Monday, February 28, 2011

Amy Alkon: Where was his right to choose?:
Wild and horrible case of a woman giving a man oral sex, holding his sperm in her mouth, and using it to impregnate herself without his consent. The man sued the woman, his ex-girlfriend (who turned out to be still married to somebody else at the time of the sperm-robbing), for fraud and emotional distress...after she got a court order demanding that he pay child support for the 2-year-old daughter created from that sperm! Wildly, the child support claim was not contested.

Labels:

32 Comments:

Blogger Southern Man said...

Reminds me of some of the "Sexy Losers" comics in which the last panel was "And that's the story of how you were born!"

12:41 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger Larry said...

Makes one wonder about the term "Justifiable homocide."

12:57 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger MikeT said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:00 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger MikeT said...

These are the sort of cases where I would actually be comfortable giving the state the authority to sterilize someone. The law wouldn't be hard to make it air tight to prevent the slippery slop argument against it. All that would be needed is to say that knowingly taking semen ejaculated outside of the body and placing it inside the body would constitute sufficient criminal intent.

1:03 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger Thag Jones said...

slippery slop

There's a Freudian slip if I ever saw one.

2:02 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger Ern said...

slippery slop

There's a Freudian slip if I ever saw one.

I'll bet the woman in question was wearing a Freudian slip, too.

2:42 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

I read about this case, or another like it, two years ago. Same thing--she gave him a blowjob, spit the sperm into a plastic bag, then later used a turkey baster to impregnate herself. And slapped him with child support. He sued. I remember the court's ruling verbatum.

"Upon ejaculation, the plaintif tendered to the defendant free and clear title to ownership of property."

Seriously, that is what the court ruled.

There was also another case about twenty years ago in the Dallas Morning News. A guy married a girl. Four kids and ten years later, they divorced. One of the kids had cystic fibrosis--that's a genetic disease. It can only be inherited from two parents who have recessive alleles.

So this guy goes to the doctor to be tested, because he's planning on marrying again and starting another family. The doctor told him he didn't have the recessive allele. He said, "But my son has cystic fibrosis."

"Has it ever occurred to you that you're not the father?"

Turns out this girl had four children with four different men, but only one is responsible for paying child support--her husband.

He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, because you know why should he be required to pay child support for three children he did not conceive?

Denied. The court does not allow evidence of any kind to question paternity in a marriage situation. If she's your wife, they're your children, you will pay child support. End of story. Case dismissed.

The problem here is with the marriage contract. If you agree to it, then you have no one to blame but yourself when you're abandoned, betrayed and bankrupted. It's in the contract.

This case is no different. "Upon ejaculation, the plaintif tendered to the defendant free and clear title to owernship of property." Think about that decision for a long while.

Sperm is money. That's just the way it is. And since men are the only ones who produce sperm, they are the only ones who will be held responsible.

Fine. If I do not know her, if she is not honest, if I cannot trust her, there's no way she's getting sperm from me. And marriage is out of the question.

3:45 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

I bet this woman makes a great mother. He should sue for custody.

4:16 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger Val said...

My dad is fond of repeating an old saying about paternity & marriage: (a poor paraphrase, bcz it made me cringe even as I recognized the truth behind it) "He was caught in her honeypot."

4:17 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger randian said...

How could that woman sustain a paternity suit? As GawainsGhost points out, there is an irrebuttable presumption her children are her husband's. If her husband can't contest paternity, she shouldn't be able to get child support from any man other than her husband.

5:53 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

There's an old saying. "You always know who the mother is, but you never know who the father is."

Think about that before you agree to presumptive paternity.

6:04 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

Randian,

You seem to naively think that the law in this area is "fair".

Surprise.

6:26 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

I'd like to point out a motive for this trick and the finger-in-the-used-condom trick (among others):

Men with high earnings are routinely ordered to pay $30,000 or more per month in child support (off the top of my head: Daryl Strawberry, Puff Daddy, Boris Becker etc.).

Child support is tax free to the woman, so you would have to earn something like $50,000 taxable per month to get the same amount of money.

OK, put your hands up here: How many of you make $50,000 per month?

Bueller?

So that is a motivation for doing this.

Although not as high, there are a huge number of women who are living off child support orders, maybe combined with social security / welfare scams and maybe with some work under the table (although these types of women are usually allergic to any and all forms of real work). They are living better than quite a few people who work full time. Really.

6:33 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger randian said...

You seem to naively think that the law in this area is "fair".

I do? Then let me be clear: I do not agree with presumption of paternity. However, given that is the state of the law, it is unjust for a married woman to be able to sustain a paternity suit against her lover. If the husband is stuck supporting the fruits of her cuckoldry, she should be stuck to seeking support only from him. Given current law, do not believe for a second that her support order against her lover will insulate her husband from her financial demands.

7:07 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger DonSurber said...

Rather, um, slimy thing for her to do.

7:13 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger Jay Hammers said...

