Uomo's Blowjob Hypothetical

[Uomo]

Sam and Sarah are a married couple who want kids. The problem is: Sam is sterile, and neither Sam nor Sarah can afford artificial insemenation at a sperm bank. So one day, Sam and Sarah get this brilliant idea ...

Sam and Sarah join the lifestyle. At a local event, they meet another couple, Dick and Jane. Dick and Jane are soft swingers who are willing to flirt and fool around a little ... but both have agreed not to have sex with another couple.

Later that evening, Dick and Sarah start to fool around, Dick has a few too many drinks, Sarah unzips Dick's pants ... and gives him an incredible blow job. Dick fires his load into Sarah's mouth ... and then runs out of the room (overwhelmed with guilt). Sarah (in the meanwhile) spits out the semen, inserts it into her vagina, and impregnates herself with Dick's child.

Ten months later, Sam and Sarah file for divorce.

Sarah is now before the court. She is asking the judge to force Dick and/or Sam to pay child support. You are the judge responsible for administering justice and safeguarding the best interests of the child. How would you rule? Who would you make pay child support? Dick, Sam, Both or Neither?

Suppose also that Chris and Dick now want full (or joint) custody of the child? To whom would you grant custody? Dick, Sam, Sarah, a Combination of Two, or All Three?

The answer you give is not all that important (it's just a hypothical I made up -- to be assured, there are good arguments to be made for all invovled) ... what's much more interesting to the discussion is your reasoning.

So whaddayathink? How would you rule?

[thebenny]

Probaby Dick would have to pay the custody bc of the DNA tests but I think it should be Sam paying it as it was his and sarah's idea to have a baby....

[BodyScape02]

Uomo,

I do love a good legal argument. I am so glad you have come to the board.

The problem presented seems very close to the classic “whose patient is she? " scenario.

The question here is culpability. First, am I to move forward on the assumptions that Sarah’s actions were initially sanctioned by her soon-to-be-ex and that this was indeed the intent and sole purpose of their foray into swinging?

If yes... then both are culpable and Dick was technically robbed of his semen without his permission. Raped in a sense of the word, as his prodigy was taken by force, and he was used in a manner he did not consent to.

He never intended to impregnate Sarah and indeed by action chose to deposit his sperm in an area as far from the vagina as possible without involving overspray. ( Ie a face shot) He had reasonable expectation that said sperm would be ingested or spit out into a disposal system. Reasonable care is demonstrated by the fact they are a “soft swing” couple, as it shows particular intent to avoid any chance of pregnancy by its very nature.

On the other hand, Sarah and Sam acted with purposeful intent and regardless of the custody of the child... they should be the ones paying child support.

If Dick chooses visitation... legally he could obtain it, as a biological parent. Insistence upon said visitation could alter the status quo and in turn , make him responsible for some measure of the child’s care.

Should there be a question of all parties wanting custody of the child... I would be inclined if the child was very young to lean toward Dick and Jane as primary legal and custodial parents and grant them child support. Why? If they are still together after finding out this and willing to accept the child and love it, they definitively meet the standard for a very stable two- parent household and being with them would be in the best interest of the child. Why would I deny the birth mother and father primary physical and legal custody? The coercive and nefarious nature of the child’s conception and the inability of Sam and Sarah to stay together even after they "got what they went looking for", Show them to be the most unstable and in general, selfish parents.


Additionally, I wonder if Dick had grounds for theft of services (yes that was tongue in cheek...or sperm in cheek), breach of contract or fraud charges against Sam and Sarah. Going into the room knowing they were soft swing is an implied contract / oral contract (couldn’t resist the oral reference … sorry), which they breeched.

How did I do? Do I have a future as a litigator?

The ever happy to have a great question to ponder,

~Cat

[Spoomonkey]

I would remind Sarah that she was hypothetical and take a long lunch...

Spoomonkey

[youngswingersne]

Tricky, but i think you're right. The "real" father shouldn't have any responsibilities unless he requests them, and in that case should pay towards to child. Sam and Sarah should also be charged with some sort of offence, just because it was mean

[Vespertine]

I would remind Sarah that she was hypothetical and take a long lunch...

Spoomonkey

Can I join you?

[Spoomonkey]

Can I join you?

Sure - I always like to have someone else help me decide what to eat. Italian or Mexican? Personally, I'm jonesin' for Floridian...

But, I'll let you pick.



Spoomonkey

[Vespertine]

Floridian is mighty satisfying. Mr. V says it's his favorite dish.

Floridian it is.

[good times]

Wow, for some reason I suddenly have a craving for Floridian.

[Thrax]

Wow, for some reason I suddenly have a craving for Floridian.

Me too, although to my knowledge I've never had Floridian before. Is it spicy? I like spicy.

[Spoomonkey]

Floridian is mighty satisfying.

That has always been my experience with local dishes down there...

And by "down there" I mean in Florida

Spoomonkey

[good times]

Me too, although to my knowledge I've never had Floridian before. Is it spicy? I like spicy.

Same here, oh, and I like spicy too.

[Uomo]

Uomo,

I do love a good legal argument. I am so glad you have come to the board.

The problem presented seems very close to the classic “whose patient is she? " scenario.

The question here is culpability. First, am I to move forward on the assumptions that Sarah’s actions were initially sanctioned by her soon-to-be-ex and that this was indeed the intent and sole purpose of their foray into swinging?

If yes... then both are culpable and Dick was technically robbed of his semen without his permission. Raped in a sense of the word, as his prodigy was taken by force, and he was used in a manner he did not consent to.

He never intended to impregnate Sarah and indeed by action chose to deposit his sperm in an area as far from the vagina as possible without involving overspray. ( Ie a face shot) He had reasonable expectation that said sperm would be ingested or spit out into a disposal system. Reasonable care is demonstrated by the fact they are a “soft swing” couple, as it shows particular intent to avoid any chance of pregnancy by its very nature.

