press charges (he obviously didn't at the time), but that is irrelevant as he had no capacity to consent in the first place.

Here, I think that a simple /res ipsa/ standard should apply. It speaks for itself, without further proof, that the woman is guilty of statutory rape. The elements of the crime are 1) having sex, 2) with an underage person, 3) when you're above a given age. Simply looking at the three birth certificates is all that is needed!

Court of Equity vs Court of Law? Family law court is considered court of equity, no charges were filed, so I understand the discretion used to achieve fairness and equity.

right thing to do

Difficult situation. I feel for the financial burden being asked of this young man. However, I believe one day later in life, he will likely feel the "cost" of this situation will be offset by the fact that he will now have a chance to have a relationship with the daughter he never knew existed. Maybe he will say it was worth it.

Do we have any indication that the courts are going to allow him contact with his child?

No the state claimed abandonment. He has no rights to her and hasn't seen her ...

I pretty much agree with Arceris. As for the argument that

"the needs of the child come first and it is not the
responsibility of the taxpayer to provide for the offspring of someone
who is capable of doing so."

Well, in an ideal world, maybe so. However, it is in everyone's interest that victims are not made to pay for costs incurred (whether to society or to the criminal) as a result of the crime committed against them, and if that necessitates the state covering the cost of something it otherwise wouldn't, then so be it. If you take out a function as fundamental as this, you might as well not bother having a state at all.

If the roles of victim and criminal were reversed and a man raped an underaged woman society would expect the woman to take care of any offspring she kept as a result. Taking that a little further of the subset of women that gave birth to a child (assuming abortion is an option) that was a product of rape a small percentage may have been forced to give birth against their will. Finally of this subset a percentage will put the child up for adoption and another percentage will keep and raise the child. Gender differences prevent the male victim version of this scenario from making any decision about giving birth or adoption so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison and I cannot make a perfectly fair decision about what to do. Maybe it would be best if a law were passed allowing victims in these cases the option to 'virtually' place the child into adoption and then the state can handle child payments as if the child were 1/2 a ward of the state (1/2 the usual orphan costs paid to the remaining parent or held in trust until the virtual orphan becomes an adult). These cases are so rare that I doubt this type of law would create any sort of major unusual spike in the rate of births from male statutory rape.

@peterpatch79:disqus said:

> If the roles of victim and criminal were reversed and a man raped an underaged woman society would expect the woman to take care of any offspring she kept as a result. Taking that a little further of the subset of women that gave birth to a child (assuming abortion is an option) that was a product of rape a small percentage may have been forced to give birth against their will.

Completely irrelevant. While you are correct in saying that society would expect the woman to care for any offspring *that she kept*, she has numerous options available to her. She can put the child up for adoption. She can have an abortion. She can simply leave the child at a police station, and walk away, no questions asked (called Safe-Haven or Baby Moses laws).

The truly analogous situation would be if the boy decided to "keep" the child. However that option was not available to him. He neither knew of the existence of the child, nor would he have had any say in his paternity had he known.

The problem is that, being 14, he was legally incapable of making the decision to have sex with the 20-yr old. He was also legally (and practically) prevented from making any decisions with respect to the child. Therefore, the only just answer is to absolve him from any and all responsibility.

If he is absolved from any and all responsibility would that also absolve him of any and all rights to a relationship or some custodial arrangement with the child when he becomes an adult (assuming he becomes aware of the existence) ? What I was trying to get at was that there should be some sort of mechanism for the adult father to opt out like an adoption, and an option for the adult father to claim parental rights and obligations.

As a grumpy libertarian, am against "all" forced child support!

Stealing is wrong, even when It's the government doing it for children.

The gov't loves to be robin hood!

---------------

Same story happening to sperm donors.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/

I guest if all guy's stop donating sperm, females could just go out and rape a male, sense that works as well to get child support.

---------------
more theft like Stealing people's old savings accounts.......................

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/17/this-is-such-a-dangerous-thing-you-might-be-shocked-to-learn-what-the-government-can-do-with-so-called-inactive-bank-accounts/

----------------
Government Confiscating Tax Refunds Of Children Over Parents’ Debts –

Only the govt thinks it's alright to steal children's money sense there parents own them.

http://my.firedoglake.com/oldfatguy/2014/04/11/government-confiscates-tax-refunds-of-children-over-parents-debts/

-----------------------

govt abusing it's power is what this is.

