Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You are completely misunderstanding what a willful deception would be, and stretching the definition beyond what a court would do.

Frankly if any of your hypos came to pass in court, it would be appealed and almost certainly reversed.

Willful deception would require that a representation was made to the deceived that the deceiver knew to be false, and was not otherwise reasonably verifiable (for example, in the small penis condom hypo, could the woman not see the penis, and did the man buy the wrong size condom specifically to ensure it would slip off?) and was outside common knowledge.

Ergo, anything based purely on "the pill" failing falls short, since based on the bazillion commercials we've all seen they include the disclaimer that they aren't 100% effective. (edit: that's why you would need something further for protection and some further willful circumvention for it to work)

In a case of oral sex where some ends up in the woman, that's where you would need some sort of admission in court, because the example you cite is not willful deception.

The bar in a court of law for proven willful deception that is the but-for causation, that survives hearsay objections, is MUCH higher than you are making it out to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Allod wrote:

That is not difficult, it is practically impossible. Even if you disregard d-usa's rather compelling examples, where do you get your hearsay witnesses? Friends doing their own friend in at court? Very unlikely without a prior personal conflict between said friends which in turn jeopardises the account. A waiter who overheard the conversation? He might as well be bribed by the father.

What you are proposing may have some merit in theory, but just does not work in practice.

Well, many of the same problems come up in regular hearsay situations. After all, pretty much anyone could hypothetically bribe another to say something on the stand about what someone else said that would be considered an admission against interest. It's something that has no doubt been contemplated by the judicial system, but it nonetheless remains an exception.

In this thread we have shown that the current laws are not stupid and impractical.

We have made it pretty clear that your "solution" is impractical, and unenforceable.

Of course the fact that you insist that "oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy" while also going on about "birth control isn't 100% effective" makes it pretty obvious that there is some weird disconnect in you brain that not only prevents you from seeing the obvious but it also prevents you from making an argument that is consistent to begin with.

All of your problems are solved by "keep it in your pants unless you are willing to pony up the cash to take care of the result." End of story. It doesn't get any simpler than that. All these "bad unfair things happening to a man" are the direct result of his decision to do something or have something done with his penis. He is not the victim here, he was a fully willing active participant in the activity that resulted in his sperm leaving his body and creating the risk that a child may be created.

The only victim is the child. And the laws are designed to make sure the child is provided for.

Even if we decide to somehow make willful deception leading to pregnacy a legal theory, what's the cause of action? Is it criminal? Civil? How does this affect the child?

You seem so hell bent on "punishing" people that do this, that you ignore the collateral damage. Which is the opposite of family law's point.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Well, many of the same problems come up in regular hearsay situations. After all, pretty much anyone could hypothetically bribe another to say something on the stand about what someone else said that would be considered an admission against interest. It's something that has no doubt been contemplated by the judicial system, but it nonetheless remains an exception.

Usually though, a hearsay witness is not your only piece of evidence, is it?

A hearsay witness' account can only be useful in the context of wider evidence, which will not exist in the situations you imagine.

America is one messed up place to live... Dakkas off topic forum has made me vow to never step foot and that spoil

The current laws aren't necessarily stupid or impractical, but they do have a blind spot. A total overhaul is not needed, merely a small patch.

The solution is no more impractical and unenforceable than many other situations that have a high bar of proof and where hearsay could enter into it. People admit more truth and lie less in a courtroom or when confronted with police than what most people think happens.

If you read my above post carefully, you would see that I said that the oral sex example you gave would not meet the bar, which means I agree with you that oral sex, via dribbling, etc. can cause pregnancy. It is not really normal, but can happen. Hence the need for something more than that such as an admission.

And again, people can and do lie in court, but people give up a lot more than most people think.

In addition, I find it very interesting that you are willing to defend a willful deception by someone, and even reward the deceiver. That is the result of your "per se" keep it in your pants rule.

