Jump to content

Uomo

Registered
  • Content Count

    130
  • Joined

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Uomo

  • Rank
    100 Posts Club
  • Birthday 02/17/1972

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    M. Male
  • Location
    Area 51
  • Interests
    Ballroom Dancing & Travel
  • Occupation
    Attorney
  • Swinging Experience
    December 2005

Swinger Info

  • Favorite Club(s)
    Brand New

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mrs Uomo Back: NOW I am supposed to deal with a " HIS lifestyle of every other weekend and too f***ing bad for you "deal with it, bitch." What I thought and was told I was getting into was not what Uomo's intentions were at all. A few of you had him pegged from the beginning. He was ALWAYS looking for an extra piece of ass on the side. I read all of *her* threads and was actually told by her "I am the militant out the pistol pete cheaters ex part of a couple single female. I would be the last woman to ever hurt another woman that way." In my book that is lying. Call it no other name. I still feel sorry for her delusional self. AFTER 45 YEARS OF TRYING, SEDUCING, AND GENERALLY SLEEPING WITH ANYONE WHO WOULD GIVE HER A TUMBLE SHE THINKS SHE HAS IT MADE. BY THE WAY.,,, HER ALIMONY RUNS OUT SHORTLY guys in case this one doesn't work out the way she wants it to....... And sorry that he thinks that he has what he wants, can sign off from the Board, and wish you all a "hail and farewell." No, I don't see the like of you in either of them. I am more like you. I am open, honest, and prize my integrity and apologize. What I accused you all of was my agony and betrayed self speaking. I hope NONE of you ever experience what I have been going through these last four weeks. I live with Benedict Arnold. Love, Mrs. Uomo
  2. Yes ... that was the good "Mrs. Uomo" posting. I (Mr. Uomo) have moved on ... the lifestyle ... is not for me. As far as what has (or has not) happened in my personal life ... I'm not going to go there. Some things are best left alone. This may be one of them. In any event, I've enjoyed my time on the SB (while it lasted) ... and although I've said it time and time again ... I really think you are all a great crowd ... and a lot of fun. I came away from the SB with some fantastic insight on lifestyle issues (and on life issues in general). But I'm moving on ... So with that ... I'm calling it a day on the SB ... and wishing you all a fond farewell ... and to the dagger-throwing crowd out there ... no hard feelings. God bless ... the First Amendment. Forever Yours, The Little Llama You Love to Hate ... and Hate to Love ... (Yeah ... You Love Me) The SB's (Gleeful) Devil's Advocate ~ Uomo Universale
  3. Or you could do it the way you did it, dear Uomo: Set up a swinging experience with a single swinger woman, needy, just lost a lover, insecure and adolescent in demeanor and mentality and have her decide that she has fallen in love with you after one weekend .....so much so that she is professing to her relatives that you are about to "dump your wife when she gets a job so you can get engaged," calls your wife "the drama queen", (do I have a right to be heartbroken after a fourteen year marriage was just trashed?) not to mention other things, and works very hard to undermine every aspect of her being to you. Now! That IS desperation! So what are you people really about? Lying? Cheating?? This chick, who has taken over.....5 e-mails a day....4-5 phone calls daily.....demands every other weekend alone with my husband....was swinger extroirdinaire! Sent me all kinds of reassurances that she would NEVER BREAK UP A MARRIAGE.....yup. (Now refuses to even speak to me.) IF you believe that there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you. Well Uomo, you're going to get your day in court after all. YOu are both liars and cheats and narcissistic abusers. Good luck.
  4. You are right about llamas ... excellent sheepdogs. My original Avatar (Bill Clinton) was deleted (for political content). So with Bill out of the running ... a llama seemed like the obvious second choice. I mean ... who wouldn't swing with a llama (if given the chance)? Female llamas deep throat like nobody's business. Don't knock an M-F-L until you've tried it. Truth be told ... I had a more sinister intent: "The Llama Song." Click on the link below, listen to it once or twice ... you will be singing it for weeks. It's just one of those strangely addictive songs you can't get out of your head (and don't know why). Click on the link ... if you dare. Musical S&M
  5. My thoughts exactly. My wife is (in truth) bisexual but ... we list her as straight. I can't stand possessive (insecure) male hypcorites. Pathetic.
  6. This thread is ancient (I've made 100+ posts since I started this thread). Let it die, already. People change ... I've changed. My wife and I are getting together with another couple next week ... we are SWINGING. No one is going to shoot me (unless I leave my socks and underwear on the floor next to the bed). So give Uomo a break ... I'm really a nice little llama once you get to know me.
  7. A lawyer is not obligated to advance an argument he reasonably beleives to be unethical or irrelevant. Lawyers who engage in that type of behavior are not only frequently discredited in the eyes of the court, in the appropriate circumstances, they could be sanctioned. In fact, advancing such an argument might even give your opponent ammunition for an appeal or new trial. In other words ... the tactic could (and probably would) backfire ... to no offsetting benefit. That's why a lawyer advancing such an argument would lose my respect -- he's an idiot. A good lawyer does not engage in unethical mud slinging ... a good lawyer doesn't need to. Rather, a good lawyer plays fair, wins fair, and (for that reason) ... is untouchable on appeal. I do not beleive swinging is relevant to custody and I would not offer it into evidence. I would focus on the issues that are (in fact) relevant to parenting (e.g. emotional stability, financial responsibility, etc.) ... and offer the best argument I could. I like your case references ... quite entertaining.