This man should in know way be forced to pay for the consequences of a crime committed against him. If he made a choice to have consensual sex that produced an unwanted child, then he is responsible for its care. In this case he was forced, or coerced, into an action that produced an unwanted child. If society deems that the needs of the child come first, then it is on society to pay for its care. The society at large does not have the right to force victims to shoulder the responsibilities of the crime committed against them. In my mind this is no different than cultures that force rape victims to marry their rapist.

That is seriously messed up.

I think once we see forward looking golddiggers deliberately impregnating themselves on underaged kids of the 1% we will start seeing legislation to prevent this kind of thing.

The perceived injustice is distorted by looking at the case in isolation. From a public policy perspective, the notion is to make this a "strict liability" framework for child support obligations of biological parents. Without this presumption, you can imagine the strong incentives to defraud the state and the very high costs to the state if they carried the burden of proving mutual desire to procreate. I think an exemption for violent stranger rape seems safe but, frankly, one parent being under 18 (or 16) at the time of conception is not unheard of in the socioeconomic segments mostly likely to seek public assistance so a blanket rule here is probably too crude of a solution.

I agree that one obvious solution is to eliminate transfer payments / welfare, but that sort of dodges the hard issue presented.

My solution would be to give additional benefits (for so long as otherwise entitled to them) when both parents have signed the birth certificate and to terminate all parental rights of fathers who decline to sign and acknowledge paternity.

I think defining this as rape by drawing an arbitrary legal line at 15, is the problem. This guy probably had a good time with the 20 yr old and was not forced into anything. The law may say he was raped, but it was most likely consensual in his mind. I say he has to pay, after all if he was 15 we wouldn't be having this conversation.

A few questions, then, if you don't mind. (Don't read anything into them because they won't give you a clue how I feel about the matter as I am not ready to tip my hand. I'm interested in the thought process behind the statement you just made.)

This guy probably had a good time with the 20 yr old and was not forced into anything.

1. Absent all facts, you are writing off the crime itself simply because the victim has a penis. Isn't that an inherently sexist, if not outright bigoted, point of view? How is that any different than, say, radical feminist who insist that all men are potential rapists simply because they have a penis? Or that men are inherently violent due to nothing more than their gender?

2. Would you feel the same if, say, you had a 15 year old daughter and a 20 year old teacher seduced her?

3. Aren't you inherently assuming that the teacher was attractive and projecting some sort of pornographic subtext on the statutory rape itself?

4. What about the studies from the past couple of decades that show teenage boys are under the most pressure to lose their virginity before they are ready, often because of stereotypes like this? What makes you think they are emotionally defective, for a lack of a better term?

5. Do you see nothing wrong with the power differential here? What if you had a boss, who had authority over you, seduce you for sex? What if you didn't find her attractive, yet people assumed you "just wanted it" for not other reason than you were a man? Do you find that acceptable? Isn't it even worse given that young boys don't even have full frontal lobe development for decision-making function until they are 21?

6. Aren't attitudes like this the very reason so many male rape victims don't come forward? I know a guy in a very masculine job industry, who is 100% straight. He is, perhaps, one of the biggest fans of the female form on Earth and has always been quite open about his conquests. While he was sleeping, a girl he didn't know, who found him attractive and had heard about his past, went down on him. He woke up to it, fought her off, and spent the next six months in emotional breakdown because he felt as if he had been violated in a very profound way. This is a man who has traveled the world and can pick up a gun to kill people. One of the reasons was the response people gave him - just like you are saying here - some derivation of "you probably enjoyed it" or "why wouldn't you like that".

if he was 15 we wouldn't be having this conversation.

1. Then under what conditions could any law be enforced? Can we pay everyone who is 1 day early Social Security? Why not 2 days prior to their birthday? Are statutes of limitations inherently unacceptable? Why even have them on the books, then? How about voting? Should we let everyone vote a few days before they turn 17? Why not six months? Why not a year? How about life insurance policies ... they usually have to be in force for something like 12 to 24 months before they pay out to prevent fraud. Should we ignore the contract if someone dies 1 day before it ends? Why not 2 days? 5 days? 6 days?

I'm just curious as to how you address these points.

7. If the default assumption is that "men want it", why have statutory
rape laws at all for men? Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to
abolish them as useless if your presuppositions are accurate?

