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.

It is a good thing that I limited myself to only discussing one topic then isn't it, and made not comment re: child support.

So, how much of that money is actually going to end up helping the child? Cause I think that's the bigger issue here.

 Soladrin wrote:
So, how much of that money is actually going to end up helping the child? Cause I think that's the bigger issue here.

I don't think anyone is niave enough to think that the woman in this case isn't pocketing some of that money for herself. That's a lot of money for child support, and I get the sense that the well being of the child, is not a priority for her. Its a problem in the US where child support is sometimes used to punish a parent, or simply as a form of legal fraud. Courts don't really check to see if someone getting child support payments is actually using that money to support the child.

But while I think this is wrong (morally, ethical, etc) and a miscarriage of justice for a man who was essentially DNA raped and extorted for money, not much to be done about it. Anything done about it hurts the child who has no control over the situation. A change in the laws and how we handle these situations would be needed to resolve stuff like this (namely a social program specifically for supporting single parents). Just one of those situations that kind of sucks for the person on the wrong end of it.

Frazzled wrote:Moral of the story: don't sleep with crazy.

Probably the last lesson learned by every man, throughout all of time and space.

If it's ever learned at all.

This is crazy, but like said before, Don't feth crazy is the easiest way to avoid the situation. The problem is there are a lot of crazy people, its hard to avoid them all.

I think its terrible law, and sets a terrible precedent. The fact that the woman's deceitful act caused the situation should be taken into account. If it can be proved that she doesn't need the support, her punishment should at least be to not receive it. If she gets away with this its comparable to a man slipping a someone an abortion pill and getting away with it.

His life isn't ruined. He has to pay child support. I know plenty of guys doing that right now, and so do you, I"m sure.

You however are a random guy on a forum dedicated to pushing little plastic/resin/metal/restic soldiers across the table while going "pewpewpew". There is a reason why you didn't make the decision for the well-being of this child.

You don't like it? Life's hard. Put on your big boy panties before you go outside. You're going to need them.

Are personnel insults and character attacks really necessary?

The rudest of which would be Polonius'. Do you commonly insinuate that other posters are promiscuous PUAs gleefully impregnating women left and right?

As to D-USA, the very words you wrote can be applied to yourself. Given the massive the disparity in our numbers of posts I would venture that they would be much more applicable to you.

Frazzled is a boor.

Is this common for this site or did I simply stumble upon a pack of grumpy old men by happenstance?

...

Welcome to the OT

Hello. I just noticed your signature and I approve.

 d-usa wrote:
As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/572514.page#6421614

Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.

trexmeyer wrote:

The rudest of which would be Polonius'. Do you commonly insinuate that other posters are promiscuous PUAs gleefully impregnating women left and right?

No. I do commonly insinuate that people have problems reading. I was saying you know people that are paying child support. Which if you are an adult male with more than a handful of aquaintences, is likley true.

I also only escaped it myself due to a fairly horrific miscarriage. So I know a bit about these things.

As to D-USA, the very words you wrote can be applied to yourself. Given the massive the disparity in our numbers of posts I would venture that they would be much more applicable to you.

Probably, but he's not making sweeping statements about the fitness of others to be parents, or the merits fo the entire legal system. You're acting like the only sane moral one, when you probably aren't.

Frazzled is a boor.

Ok, you nailed that one

Is this common for this site or did I simply stumble upon a pack of grumpy old men by happenstance?

to be fair, you ran into at least two lawyers, so you know, expect to be corrected.

At least we didn't bill you.

trexmeyer wrote:
**snip**

If you are unhappy with any posts you read then you may wish to use the Yellow Triangle of Friendship to alert a moderator to your concerns.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/572514.page#6421614

Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.

To go back, telling for what?

What's the cause of action? What's the remedy?

he was suing for fraud and theft, neither of which remotely apply here. You can't drop a load into a person's mouth, and then say she stole it. No more then you can charge a person with theft after they shoot you with a gun you gave them.

 Polonius wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:

The rudest of which would be Polonius'. Do you commonly insinuate that other posters are promiscuous PUAs gleefully impregnating women left and right?

No. I do commonly insinuate that people have problems reading. I was saying you know people that are paying child support. Which if you are an adult male with more than a handful of aquaintences, is likley true.