The compromise I offered a page or so back plus the proven willful deception law for criminal offenses would work fine. The deceived (in most hypos the father) is not let off the hook in any way, he is either required to pay support or take custody. The deceiver is punished (which may or may not involve jail time), and once free (which could be immediately, after all not all criminal penalties involve jail time) could seek a custody hearing, and is required to also pay child custody if they are not in custody.

 Allod wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Well, many of the same problems come up in regular hearsay situations. After all, pretty much anyone could hypothetically bribe another to say something on the stand about what someone else said that would be considered an admission against interest. It's something that has no doubt been contemplated by the judicial system, but it nonetheless remains an exception.

Usually though, a hearsay witness is not your only piece of evidence, is it?

A hearsay witness' account can only be useful in the context of wider evidence, which will not exist in the situations you imagine.

''Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of about thirty eight exceptions applies to the particular statement being made.''

Hearsay can be evidence, but only circumstancial evidence. "Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists. In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt)."

Therefore, if you only have hearsay, and no supporting facts, you cannot make the necessary inference, and the testimony is useless.

 Polonius wrote:
Even if we decide to somehow make willful deception leading to pregnacy a legal theory, what's the cause of action? Is it criminal? Civil? How does this affect the child?

You seem so hell bent on "punishing" people that do this, that you ignore the collateral damage. Which is the opposite of family law's point.

For the sake of the child, it wouldn't be civil. It would be better off being criminal, and the punishment doesn't necessarily have to be that great. It need only serve as a deterrent.

It would have little effect on the child, since both parties would still be liable in some form (either having custody or paying support). The biggest effect, I imagine, would be if evidence of conviction was allowed into custody hearings, depending on how much weight it carried.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Allod wrote:

Usually though, a hearsay witness is not your only piece of evidence, is it?
A hearsay witness' account can only be useful in the context of wider evidence, which will not exist in the situations you imagine.

Right, you would need additional evidence to prove that it wasn't merely an accident. Again, I'm not saying it isn't a high bar, but you'd be surprised what people will admit, to friends or in court, resulting in what might have otherwise been classified as merely circumstantial evidence becoming solid admitted evidence. It's like when someone is driving a friends car, places weed in the back seat, and then admits to a cop that it's his weed, even though he could have argued he didn't have possession of it.

 d-usa wrote:


Of course the fact that you insist that "oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy" while also going on about "birth control isn't 100% effective" makes it pretty obvious that there is some weird disconnect in you brain that not only prevents you from seeing the obvious but it also prevents you from making an argument that is consistent to begin with.

Arguably, a woman shoving her sperm-covered fingers up her vagina does not constitute oral sex. That's not her getting pregnant as a result of oral sex, that's her getting pregnant as a result of stupidity, just as it'd be the result of stupidity on the part of the man to assume that he could pull out in time.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Even if we decide to somehow make willful deception leading to pregnacy a legal theory, what's the cause of action? Is it criminal? Civil? How does this affect the child?

You seem so hell bent on "punishing" people that do this, that you ignore the collateral damage. Which is the opposite of family law's point.

For the sake of the child, it wouldn't be civil. It would be better off being criminal, and the punishment doesn't necessarily have to be that great. It need only serve as a deterrent.

It would have little effect on the child, since both parties would still be liable in some form (either having custody or paying support). The biggest effect, I imagine, would be if evidence of conviction was allowed into custody hearings, depending on how much weight it carried.

I'd worry about the affect a conviction has on the parent to later provide. You could make it a misdemeanor with community service, and I suppose it might be a deterrent.

I don't think we're here to defend people being deceptive. I just think that this is a strange place to start toughening up the laws in domestic situations. It is one more motion for every father to bring up to try to win custody. Further, it places police and prosecutors in the middle of a domestic situation, which is never where anybody wants to be. Do we think prosecutors want to take these cases to trial?

If there were an epidemic of this stuff, sure, we need to stop it. It appears to be isolated cases. And I think the damage done to women with false charges would totally outweigh any societal benefit the law would introduce.