On the other hand, Sarah and Sam acted with purposeful intent and regardless of the custody of the child... they should be the ones paying child support.

If Dick chooses visitation... legally he could obtain it, as a biological parent. Insistence upon said visitation could alter the status quo and in turn , make him responsible for some measure of the child’s care.

Should there be a question of all parties wanting custody of the child... I would be inclined if the child was very young to lean toward Dick and Jane as primary legal and custodial parents and grant them child support. Why? If they are still together after finding out this and willing to accept the child and love it, they definitively meet the standard for a very stable two- parent household and being with them would be in the best interest of the child. Why would I deny the birth mother and father primary physical and legal custody? The coercive and nefarious nature of the child’s conception and the inability of Sam and Sarah to stay together even after they "got what they went looking for", Show them to be the most unstable and in general, selfish parents.


Additionally, I wonder if Dick had grounds for theft of services (yes that was tongue in cheek...or sperm in cheek), breach of contract or fraud charges against Sam and Sarah. Going into the room knowing they were soft swing is an implied contract / oral contract (couldn’t resist the oral reference … sorry), which they breeched.

How did I do? Do I have a future as a litigator?

The ever happy to have a great question to ponder,

~Cat

You might be right. You might be wrong.

Either way, I'm going to play the devil's advocate ...

You argue that Dick was "technically robbed" of his semen ... really? The truth is Dick "abandoned" his semen the moment he shot it into her mouth. Think about it ... Dick did not ask Sarah to return his semen ... and certainly Dick had no reasonable expectation that his semen would be returned to him (unless Sarah has a known snowball fetish). So how can Dick now claim that his semen was "stolen?" Your "stolen semen" argument just doesn't make any sense.

And if Dick was so concerned about what would happen to his semen after he willfully abandoned it ... what was he doing shooting his semen into some stranger's mouth? Dick was playing with a loaded gun. Dick knew (or reasonably should have known) Sarah could have easily misappropriated his semen ... and fired it off anyway. How many women have told guys they were on the pill ... or that their tubes were tied ... or that the chick was infertile ... only to find out (nine months later) that they are now unexpected fathers? The law doesn't make an exception for them ... and they (just like Dick) had no expectation of becoming a parent. So why should Dick get special treatment? When Dick whipped out his dick, Dick "assumed the risk" of parenthood ... and lost. A reasonable person exercising reasonable care ... would have wore a condom while getting a blowjob ... and then disposed of the condom himself. Dick was reckless.

There's another problem with your argument: how does Dick intend to prove to the court that he only consented to a blow job (and didn't actually fire a load up inside of her)? If the court rules in favor of Dick, aren't we opening a pandora's box of sorts? If Dick wins, EVERY guy who gets a girl pregnant will claim he only consented to (and received) a blow job. Even if Dick had it all on videotape, aren't we just inviting widespread fraud and abuse in our legal system? How many single mothers (and children) would ultimately suffer because the male partner was an effective liar? How many tax dollars will be spent trying to sort out who shot what where? It seems to me that the potential for widespread fraud, waste and abuse far outweigh the court's marginal interest in policing recklessly abandoned semen.

And as for you argument that Dick's child support should be tied to his desire for visitation and custody ... what a load of crap. Why should the kid's standard of living turn upon whether Dick "gives a shit" about him? What you are suggesting accomplishes little more than to provide an affirmative financial incentive for Dick to completely turn his back on (and ignore) his biological son. What kind of compassion is that? Is that fair to the baby? I think not. If Dick's on the hook ... Dick's on the hook (absentee landlord or otherwise). It's Dick's kid ... Dick's on the hook.

That raises another issue ... you suggest that Dick and Jane should get custody ... but Dick and Jane weren't planning on having a kid. Dick "abandoned" his semen ... remember? If Dick had his way ... the kid would have slithered down Sarah's throat. You call that a responsible parent? I call Dick ... a would-be cannibal. Sam and Sarah (on the other hand) put their ass on the line, and proved they were willing to spare no length to bring a beautiful child into this world they could raise and love. It's not their fault they Sam is infertile. Sam and Sarah wanted this child (not Dick) ... Sarah is the child's mother ... Sarah should get custody. Sure ... what Sam and Sarah did was not an ideal way in an ideal world ... but why should the child suffer? If you seperate the child from the mother ... that's exactly what will happen -- the child will suffer.

Dick needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for his irresponsibility.

Screw dick.

Your turn ...

[curiousagain]

I bet Floridian would be really really good with a cold Corona under a tree on the beach, at night with the surf rolling, and the wind blowing........

[In2curiosity]

As an attorney you already know the answer. Bio Dad must pay child support because the child's right to support is more pertinent than how said child was created. If husband knows child is not biologically his and supported the child anyway acting in all ways like the father then he is also legally responsible for Child support if Bio father can not be found or in unknown. But if he didn't know the child wasn't biologically his there is more leeway, but only slightly. Husband's only recourse for visitation or custody is as an interested party and his chances of either are slim to none if bio parents do not grant visitation.

There is a fascinating case study where two men "shared" a condom.....yes true story.....guy in the front seat used the condom, then the guy in the backseat turned it inside out and used same condom on different girl. Girl got pregnant by first mans sperm and first man is responsible to child even though he never had sex or intended to have sex with the mother of the child.

Crazy world we live in but men are legally responsible for the outcome of sperm no matter how it is obtained, even in cases of fraud. Yet they have almost no rights until sperm is a child, and even then the child can be adopted without consent in many states because it is the males legal responsibility to follow "the sperm trail" (and now that I have typed this useless bit of info, I am off to sleep..gnight all)

Mrs. Me