Communication is a two way street. If the sender fails to encode the message properly it is hardly the fault of the decoder for failing to grasp the original meaning.

Please don't tell me that you believe that mother has any business being a parent after the actions she took in order to conceive the child.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/572514.page#6421614

Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.

The post makes it clear that if your intend is to "not get her pregnant", then none of these actions (like oral) are an effective way of keeping her from getting pregnant. If you are doing anything sexual, then pregnancy should be an expected outcome.

Right, so, moral of the story, we have to change the school books because apparently a woman can get pregnant if oral is performed.

This is nuts, he's being ripped off when common sense tells us how this is ridiculous. They didn't have sex, the condom didn't break.

 Polonius wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/572514.page#6421614

Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.

To go back, telling for what?

That he had no intention to impregnate her if she did it behind his back and concealed the material fact after. You know, the topic that the post you quoted dealt with exclusively.

 Polonius wrote:
What's the cause of action? What's the remedy?

he was suing for fraud and theft, neither of which remotely apply here. You can't drop a load into a person's mouth, and then say she stole it. No more then you can charge a person with theft after they shoot you with a gun you gave them.

I'll take things that I was not commenting on for $500 please


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/572514.page#6421614

Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.

The post makes it clear that if your intend is to "not get her pregnant", then none of these actions (like oral) are an effective way of keeping her from getting pregnant. If you are doing anything sexual, then pregnancy should be an expected outcome.

There is a difference between something being effective (like oral as a method of not conceiving), and something being absolute (like not having sex). If two partners use condoms, spermicide, and a diaphragm the clear expectation is not to conceive and each of those methods are effective. However pregnancy may still occur because the partners are not in an absolute position of not having sex, and birth control failures do happen.

 Polonius wrote:
This is bad luck.

No, it isn't. This was pretty clearly planned by the flying rodent gak woman. Luck had nothing to do with it.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
Right, so, moral of the story, we have to change the school books because apparently a woman can get pregnant if oral is performed.

Yes it can. I explained how oral (and many other ways of "not putting your penis in her vagina") can get you pregnant. If you're not smart enough to realize that then you shouldn't be trusted to handle your penis around women.

This is nuts, he's being ripped off when common sense tells us how this is ridiculous. They didn't have sex, the condom didn't break.

He did have sex.

And if you think that "I put my penis in her and the condom is broke" is the only way to get pregnant then your school books really need to be changed...

Frazzled is a boor.

Thats like saying "the sun hurts my eyes when I stare at it." Duh!
Doesn't deny the truth of our statements however.

trexmeyer wrote:
Communication is a two way street. If the sender fails to encode the message properly it is hardly the fault of the decoder for failing to grasp the original meaning.

Well, you got me there. Let me help you:

His life isn't ruined. He has to pay child support.

Okay, here, I'm stating a premise, that the father has to pay child support. the action of paying child support is going to come up in the next sentence, so prepare yourself.

I know plenty of guys doing that right now,

Here, I'm saying that I personally am acquainted with men I know casually (to use the slang, "guys"), that are also engaging in the act of paying child support (remember what I talked about in the last sentence?)

and so do you,

OK, this is the same sentence, in which I"m discussing my familiarity with people engaging in paying child support. Remember, the object of that sentence was myself, and the action was knowing people.

So, when I said, "so do you," I mean that you also know people that are paying child support.

I"m sure.

this was to emphasize the liklihood that you also know guys paying child support, emphaszing my earlier point that it doesn't ruin a life.

Now, I can see how that's complicated. I mean, I put the clause involving you in a sentence discussing my perosnal knowledge, not the paying of support. I also said "so do you," not "so are you." I mean, I gave so many clues that I meant you know people, I can see how you were confused.

Please don't tell me that you believe that mother has any business being a parent after the actions she took in order to conceive the child.

I actually would say I can't judge that. I don't know her, or her fitness to be a parent. Odds are good that she's fine, or at least better then foster care.

Doing something bad does not make you a bad parent. Otherwise hardly anybody would be a good parent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

To go back, telling for what?

That he had no intention to impregnate her if she did it behind his back and concealed the material fact after. You know, the topic that the post you quoted dealt with exclusively.

Please don't tell me that you believe that mother has any business being a parent after the actions she took in order to conceive the child.