Dr. Helen, are you aware of A Voice For Men radio, which begins Tuesday at 9 PM? MRAs have put their minds and money together to create a radio show that will deal with men's rights topics. Hosted by Paul Elam and including other well-known MRAs, I honestly can't wait.

8:26 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

There's no way of verifying whether these stories are true or not (though there is at least one verified report of this happening to a Detroit Lions player), but here are a couple stories about women who did something similar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA6tP_DV-Oc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4dzg9xA9A

There's a third one that I have somewhere, I just haven't posted it to my YouTube account yet.

9:29 PM, February 28, 2011  
Blogger Trust said...

Since presumptive paternity laws lag behind paternity testing laws, what is starting to happen is women divorce their husbands and collect child support until the child is an adult, then they reveal the affair and sue the biological father for back child support. In Tennessee, it is called the "double whammy." I don't know if it has been fixed... not likely, since most of the laws are intended to transfer wealth from men to women, fairness or "best interest of the child" is just the noble sounding label.

12:16 AM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

"... (though there is at least one verified report of this happening to a Detroit Lions player)..."

-----

The woman's name was Milburn, and when she was caught walking out of his party with money she had stolen and a used condom to get pregnant with, she falsely accused him of rape.

2:55 AM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger randian said...

what is starting to happen is women divorce their husbands and collect child support until the child is an adult, then they reveal the affair and sue the biological father for back child support

Apparently that's also starting to happen in those few states that allow fathers to contest paternity after they've already been deemed the father. The former payor naturally gets not a dime back, and the mother gets to go after the other guy for back child support. The courts should quash this sort of legal BS, but they do not because it's to women's benefit to allow it.

3:29 AM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

"The courts should quash this sort of legal BS, but they do not because it's to women's benefit to allow it."

------

The courts just follow the law. There is some heavy duty federal legislation backing this stuff up: 42 USC 666 (the "Bradley Amendment").

There's a number of things that judges can't do - like eliminating arrears in child support no matter how they accrued.

Don't read the provisions of this act - or see the ramifications of how they play out - if you don't want to get extremely angry.

4:01 AM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

The combination of I-don't-care-what-happens-to-men feminists, go-with-the-ride women and White Knight men is going to block any attempts at fair legislation in the foreseeable future. The White Knight Joe Biden is an example of a person who pushed through quite a bit of legislation unfair to men.

4:03 AM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

Trust wrote: " since most of the laws are intended to transfer wealth from men to women,"

Thank you for pointing out what should have been an obvious fact to me. I had not thought of what was going on in family court in this fashion until you said it. Of course, what you say makes complete sense. I had just not read that wall writing.

Trey - who typoed tryst for trust

8:48 AM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

I recommend going with the Rawlings.

10:02 AM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

I liked this comment by a woman on telling her brother about sex emailed to Instapundit:

“I am a girl and I know this to be true, Girls LIE about birth control. You have to take responsibility for yourself. I also know the girls in your class who are putting out (an advantage of a small town) and I know for a fact that none of them are on birth control. No Glove No Love. If you are too embarrassed to buy them I will buy them for you.”

The important point being that girls lie. And they lie about more than birth control. They lie about swallowing, too.

11:46 AM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger dunkelzahn4prez said...

Trey - who typoed tryst for trust

Typo...or Freudian slip? ;-)

12:21 PM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger dr.alistair said...

a new meaning to the term "money shot" ?

i find the whole idea that a woman would do such a thing offensive, on top of the fact that my wife and i would dearly love to have a child, but she`s 48 this year and feels she`s too old.

there are some truly heartless women out there.

and trey, it surprises me that you missed the concept and practice of family law to re-distribute wealth.

welcome to socialism.

1:07 PM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger dunkelzahn4prez said...

dr.alistair said...
a new meaning to the term "money shot" ?

Good one. Wish I'd come up with that first!

2:33 PM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

After reading about what happened to those guys when they thought they were just getting laid, that was absolutley Freudian!

Trey

2:46 PM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger Michael K said...

There was a pretty good movie about the wife saving sperm from her husband, murdering his girlfriend and implanting the sperm in the girlfriend to frame him for the murder. I forget the title and I think it was a book by one of the lawyer-authors.

Lying about birth control is pretty common, I suspect. It applies to one of my kids, in fact. She'll be 21 this spring. Her mother and I have never married although our daughter thinks we are. It's been a 23 year off and on (no puns) relationship. She comes and goes. Sometimes she's been gone for 5 years but she always comes back. I let her but no marriage.

As Barron Hilton once said, "Money isn't everything but it does help to keep the children close."

4:44 PM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger Roy said...

Michael K, the name of that film is "Presumed Innocent" - Starring Harrison Ford. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by Scott Turow.

11:32 PM, March 01, 2011  
Blogger campy said...

Where is his right to choose? He gave it up when he neglected to be born female.

Women have rights; men have responsibilities.

11:14 AM, March 02, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home