February 25, 2005

And finally, a very straaaaaange story from Chicago

I think the court got this decision right:

Court: Man can sue over 'surprise' pregnancy
February 25, 2005
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Legal Affairs Reporter

If a woman performs oral sex on a man, leaves the room, secretly uses that sperm to impregnate herself, then sues the man for child support, is that "extreme and outrageous" conduct?

Yes it is, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled this week.

I would have to agree that pretty well constitutes "extreme and outrageous" conduct. I suspect he will have great difficulty proving it. Still, he already lost the paternity because
"If he ejaculated and had semen on her or near her through a sex act and somehow it got into her fallopian tubes, up through the ovaries, too bad -- he's got to be more careful what he does with his semen," said Chicago divorce lawyer Donald C. Schiller.

Appellate Justice Allan Hartman noted a 1997 Louisiana case which held a man who said a woman impregnated herself with sperm she got from him in oral sex had child support allegations because "he had some sort of sexual contact" with the woman.

Wake up, Emily! Here comes the good part:
The panel, however, tossed the other two counts in Phillips' suit, including the one for conversion because they could not accept that Irons "stole" Phillips' sperm.

"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," Hartman wrote. "There was no agreement the original deposit would be returned upon request."

I've always thought of it as a "gift" but that's not exactly what I meant.

Huh huh! She said "delivered"!

Posted by Ken S at February 25, 2005 12:24 PM | TrackBack (0) |
Comments

I've never thought of sperm as a gift; more as an extreme annoyance, no matter which orifice it's being splooged in to.

Posted by: Emily at February 25, 2005 12:31 PM

Yeah, I was thinking more in terms of a gift for him.

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at February 25, 2005 12:35 PM

I figured as much, but the plaintiff in this case obviously sees things another way.

Posted by: Emily at February 25, 2005 12:42 PM

"There was no agreement the original deposit would be returned upon request."

How on earth did those lawyers deal with this wihtout howling with laughter?

Posted by: red at February 25, 2005 12:43 PM

Sheila,
Don't you usually sign a contract in triplicate about returning semen post-coital and all that? I thought everyone did.

"Excuse me, but can I have those back, dear?"
"I'm sorry. I didn't realize you'd want them returned before I swallowed."

Posted by: Emily at February 25, 2005 12:49 PM

"Honey, I look at your jiz shots as gifts, sprayed upon my tits."

Posted by: red at February 25, 2005 12:50 PM

Just one more reason I could never be a lawyer. My mind would be filled with jokes about her giving him that "come hither" look.

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at February 25, 2005 12:51 PM

"Delivery for Sheila! I've got a pearl necklace here ... can somebody sign for it?"

Posted by: red at February 25, 2005 12:53 PM

Heh. The guys on the radio this morning were suggesting that there might be an upsurge in just such pre-fellatial agreements.

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at February 25, 2005 12:53 PM

Or would that be "pre-facial" agreements?

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at February 25, 2005 12:54 PM

Never the lawyers (with apologies where appropriate), how did the "Legal Affairs reporter" ever get this thing typed up?

Posted by: peteb at February 25, 2005 01:17 PM

One-handed. Amazing, really...

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at February 25, 2005 01:19 PM

Ken,
I would think that you, of all people, would not be so easily impressed by one-handed typing.

Posted by: Emily at February 25, 2005 01:22 PM

No, it still impresses me.

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at February 25, 2005 01:30 PM

i find this whole story rather hard to swallow

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at February 25, 2005 04:45 PM

Mr. B. -- then do what the nice girls do and spit it out.

Posted by: Emily at February 25, 2005 05:04 PM

evidently that's what caused this problem in the first place...

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at February 25, 2005 05:06 PM

But then she sued for child support.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at February 25, 2005 05:21 PM

Looks like Tom Sizemore was ahead of the curve; look for sales of fake penis fluid-delivery systems to become the next big thing as it dawns upon the male half of the species that now we, too, need to fake it.

Posted by: ccwbass at February 26, 2005 03:12 AM

Here is the grandaddy (or grandmommy) of all such stories, from South Africa. In that case, though, the whole thing was an accident. That's someone's Live Journal, but he's got a link to the citation at the top. I couldn't get the full article from the NIH site, though.

Posted by: Angie Schultz at February 26, 2005 06:17 AM

Heh. That last line is precious. "The fact
that the son resembled the father excludes an even more miraculous conception."

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at February 26, 2005 07:02 AM

Me, I feel sorry for the kid. What a nice set of parents to be born to.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 26, 2005 08:56 AM

No kidding, Andrea.

Posted by: Emily at February 26, 2005 09:00 AM

"Mommy, where'd I come from?"

whoa Nelly...

Posted by: Mr Bingley at February 26, 2005 11:17 AM

"splooged"

*dies laughing*

Posted by: Liz at February 26, 2005 11:34 AM

I love the sort of scolding tone the divorce lawyer takes:

"he's got to be more careful what he does with his semen."

Very sound advice.

Posted by: red at February 26, 2005 01:26 PM

"...he's got to be more careful what he does with his semen."


Lawyers saying things like that and SOMEHOW keeping a straight face reminds of (yes) a war story from my summer with the LA COunty DA's Office. I'll give you the setup and the "punchline" and maybe someone knows whether I told it already.

DA: What did the defendant say then?

COP: He said "I'll suck your dick for ten bucks."

DA: And what did that MEAN?

COP: Oh, that was street vernacular for oral gratification.

Posted by: Dave J at February 26, 2005 01:43 PM

if this case actually goes to completion, maybe it will actually benefit us by leading to a downswing in the spam ads promising men the ability to produce "more [semen] than she can drink" (yes, actual (edited) title of a spam I received this morning. And you know, it's a good thing I'm not more queasy than I am first thing in the morning or the mental picture would have totally put me over the edge...)

Posted by: ricki at February 28, 2005 07:14 AM

Aw man! Ricki gets the cool dirty spam.

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at February 28, 2005 07:51 AM

Was this covered in Dave Chappelle's "Love Contract"?

Posted by: Steve at February 28, 2005 12:17 PM