She may be an awesome parent. You have no clue to the facts of the situation. The court did.

Again, don't sleep with crazy. Better to give wiener dogs your fajitas instead. You know you want to. They deserve it. But they prefer beef to chicken if there's an option. If the option however is to give them both your beef and chicken fajitas, they will choose THAT option.

It seems to me the whole thing was sneaky and underhand, however if the law as it stands requires the father to pay the support, he is stuck with it.

If there are lots of cases like this, the government might want to think about changing the law.

Probably very rare, though.

What I'm getting out of this topic is:

Man do something insane/crazy, woman don't want child, kill the child.

Woman do something insane/crazy, man don't want child, man pays child support.


Why are we thinking of the child only when it's beneficial to the woman?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/572514.page#6421614

Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.

The post makes it clear that if your intend is to "not get her pregnant", then none of these actions (like oral) are an effective way of keeping her from getting pregnant. If you are doing anything sexual, then pregnancy should be an expected outcome.

There is a difference between something being effective (like oral as a method of not conceiving), and something being absolute (like not having sex). If two partners use condoms, spermicide, and a diaphragm the clear expectation is not to conceive and each of those methods are effective. However pregnancy may still occur because the partners are not in an absolute position of not having sex, and birth control failures do happen.

True. But even being 99.9% effective means that the man has a 0.1% expectation of her getting pregnant and having to take responsibility for the child.

Of course, judging by your earlier post I also think we are talking about this from two different perspectives.

I'm mostly just talking about it to counter the "he shouldn't have to pay child support" argument. He performed a sexual act with her and he knew (or should have known) that there was a risk for her to get pregnant (even without the addition of her being a crazy woman).
I think you are mostly talking about it from the "he is suing her for mental anguish" angle and saying that her actions countered his "risk mitigation" techniques.

I do agree that she is crazy and that he probably has a case with his legal actions. So I think we are in agreement there.

But I do think he is responsible for the child as well since he didn't have "zero" expectations of her not getting pregnant to begin with.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
Right, so, moral of the story, we have to change the school books because apparently a woman can get pregnant if oral is performed.

This is nuts, he's being ripped off when common sense tells us how this is ridiculous. They didn't have sex, the condom didn't break.

So what? They did however have a child. Artificial ensemination still results in a child, and thus support. Child support is not about who did what, who thought what, or who promised to do or not do anything. Its about the protection and maintenance of the child (and as Polonius noted, the State not having to do it for you you deadbeat).

 Polonius wrote:
Zing! Ok, telling to what end? So what? She tricked him into getting her pregnant. What should be done about it?

Telling in that it was not his intention to conceive a child with her. That was it, nothing more, nothing less.

 Polonius wrote:
If your point is that she did something really awful, then I'd agree.

Good then, we agree after you finally got the limits of what I was commenting about following my jurisdictional comparison.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me the whole thing was sneaky and underhand, however if the law as it stands requires the father to pay the support, he is stuck with it.

If there are lots of cases like this, the government might want to think about changing the law.

Probably very rare, though.

It's happened at least once before, in State of Louisiana v. Frisard.

As in literally the exact same thing - oral sex, woman saved sperm, inseminated self later, etc.

 Slarg232 wrote:
What I'm getting out of this topic is:

Man do something insane/crazy, woman don't want child, kill the child.

Woman do something insane/crazy, man don't want child, man pays child support.


Why are we thinking of the child only when it's beneficial to the woman?

1. Only you are getting that.
2. Its not beneificial to the woman. Its for the child's benefit. they are separate issues. Again life is hard. If you're stupid you gotta be tough. Moral of the story, don't be stupid. Or you can be like me, as tough as nails...

I like how the solution the almost any legal issue that turns up here has to be solved by " we need to change some laws".

Is it just me or is America just bad at making laws?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me the whole thing was sneaky and underhand, however if the law as it stands requires the father to pay the support, he is stuck with it.

If there are lots of cases like this, the government might want to think about changing the law.

Probably very rare, though.

It's happened at least once before, in State of Louisiana v. Frisard.

As in literally the exact same thing - oral sex, woman saved sperm, inseminated self later, etc.

Ok you said Louisiana. You do know Louisiana is an entire state that is flying rodent gak crazy right? But they do have a good time.