A misdemeanor would likely be fine. I'll step back from it being a felony, since you're right, that does likely go too far.

I don't think custody hearings would see much of this though. If you need probable cause to arrest someone and lack of reasonable doubt to convict, and only after that is the evidence entered into custody hearings, that's tough to pull off.

The biggest drawback on the whole is the fact that such cases are rare and isolated. So indeed legislative action that could serve as a solution might create more concerns than it solves.

That being said, contemplating legislative action on issues, even isolated are rare thing isn't bad. I mean, at the end of the day, we're an off-topic forum, ideas are meant to be thrown around. If a bunch of legislators read this thread and did something without doing a thorough cost-benefit analysis, then that would be a problem, but I doubt that would happen.

 d-usa wrote:


Don't want to have this happen to you? Easy, don't feth.

So.... This argument only applies if you're not talking abortion?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?

Apparently spitting things into cups, and inserting later works... did you not read the OP?!

I'll be honest, I read the maybe a bit of the OP and forgot what the story was about. That being said with this being outside the environment of a sperm bank then I guess the guy is still accountable even if the circumstances are unfair.

 Polonius wrote:
There needs to a word, probably borrowed from German, for the realization that a flawed system is actually the best possible system.

Krappenhammer? Sounds like a new 40K list.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Don't want to have this happen to you? Easy, don't feth.

So.... This argument only applies if you're not talking abortion?

Well, if you don't want an abortion, the argument of "don't feth" also works. Not fething is a 100% effective way of abortion avoidance, STD avoidance, baby-mama-dramma avoidance, and baby avoidance.

 kronk wrote:

STD avoidance

Well, except for various other ways that fluids can be exchanged.

I'l bring the drinks! Mountain dew or L.a ice?

To be honest by beer I mean dark rum or Southern Comfort on the rocks.

 kronk wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Don't want to have this happen to you? Easy, don't feth.

So.... This argument only applies if you're not talking abortion?

Well, if you don't want an abortion, the argument of "don't feth" also works. Not fething is a 100% effective way of abortion avoidance, STD avoidance, baby-mama-dramma avoidance, and baby avoidance.

And my original "don't feth because here are the reasons how any sexual activity could result in pregnancy" post came out of an abortion thread.

So yes, it applies.

So women that want abortions should just be told they should've been abstinent to begin with.

Ok good to know!

 Swastakowey wrote:
America is one messed up place to live... Dakkas off topic forum has made me vow to never step foot and that spoil

Thats because your country is guarded by the awesomeness of killer attack sheep.

Vasectomy, probably only if you really don't want kids and never will. Plus think of the added hilarity when she says she's pregnant! Either you've been incredibly unlucky or she's lying!

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
So women that want abortions should just be told they should've been abstinent to begin with.

Ok good to know!

I posted a link to that thread where I made the original statement earlier in this thread.

If you choose not to read it and type uneducated nonsense then that is your decision.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
America is one messed up place to live... Dakkas off topic forum has made me vow to never step foot and that spoil

Thats because your country is guarded by the awesomeness of killer attack sheep.

Those cold unmerciful eyes are the real protection these furry mamals offer our country, the rockets are just a bonus.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Again, I'm not saying it isn't a high bar, but you'd be surprised what people will admit, to friends or in court, resulting in what might have otherwise been classified as merely circumstantial evidence becoming solid admitted evidence. It's like when someone is driving a friends car, places weed in the back seat, and then admits to a cop that it's his weed, even though he could have argued he didn't have possession of it.

No, but I would be surprised if anybody who wilfully deceived a sexual partner and has legal counsel ruined his case himself when there's only his testimony, that of the partner and potentially a hearsay witness. A friend admitting to his own guilt is something else entirely.

Your "high bar" will simply never be met, so while I agree with your intentions, I fear that your proposed law is useless.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
So women that want abortions should just be told they should've been abstinent to begin with.

