Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Swallow, spit, or ...

kgarner said:
Not that it is a good representation of America, but that the American legal system allows for these kinds of frivilous lawsuits. This is the just the latest in a long line of outrageous lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Whoa. The lawsuit in this case is not really that outrageous... what IS outrageous is the behavior of a woman who does what this woman did and causes a pregnancy that was clearly not intended by the man. This guy then got screwed over (pardon the pun) by the system, and he's trying to get things put right.
 
clayjohanson said:
Whoa. The lawsuit in this case is not really that outrageous... what IS outrageous is the behavior of a woman who does what this woman did and causes a pregnancy that was clearly not intended by the man. This guy then got screwed over (pardon the pun) by the system, and he's trying to get things put right.
Click to expand...

Whilst he obviously did not intend to have this child I think it's safe to live by the rule: Don't have sex (and this counts too, despite what Clinton said) with anyone you wouldn't have a child with. You just never know.

I'm sure this isn't the first time a man has had a child via the women "injecting" herself later on.
 
clayjohanson said:
Whoa. The lawsuit in this case is not really that outrageous... what IS outrageous is the behavior of a woman who does what this woman did and causes a pregnancy that was clearly not intended by the man. This guy then got screwed over (pardon the pun) by the system, and he's trying to get things put right.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean his case necessarily (though I do think its frivilous to sue for emotional distress), but the set of cases here (hers and his) is ridiculous. Agreed that the really outrageous thing here is behavior, but the legal system here makes it possible for her to sue him for something that any rational person would agree is ludacrous.
 
clayjohanson said:
Whoa. The lawsuit in this case is not really that outrageous... what IS outrageous is the behavior of a woman who does what this woman did and causes a pregnancy that was clearly not intended by the man. This guy then got screwed over (pardon the pun) by the system, and he's trying to get things put right.
Click to expand...

On the other hand it was an affair, and he's guilty in that sense. If he hadn't done it in the first place this wouldn't even be an issue.

Nevertheless, I think the woman is definitely more at fault here.
 
Yes, it's the woman that caused the pregnancy to happen. She should have requested permission for an act like this, wrong to force another to pay $800 per month. Maybe after this and the Milton Academy fiasco people will realize that Clinton was wrong when he said "Oral sex isn't sex."

"There's a 5-year-old child here," Mirabelli said. "Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth.
Click to expand...

How will the child feel when he finds out what his mother has done. If she went to the extent to cause her own pregnancy, then she should also have made sure that she had the financial resources to raise the child. I think that the same should apply to married couples.
 
Wow, you have to feel sorry for that kid--bizzare parental issues aside, I'm with most here that even if she's way more in the wrong I'd have serious doubts that either of those two has any right raising a child. I admit that if I were the father I'd be tempted to get retribution somehow, but telling the kid that it's a source of mental anguish (not to mention theft) is pretty cruel.

On the other hand, this has to be one of the funniest things I've read all week:
"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
Click to expand...
Leave it to lawyers to make sex sound even less sexy than a medical textbook.
 
I would like to point out the obvious,
the guy should have used a condom and disposed of it himself.
oral sex is NOT safer sex, most of the STD's can be transfered through oral sex, so just because you cant get pregnant is no reason not to cover up.
I used to work at a youth clinic and I can't count the number of times a person would tell me: "what do you mean I have an STD all I did was give/receive a blowjob...thats not sex..."

Another reason not to keep semen in mouth is that it etches the back teeth in a manner similar to what bulemics have (Boyd, et al. 2004).
 
Have a cigar....

Reminds me of the guy who filed an insurance claim when one of his $200 cigars was "destroyed by fire". Of course this is because he smoked it! Then, predictably, his insurance company had him charged with arson -- for intentionally lighting the cigar on fire.

I am constantly amazed at what people will do to get themselves in trouble.
 
Leareth said:
I would like to point out the obvious,
the guy should have used a condom and disposed of it himself.
Click to expand...

what are you saying? is his fault?

oral sex is NOT safer sex, most of the STD's can be transfered through oral sex, so just because you cant get pregnant is no reason not to cover up.
I used to work at a youth clinic and I can't count the number of times a person would tell me: "what do you mean I have an STD all I did was give/receive a blowjob...thats not sex..."
Click to expand...

this isnt really about whether or not its safe ect, its about what happened.
i actually cannot believe somebody degraded themselves in this manner, and people trying to blame him for something are crazy,

you get pregnant when you have intercourse if you dont want a child don't do it unprotected, otherwise your stupid (im one of the stupid ones btw) he did not willingly consent to having making a baby, oral sex is a whole different game to intercourse, you cannot get pregnant through oral, and thats the only thing he did, have his manhood sucked, thats it - there is nothing wrong with that - that is no fault of his, she is the one in the wrong
 
wdlove said:
Just another version of consensual oral sex of teenagers. This happened in my area at the elite prep school Milton Academy. The girl has claimed that it was consensual, it started as a party favor for her boyfriend's birthday. It was done near the shower, each one individually.

http://www.here-now.org/shows/2005/02/20050223_13.asp
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to think about this. As far as I can tell no-one has been hurt here. No one did anything that they did not want to do. It seems to be another case of the authorities sticking their nose in where all things considered their intervention is not needed. Ok perhaps they can be worried that it took place on school property but teenagers will experiment. Is it not better to support them than punish them?
 
Milton Academy put out a statement saying that all involved should be treated fairly. The 5 boys were immediately expelled. The girl was immediately put on administrative leave, meaning that she can return. Milton said that this is not a punishment for her, but allowing her time to go home and think. No word from the prosecutor yet.

Yes, all involved need support. Unless this is rectified the boys lives are ruined for life, at worst prison.
 
The aspect of criminal charges is probably the most disturbing. I take it that at 15 she is below the age of consent? And below the age that the law considers her "adult" enough to make decisions like pressing charges (or do you not need to press charges there)? I can see that there is a case for child protection, but she does not exactly sound like a child! What have the parents been saying about this?
 
robbieduncan said:
The aspect of criminal charges is probably the most disturbing. I take it that at 15 she is below the age of consent? And below the age that the law considers her "adult" enough to make decisions like pressing charges (or do you not need to press charges there)? I can see that there is a case for child protection, but she does not exactly sound like a child! What have the parents been saying about this?
Click to expand...

It is considered legally as rape of a child under 16 years old. The law is meant to protect a minor from a 20 year old. These were all teenagers. It will hinge on the young lady at this point, if she stays with her original story then it is unlikely that any prosecution will occur. So far the only word from the parents is, "We support our daughter." Here our prosecutors are elected, so a lot will depend on public sentiment also. One of the boys family has already hired a highly place defense attorney.
 
Chappers said:
I can only say 'YUK'

which is probably more than she could at the time.
Click to expand...
Thats the funniest thing I've heard in a while. :D

So when this kid asks his father later in life, Dad is oral really sex he will say, I guess so because I have a kid now. :rolleyes:
 
Chappers said:
I can only say 'YUK'

which is probably more than she could at the time.
Click to expand...

Which bings up the point....

Didn't he notice anything strange about the fact that she never spoke to him after the deed? Or maybe he fell asleep straight afterwords, so he was unaware that she couldn't talk :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back