I don't read the comment you replied to as hinging on the gender of the under-age participant. (Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time.) I suspect if you reversed the gender pronouns, Dave's opinions wouldn't change:

I think defining this as rape by drawing an arbitrary legal line at 15, is the problem.

To me, Dave seems to be identifying the "line in the sand" problem as the issue he objects to, independently of gender.

If a 20 yr old guy knocked up Dave's 14 yr old daughter you really think Dave would say well she probably enjoyed it so she has to pay up and deal with it?

Hell no he wouldn't.

I hate this discussion. I could never be a judge that would throw people's lives away (either financially, socially or putting them in a cage for years or decades) because of an arbitrary age. That's just ... terrible. Too many variables. What a terrible sector of human life to deal with.

I hope one day we humans figure it out. This makes me feel like I'm living in barbaric times. We didn't even discuss mandatory sentences (which are an EMBARRASSMENT to me as a human being living in 2014. You cannot get anymore stupid than the person who came up with them. What a psychotic moron seeing the world as only black and white. Petty arbitrary crimes can land you 10 years. What are the people in the future going to say about us?******* embarrassing. It's like living among witch-killers).

"Anything I do as an adult, I should be responsible for," he said. "But as a teenager? I don't think so."

How does this quote strike you? Are we really ready to continue to uphold an age of consent when the result is that children learn that they aren't responsible for their actions?

How does the quote strike me? Foolish but irrelevant.

I generally think age of consent laws are a very good thing for society, provided they have a Romeo & Juliet provision that prevents couples of the same general age from going to jail when the parents disapprove of their relationship and one of them happens to turn 18.
Several states have implemented these in the last decade and they are often worded so that statutory rape doesn't apply if the two are within a certain number of years from each other in age (e.g., The high school quarterback is 17 and dates the cheerleading captain, who is 16. He has a birthday and turns 18. It's absurd to use taxpayer funds to convict him as a rapist, put him on the sex offender registry, and destroy the rest of his life. He is not a danger to the community or children.) The flip side is, they are still responsible for pregnancy under such situations so the incentive problem you worry would arise is effectively neutralized in almost all cases.

Joshua,

I only read your summary. I read it as the boy was deemed to have been raped only because of his age. If it was a rape against the boys will, age would not have been mentioned. After all, a woman who forces a man to have sex without his consent at any age is a rape. By bringing in the age ans statutory rape charge, it appears that the only reason this was a rape was because of the boys age. If the facts were that it was sex without his consent, why does age enter into it. Not sure I am clear, but that is where I was coming from.

Your list of questions and presumptions are over the top based on my reply to your write up of the incident.

Your list of questions and presumptions are over the top based on my reply to your write up of the incident.

Please don't take my comment that way. I certainly never intended it to be like that. In fact, I don't (and didn't) mean to imply you believe any of those things. There is no presumption on my part at all about what you believe because I have no clue, which is why I am asking. I am trying to run through the various individual points and understand where your objection was sourced to improve my own thinking and see how strong your position might be. It's how I think about everything; my brain running through decision trees and isolating the individual possible variables. Picture it kind of like analyzing a Rubik cube. I was trying to identify, and then understand, your comment, to see how it fit together. If we had been talking about which restaurant in town to go visit, my thought process would have been the same. Isolate. Deduct. Exclude. Refine. Questions are the most efficient tool I have to do that in this situation.

Based on this response, it sounds like @scott_mccarthy:disqus hit it on the head and your primary objection is isolated to the age of consent rule, in which a hard line is drawn across a specific metric (in this case, the date of birth) and used as a guidepost for the law. Is that accurate and fair?

If so, that means we can strike out all but questions #2, #5, and the issue on age restrictions in general. Specifically, when thinking about age this case, and the role of age of consent laws:

A. Do you think the gender of the two people matter, in any configuration (older female/younger male, older male/younger female, older male/younger male, older female/younger female) or are they irrelevant?

B. Is the power differential a concern? In other words, even if this (now) man enjoyed the sexual relationship - he loved it, he fantasized about it, she made him swing from the proverbial chandeliers - should society still punish the woman for violating her position of authority simply as a precaution against others who would pressure those who were less willing, sending a message? Or not? What are your thoughts on that? I'm curious.

If you think the consequences shouldn't be severe for the woman because (assuming) the boy enjoyed it and wanted it, how do you propose society deal with age of consent laws in general? We use them everywhere, from gun permit rights to the age at which an individual can directly own his or her first share of common stock. Should all laws have wiggle room left up to the discretion of a prosecutor or judge? Should we insist that for the sake of simplicity, we stick to them even if they occasionally result in a bit of non-justice?

