Re: Personal responsibility [was Re: Genderless societies]

Robert J. Bradbury (
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 15:20:33 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, J. R. Molloy wrote:

> From: Robert J. Bradbury <>
>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):
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> (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.