The hidden half of domestic violence
How to have eternal life
WHO OWNS YOUR SPERM?
Possession is ten-tenths of the law By Sam Jemielity
When Boris Becker dropped by a London restaurant in 1999, he had no idea his bill would be so enormous: £2 million, or nearly $3 million. That's the sum the German tennis star paid to settle a paternity claim brought by a Russian Algerian waitress named Angela Ermakowa, who claimed she had a single sexual encounter that night with Becker.
The German newspaper Bild had a field day with the story It reported that Becker insisted he and Ermakowa only had oral sex, and that his lawyers suggested the sometime model had inseminated herself. It even alleged that she had pilfered Becker's semen as part of a Russian mafia plot to blackmail him.
After DNA tests proved him to be the father, the unseeded tennis star acknowledged his paternity (the girl, now a toddler, bears a striking resemblance to her dad) and called for an end to the wild speculation about how the pregnancy occurred. Legally, the how, where and why of the child's conception are irrelevant. Both British and U.S. courts have made it clear that regardless of the circumstances behind a man's becoming a father, he has to support the child.
Roe vs. Wade protects a woman's right to choose whether she will bear a child. After insemination, a man has no similar protection of his right to decide whether to become a father. But at what moment does he lose that right? Is ejaculation the legal point of no return? Does the fact that a woman lies to him about her birth control, retrieves his semen from a discarded condom, sexually assaults him after he's fallen unconscious or rapes him before he's reached adulthood mitigate in any way his financial responsibility?
The answer, absurdly, is no. At present, no matter how a woman gets her hand on his semen (short of using a sperm bank, where the donors are anonymous), a man has no chance of avoiding the financial obligations of unexpected progeny. It's an inequity in the legal system that allows women not only to "steal" semen but also to demand money from unwilling fathers- a way of finding a sperm donor who also pays for the kid. Writing in the Florida Law Review, a legal scholar noted in 1995 that "a frequent fact pattern in sex fraud cases is where one partner falsely claims to be infertile or to be using birth control. If a child is subsequently born, does the defrauded party have a cause of action? I have found no cases holding for plaintiffs in these circumstances.
Judges do not consider the actions of the parents when determining support. Instead, they place what they perceive to be the child's interests foremost. The benchmark case in this regard has been L. Pamela P vs. Prank S., a 1983 decision by the New York Court of Appeals. In that case, the father argued that his partner "misrepresented to me that she was using contraception." A lower court had determined that because of the mother's conduct, the father would be liable only in the amount by which her means were insufficient to meet the child's needs. But the appeals court struck down that decision, stating, "The mother's conduct in no way limited his right to use contraception." Further, the court stated: "However unfairly respondent may have been treated by petitioner's failure to allow him an equal voice in the decision to conceive a child, such a wrong does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation."
We would challenge the court's decision about what's unfair and what's an injustice.
Lying to a man about using birth control is only the most common situation where men get roped into fatherhood. Consider the British telecom executive whose sad tale was detailed in London's Daily Mail. He met a woman at a nightclub, had a fling and expected the relationship to end when she left for an extended trip to Australia. Instead, she called to say she was pregnant with his child.
Having used protection throughout the relationship, the executive felt he had been a victim of bad luck. But the woman admitted, first during an emotional phone conversation and later in a confessional letter, that she had taken his semen from a discarded condom while he was in the shower. Despite this, a court ordered the new father to pay support. He now finds himself on the hook for what could amount to £67,000 ($97,000) before the child turns 16, not to mention the £20,000 ($29,000) he spent on legal fees.
After the court presented its decision, the executive protested that "This ruling gives a license to women to use men in any way they see fit."
Emile Frisard, who challenged a support ruling in the courts of Louisiana, claims to have had nearly the same experience as the British executive. He testified that the only sexual encounter he had with the woman who bore his child, Debra Rojas-a nurse at the hospital where Frisard's mother had been admitted-occurred when she offered to give him oral sex, provided he wore a condom. "As any male would, I did not refuse," Frisard said. "I wish I would have refused." A friend of Frisard's testified that he later saw a woman who resembled Rojas engaging in what looked like an attempt to inseminate herself in the bathroom of the hospital room where Frisard's mother was staying. In 1997 a Louisiana court upheld the support ruling.
Frisard made a conscious choice to have oral sex, and he paid for it. But the courts in Alabama don't even require that a man be conscious, as in the case of a man who was forced to pay support even though he was passed out drunk at the time of sexual intercourse. The man collapsed in a bed at a woman's house. He said he awoke the following morning wearing only an un-buttoned shirt, with the woman standing in the bedroom doorway "toweling off." A witness who had been at the party testified that two months later, the woman boasted that she had had sex with the man while he was passed out and that it had "saved her a trip to the sperm bank." Two other witnesses offered similar testimony. A doctor testified that a man can achieve an erection and ejaculate even when inebriated to the point of unconsciousness.
When this happens to a woman, it's considered rape. But in 1996 the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals upheld the ruling that the man should pay support. It cited the 1983 New York decision, as well as a case in which a 16- year-old father had contested support payments, claiming he had been the victim of statutory rape at the hands of the 21-year-old mother of his child. The court rejected his argument, stating: "The father's recourse under the law as to the mother of the child was to file criminal charges. To penalize this child for the mother's actions would run contrary to the fundamental purpose of this proceeding"-that is, to serve the best interests of the child (in this case, the toddler, not the teen).
Albuquerque real estate agent Peter Walls attempted to make an end run around the law in 1998 by suing his former live-in girlfriend, Kellie Smith, for breach of contract, fraud and "conversion of property"-his semen. He claimed she had lied about being on the pill, and he asked for damages equal to his support payments. Smith insisted that she had been taking the pill but that it failed. Regardless, she argued in a legal filing, her ex had "surrendered any right of possession to his semen when he transferred it during voluntary sexual intercourse."
A judge threw the case out. No surprise. Until there is a law against misappropriating sperm, men who take reasonable precautions not to inseminate or who trust their partners to be honest about birth control, have no recourse should a pregnancy occur. Once you shoot, it's no longer your load. When Wallis sued, Kellie Smith's lawyer argued that a man's sperm should be considered a "gift." When in doubt about the intentions of a girlfriend or girl at a bar, a guy might want to stick with a dozen roses. Because, as any number of men can attest, semen can be the gift that keeps on taking.
© Playboy.com All rights reserved.
PLEASE NOTE: While I do not approve of the source of this report, I do feel it shows the double standard set up against men. If it is a crime for one gender, it should be a crime for the other gender as well. Women have sexual intercourse with minor boys far more often then most realize. When that happens many say the boy "got lucky" I do not know of one woman that has been given jail time for this on the FIRST offense. Men get an average of 6 years or more for the first offense. One man I know of got a year in jail for TOUCHING a girls breast...accidentally. This is interesting since according to feminist the fact that girls mature earlier then do boys is very important to them. If this is true, why are not these women who have sex with these "IMMATURE boys not held AS accountable., or more accountable then men who have sex with a more mature girl? After all, if the boy is so immature, is he able to give INFORMED CONSENT? Think about this... an you can see the oxymoron feminist have set up for themselves.
Also we need to remember that God gave us firm instructions on sexual gratification not to keep us from having "fun" but to protect us and our children. See the section on Sexual Sins.
(please click above to vote for this site)
JUNE is Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Month