Hermesmann v. Seyer - Wikipedia
If a woman “rapes” a boy, but she gets pregnant, the Supreme Court will justify that the boy actually did consent and he owes her money.
Blackpill In 1993, the US Supreme Court ruled 13 year olds can technically consent to sex.
If a woman “rapes” a boy, but she gets pregnant, the Supreme Court will justify that the boy actually did consent and he owes her money.
so that means that if i mouth fuck a 13 yo child, the law enforcement won't have any problem with that? seems legit
Women live on tutorial mode example no. 692696592965925023875420984392049
US was always a cucked state then.
K
a foid got child support from a 13yo that she raped
Many places are cucked.
C
Jewnited states moment
Only happened to save a predatory woman from the consequences of her actions. If a guy tried something like this, the judge would say that he hopes the guy will be killed in prison as he handed him the largest possible sentence.
Hermesmann v. Seyer - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
If a woman “rapes” a boy, but she gets pregnant, the Supreme Court will justify that the boy actually did consent and he owes her money.
Imagine being 13 yo and being forced to give money to a pedo foid who can't stop having her legs spread.
A
A
lol
Maybe if she didn't sue him for money I'd agree with this, but as it stands, she took advantage of a 13-year-old and used the judicial system to turn him into her child support paypig
.
@PPEcel @Caesercel @Robtical @proudweeb thoughts?
There are two major factual inaccuracies in this thread here.
First, Hermesmann was a case heard by the Kansas Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no federal question here and it is binding in Kansas, not in the rest of the United States.
Second, Hermesmann in no way holds that 13-year-olds can technically consent to sex. It held that under Kansas' child support laws, parents have a legal duty to financially support their offspring, and this duty is not abrogated even when the offspring's conception was a criminal act (i.e. statutory rape).
I think the outcome is fucked up, but legally, this is an issue for the Kansas state legislature to resolve, not the state judiciary.
First, Hermesmann was a case heard by the Kansas Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no federal question here and it is binding in Kansas, not in the rest of the United States.
Second, Hermesmann in no way holds that 13-year-olds can technically consent to sex. It held that under Kansas' child support laws, parents have a legal duty to financially support their offspring, and this duty is not abrogated even when the offspring's conception was a criminal act (i.e. statutory rape).
I think the outcome is fucked up, but legally, this is an issue for the Kansas state legislature to resolve, not the state judiciary.
Why did this not go to the Supreme Court? Also I’m confused on the second point. What does “common law” mean?
This is a state law question that originated in a state court, so it was unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court—which only hears a few dozen cases every year out of the thousands of cert petitions filed every year—would have even considered hearing it.
What does “civil law” mean @PPEcel ?
In the United States, it refers to the non-criminal body of law.
They also support giving 10 year old boys tranny drugs, and allow their 12 year old daughters to get fucked by high school chads. But soyfags throw a fit when men in their 40s want a serious relationship with young virgin teens.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