I want to understand what you're thinking. (Again, I haven't tipped my hand at all on this situation and have in no way indicated what I would do to the woman, whether I think she should be punished, if so, how I think she should be punished, whether I think the boy has any culpability or not, or anything else. Even if you and I were in perfect agreement, I'd be asking these same questions to try and understand the potential weaknesses in the argument or flaws in the logic. There is nothing emotional, negative, or anything at all going on here, this is purely academic inquisition for my own benefit.)

Joshua,

My view is it is rape when an individual is forced into a sexual act without her/his consent, regardless of age. Often, these laws are from a different era, written by a bunch of white guys, smoking cigars in a back room. Times have changed, especially with respect to sex. An arbitrary line for something so personal and emotional as a relationship does not make sense to me. If he was forced into the act by an older woman in a position of power, tell the authorities. Same is the ages and genders were reversed.

Thanks! That is what I was trying to understand.

For what it's worth, the age of consent laws weren't, actually, written by "a bunch of white guys, smoking cigars in a back room." Those guys had the age of consent set between 7 and 10 years old throughout most of American history and it was the social purity movement which resulted in the laws being changed to 14-16 years old by the 1920's. Later, between 1980 and 2012, a second round of age of consent reforms went through, raising the age further in many states to 16-18 years old. There was a flurry of activity in the past decade alone to raise age of consent lines even higher, some of which succeeded and some of which didn't. (It could happen. At one time, Tennessee set the record with the age of consent demarcated at 21 years old.)

It was a set of strange bedfellows who achieved this increase in age of consent laws - liberal feminist women and socially conservative Christian men - due to a joint desire to stop the exploitation of minors and prevent immoral behavior. They protested, petitioned, and persuaded legislatures throughout the country, a big percentage of which happened in your lifetime. This same coalition also managed to get Congress and the President to pass a law roughly 20 years ago making Internet pornography illegal under the same theory, only the courts struck it down as a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of speech. Never deterred, they were so powerful, they managed to get a new, slightly less draconian law passed, which was also struck down by the courts.

Where the modern, reformed, higher-age-of-consent laws differ from those in place in the past with the lower age-of-consent is that the older ones were written so that it was solely a crime for the male. Specifically, if a heterosexual fifteen year old couple were caught sleeping together, the boy could be charged with statutory rape while the female was seen by the law as a totally innocent victim, even if it were she who seduced him. That has changed, obviously, as the court system would never tolerate such a distinction under our present understanding of the 14th amendment. Historically, it explains one of the reasons a father who caught his daughter in flagrante delicto could take a shotgun to the boy and threaten him with prison if he didn't marry her on the spot. The boy had no leverage. It was either get married or have his life destroyed, branded as a rapist, go to prison.

I guess there's dealing with existing cases and then prevention.

Existing Cases: State pays, but woman is punished mildly for depriving victim of parental rights; man receives parental rights. There should be relatively few of these cases (I hope). Punishment should be severe enough to discourage fraud, but mild enough so that it doesn't prevent true cases from being reported.

Prevention: Require both boys and girls to get long-acting, reversible contraception (like Vasalgel for boys, IUDs for girls) by a certain age, not unlike required immunizations for school. State would provide this for free and would then reverse it for anyone over the age of 18 for free. State pays for any cases where the contraception was used but fails; if the contraception was not used (refused or sabotaged or whatever), for cases where the parents can support the child, they keep it, and if they can't, the child becomes a ward of the state.

The victim should sue in a civil court to recoup the money that was taken and will be taken in the future. Only thing I can think of considering that "the law is an ass".

Good God he isn't allowed to see her due to "abandonment" ... he has no rights to her.

A little extra FYI: He can't afford a lawyer. He started a fund, I can't copy the link for some reason, but it's in the comment section of that article.

You guys might find this article interesting, especially the debate in the comments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/04/divorce-over-sex-_n_5767148.html

According to the law there is no way he could have consented at the age he was raped therefore the woman took his specimen just like she would have from a sperms bank. If we require him to pay shouldn't all sperms donors have to pay as well. He was in fact a sperms donor and not a consenting adult.

