From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Sep 16 1999 - 16:20:33 MDT
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> From: Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury@www.aeiveos.com>
>I doubt very much that any court would ever hold a man responsible for
> >the support of a child produced in a situation where he was raped.
>
> Doubt no longer (yes, we do live in a feminazi society):
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> COPR. (C) WEST 1993 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS
> AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
> (CITE AS: 1993 WL 57722 (KAN.))
>
> STATE of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen HERMESMANN, Appellee,
> v.
> Shane SEYER, a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants.
> No. 67,978.
> Supreme Court of Kansas.
[big snip]
Very interesting. While I see the logic of the argument, I would
have to say the suit was on iffy ground here. The premise
is that someone under 15 can't give consent. I have a hard time
with the argument that a 12 year old boy who gave "non-legal"
consent *repeatedly* should not be held responsible for his
actions. The man in this situation is trying to worm out of
his responsibility on a technicality of the law. Now the
interesting part would be that I would say the man has a
case for a huge civil suit against the woman for raping him.
Legally the guy was raped, but in looking at this you have
to believe he knew what he was doing. Only if you can make
an argument that he thought the storks brought babies can
you make a case that the state is victimizing him.
Its interesting that the way the rape & consent laws are setup
they are trying to prevent this type of thing from happening
(16 y.o. minor woman seducing 12 y.o. minor boy). But since
he didn't scream "rape" to his parents, he made his own bed.
When I used the term "raped", I meant it in the more classical
sense of "forcing" a man under gunpoint to have sex.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:10 MST