Crosspost "According to Supreme Court - Rape is only a crime if its committed against women." from /r/MGTOW:

Hermesmann v. Seyer [Kansas Supreme Court] Ruled a Mother is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support - Even if insemination was the result of a criminal act by the mother.

The woman [Hermesmann] babysat a boy, had sex with him, and got pregnant by him. She was 16 and he was 12 when she began having sex with him. She was 17 and he was 13 when she got pregnant. That 12 year old boy now owes her child support.

How'd they come to that conclusion?

  1. Seyer did not complain about the rape to his parents so it isn't rape
  2. The mother committing rape was of no relevance to determining child support.
  3. The well being of the baby outweighs the state's interest in deterring sex crimes against minors.

TL:DR - An underage boy is liable for the support of his child even when the conception was the result of statutory rape by the mother

And in other states like Florida, this ruling is cited to establish this precedent, everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

I f^cking guarantee you - if the roles were reversed - if a man raped a woman then took custody of the kid and demanded money from her - it would be a worldwide scandal. But here in the USA, women first, men second, every time.


Posted by SAMUELQQ | 19 July 2018 | Link