Ok good to know!

I never made that argument. But feel free to think I said that. I just said it was effective, not that it was the only option.

I really should stay out of this thread, but there are a couple misconceptions that really need to be cleared up:

1

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.

At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.

My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.

Key point is your FAMILY eats on $400 a month. Not a single child.

If I had to spend $2400 a month on my children (all 3 of them), then we'd be flat out broke. $800 is incredibly excessive. After just a portion of my bills (rent, auto loans, etc...) I end up with $2,000 a month roughly. Then I still have to pay credit cards, internet, insurance, food, etc...

This whole discussion: Child support amount is NOT based on basic life necessities at the bare minimum level. It is based on appropriate care per the income of the parents. Rich parents pay more because they have more resources. Poor parents pay less because they have fewer resources. That is all there is to it. Also, its not just about food, supplies, health and education, it also is for maintaining the child in living conditions appropriate per the available resources of the parents. Both parents.

All the individual examples of how the $800 amount appears high is saying nothing about that amount in the case. If you think that is too much for one child, its really only saying something about your own income and lifestyle. As a working pleb myself, I can't imagine the lifestyle of a pair of doctors that would merit $800/month child support, but I'm sure it involves exclusive preschool, private lessons, etc that will give the child connections and resources appropriate to its parents' stations in life.

 daedalus wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:

And this is where you lose ALL credibility. If you are legitimately suggesting a man should be on the hook for an activity without a female involved except where she takes property and inseminates herself after the fact, then you clearly don't have the sense to be involved in this debate.

Leave. The adults who actually understand the problems and legal ramifications of the current system are talking.

Okay, so I get where d-usa is coming from on this, and I understand why he's saying what he is.

It's a matter of perspective. You're looking at child support as if it's a punative thing. d-usa is looking at child support as if it's a means of, well, providing support for a child.

It's kind of like liability insurance. You effectively pay for the damage to car caused in the collision, whether you're at fault or not. In the same sense, even though she's a terrible person who's done something absolutely horrible and could even be seen as genuinely traumatic, at the end of the day, it's about the child, not the monster.

Edited for clarity. Too many d names.

Actually, liability insurance for cars means the policy only pays out if the policy holder is found liable/at fault. Comprehensive pays out regardless of fault but then seeks liability reimbursement if the other party is at fault. I tried to figure out how to apply this concept in this situation, and couldn't figure out a way. Unless it involved the Aflac duck paying out for a surprisebaby (that isn't liability, its event based, so it doesn't work either)...

Welp, from now on, I think it's important to make sure that whenever you get a blowjob, make sure she either swallows it all or spits it into a receptacle such as a toilet or sink. The intelligent lesson in this is to always get blown by a swallower, and failing that, as Frazzled suggested, don't feth crazy. Thankfully, all my crazy ex's believed in swallowing.

The only thing I learned in college was to always keep custody of your sperm and use your own condoms. Too many 'locals' looking for an M.R.S Degree.

I knew a guy in college who caught a girl taking a condom out of the trash while sleeping and trying to impregnate herself.

The law basically says once the sperm leaves your body, you lose all rights...

nkelsch wrote:
The only thing I learned in college was to always keep custody of your sperm and use your own condoms. Too many 'locals' looking for an M.R.S Degree.

I knew a guy in college who caught a girl taking a condom out of the trash while sleeping and trying to impregnate herself.

The law basically says once the sperm leaves your body, you lose all rights...

Are you serious? Good lord, some people are absolutely insane. I still disagree with Polonius, D-USA, and Frazzled's stance on the child support payments, but I agree wholeheartedly with the don't feth crazy sentiment. Sex outside of a committed relationship can easily lead to major problems all parties involved.

I can safely say that my sperm, in college, went in a lot of different places. None of it where it should (condom-> toilet-> sewer). Girl's stomach->tissue->trash was the typical setup in my dorm. Really surprised I got out of there without an STD...