  8. No chance in hell. It's completely irrelevant. Seriously ... what does her swinging have to do with rearing children? Any lawyer who would offer that kind of argument in court would quickly lose my respect. Were I the judge, I would not consider it. My decision would be based exclusively upon the best interests of the children. In fact ... were I a statistician, my money says the swinging mom likely offers a more stable home environment than the non-swinging father. Just something I have come to observe about swingers and the strength of their relationships. Verdict for the mom.
  9. Not necessarily ... if Sarah broke into a sperm bank and impregnated herself with Dick's sperm ... no one would argue that the biological father (Dick) would be on the hook for child support. Yet ... one wonders ... how much different is the scenario at hand? I would argue that Dick is no more responsible for the child's birth than the sperm donor whose sperm was wrongfully misappropriated. So he and the kid share genetic similarities ... so what? Seriously ... SO WHAT ??? Sure, it would be nice (in a perfect world) if the kid had two loving parents to support him ... but the "best interests of the child" is not the only consideration justice must weigh. A balancing of the equities is required. This child would not be the first child supported by a single parent. Forcing a completely innocent man (like Dick) to support a kid in the absence of intercourse would risk a horrific moral injustice. If Dick masterbated into a sock ... and Sarah stole the sock ... is Dick still liable? I cannot imagine such a thing ... nor do I envision a could compelling support in such a situation. So ... where are we to draw the line? Dick is not someone who used a faulty condom ... or assumed the risk (bareback) and lost ... Dick is more like the innocent sperm bank donor ... a vicitm (in every sense of the word). I think a court might agree with me on this one ... if so, Dick's getting off (again). Admittedly, the odds of Dick's success might not be all that great (given general case law trends) ... but it's entirely possible. It all depends on the philosophical bent of the various justicies assigned to the case. Justices disagree ... and often. Maybe I win the coin flip ... maybe not. But one hell of a fun case to litigate.
  10. Never heard that one before ... yikes !! Imagine ... ?
  11. Very good answer. You are absolutely correct ... the case law seems fairly consistent in holding that the child's right to support is paramount. Not that I necessarily agree with these decisions (in all circumstances) ... but what you observe is clearly the general trend. These cases are not typically controlling ... which is to say that others courts could decide these matters entirely differently. That's what makes these kind of cases fun. The outcome in a given matter could very prove a roll of the dice ... based entirely on the judge assigned to your case. Were I an attorney handling this type of case, I think I would much prefer to argue the position of the third-party male (i.e on Dick's behalf). Something bothers me about the idea that someone could become a father on account of a gold-digger's sneaky blow job ... I would love to fight that fight. I think it could be won (but the odds ... are admittedly not good). The shared condom scenario makes one wonder ... how the fuck could someone be that stupid? It just doesn't sound possible ... yet ... Were I the first guy to use the condom, I would file a cross-claim against the second guy sounding in comparative negligence ... which is to say, if the state makes #1 pay chld support ... I would try to compel the #2 to reimburse #1 (in full or in part). That would probably be the best case scenario for mitigating the damage. That got me thinking ... what if Sam and Sarah jerked off a dead guy at the morg? Would the kid be entitled to an inheritance? If you were simply to consider the best interests of the kid ... ? Food for thought
  12. 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 ...
  13. 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 hypothetical I made up -- to be assured, there are good arguments to be made for all involved) ... what's much more interesting to the discussion is your reasoning. So whaddayathink? How would you rule?
  14. What a shock !!! UOMO (of all people) ... is NON Poly: 46% (w/ 34% just in it for sex). My scoring the lowest (yet) in this poll is completely inconsistent with my outspoken (& since abandoned) advocacy of "making love" in the lifestyle. Not quite sure what to make of the results (... or the survey). I am (it appears) ... a mystery even to myself.
  15. A "comprehenisve assessment" does not preclude the use of disqualifying criterion. It just means that being an attractive "white person" is not in itself enough to land me in the sack. My position is not inconsistent. Here's one last thought: If I knew for certain that a highly attractive black woman was 100 percent safe ... I would not hesitate to have sex with her. But (unfortunately) you never know these things going in ... so you can only play the statistical odds (based on credible scientific evidence) and hope for the best. My preference for whites has nothing to do with the color of a person's skin. Seriously: why should I give a shit about something as meaningless as skin color? Nobody ever died of "skin." Color isn't contagious. It lends (or takes away) nothing from the experience.
×
×
  • Create New...