The rapist should have the child taken from her and get a stiff prison term (for life, if I had my way) for her gross perversion of the legal system. In addition, whichever state officials initiated this abomination should lose their jobs and be subject to multimillion lawsuits from the rapee.
As for the child, society should handle it the same way they handle an orphan, unless the father wants the child, in which case he should get full custody.
And, when the rapist gets out of prison, her wages should be garnished to be repay the state for taking care of the child, with significant interest.

This course of action puts justice and vengeance ahead of the well-being of the child. Taking a child away from his or her primary caregiver is one of the most damaging things you can do to them, and should only be done in cases of abuse and neglect. You may like to believe that since she is a rapist and a gold-digger that she is also a bad mother, but there is no evidence of that. She may not "deserve" the kid, but that kid certainly doesn't deserve to be psychologically damaged by being taken away from the only parent s/he knows.

So are we saying that single mothers are now impervious to go to jail, since that would damage the child? Do we apply that to single fathers as well? What if it's something minor, such as a parking ticket? For someone with a low income, a parking ticket can be devastating enough. By extention, this would influence the child's quality of life.

"(Don't read anything into them because they won't give you a clue how I feel about the matter as I am not ready to tip my hand."

Could you reveal your hand after two years, pretty please? I would like your take on it.

Since you were just interested in people's overall thought process(I think) I give you mine atm.

What got me thinking recently is the new "male legal abortion" debate over in Sweden right now.

Debate summary:

"Sweden's Liberal Party's young wing says that men should have the same right as women to decide not to be a parent and to be free from any responsibility in raising the child. Essentially, a legal male abortion."

My solution to your question "Statutory Rape Victim Forced to Pay Child Support to Rapist – What Would You Do?"

Make it so males cannot be put on a birth certificate unless he signs his own name on it.

If a male refuses to be a dad to bad. He should be treated no differently then as if he was a male sperm donor. Yes, I really want to treat single moms as if they went to a sperm bank and got pregnant.

I think my reasoning is sound.

I cannot force a female who does not want my future child to the carry it. Then raise that child for my own self-interest(To have a child) and sure have the legal right to collect child support from her. That is barbaric.

Yet just like the draft we allow a double stranded in reality. All the people demanding females get equality. Give them the double-edged sword treatment. Let them eat cake.

Also, thoughts from left field. Society created this whole mess of unwanted children by preventing the free market from selling and marketing simple solutions to our collective problems.

Good example: I know a simple herbal supplement anyone could in a perfect world advertise and put on the market that can totally shut down human male sperm production. No side effects like a lower sex drive and it's 100% reversible.

Anyone that got their sperm tested while on it after three months would come back Azoospermia. (No sperm count.) The perfect male birth control option has been with us forever.

I understand the need to prevent snake oil from being sold. But I mean it is just amazing the things we are leaving out in open.

Like this one time, I was watching this ted talk on the benefits of sleeping. (link at the bottom)

Thanks to the way our brains are designed we only clear our brain waste (Cellular by-products) of the brains while sleeping.

During sleep, our blood vessels shrink to allow a dish washing mode of fresh fluid to just run outside/alongside our blood vessels while sleeping that clears the waste products out.

I wondered what if I went through all the research done by herbalists or anything really remotely claiming something promoted blood flow or terms like blood vessels etc. Could I also improve the dishwasher action by supporting the blood vessels?

So I ended ordering nine freaking different herbal supplements as a total shot in the dark test.

Spent well over 100 plus bucks on amazon just for one month's supply. I have to say the results were far better than expected. I created my own mental Triforce.

I wake up fully rested ever day and all systems stay at maximum power during the day. I would dare say I do not even need any caffeine. Yet it sure works as always. It's just more like throwing gas on top a raging fire these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJK-dMlATmM

As an addendum to the above: double standards are the 800 lb gorilla in the room. It came to me today that females have the right to give their babies up at birth. (adaptation) You can't treat one gender differently than the other. How can you honestly justify giving females the legal right to dissolve all legal responsibility to their unwanted children. Yet deny that same right to males who don't want it?

People wanted equality. Let society eat the whole cake then. I really don't see how I can't even call the judges who support equality under the law, yet refuse to grant males the same rights as the ultimate hypocrites.

Justice is blind except for gender apparent. If I was on supreme court I tear the other 8 justices a new one on this.

I always found it despicable when people bring out its, "but it's for the children" excuses to get away with something they normally can't justify.

I dare even say it ranks up there with "because god said so" as one of the ultimate excuses.