[Appropriation] Snow Job
From a decision issued in February by an appellate court in Illinois. In November 2000, Sharon Irons sued Richard Phillips for child support; in May 2003, Phillips countersued, charging Irons with fraud, theft, and intent to cause emotional distress. The court found Irons innocent of fraud and theft but held her liable for causing Phillips emotional distress. Phillips was ordered to pay child support. Both are doctors.
Plaintiff and defendant began dating in January of 1999. Plaintiff informed defendant he did not wish to have children prior to marriage and intended to use a condom if and when they engaged in sexual intercourse. During the entire course of their relationship, the parties engaged in intimate sexual acts three times. Vaginal penetration never occurred. On or around February 19, 1999, and March 19, 1999, defendant "intentionally engaged in oral sex with plaintiff so that she could harvest his semen and artificially inseminate herself." Plaintiff asserts that defendant took his "semen, sperm, and genetic material without his permission, for the purpose of conceiving a child."
Defendant responds that plaintiff did not loan or lease his sperm, and there was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request. She asserts that when plaintiff "delivered" his sperm to defendant it was a gift- an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee. Plaintiff's donative intent was clear, she argues. "Had he not intended to deliver his sperm to me, he would have used a condom and kept it and its contents." Plaintiff cannot show he had the right to unconditional possession of his sperm. Plaintiff presumably intended, and does not claim otherwise, that defendant discard his semen, not return it to him.
From the August issue of Harper's, the best fuckin mag in the world
Plaintiff and defendant began dating in January of 1999. Plaintiff informed defendant he did not wish to have children prior to marriage and intended to use a condom if and when they engaged in sexual intercourse. During the entire course of their relationship, the parties engaged in intimate sexual acts three times. Vaginal penetration never occurred. On or around February 19, 1999, and March 19, 1999, defendant "intentionally engaged in oral sex with plaintiff so that she could harvest his semen and artificially inseminate herself." Plaintiff asserts that defendant took his "semen, sperm, and genetic material without his permission, for the purpose of conceiving a child."
Defendant responds that plaintiff did not loan or lease his sperm, and there was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request. She asserts that when plaintiff "delivered" his sperm to defendant it was a gift- an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee. Plaintiff's donative intent was clear, she argues. "Had he not intended to deliver his sperm to me, he would have used a condom and kept it and its contents." Plaintiff cannot show he had the right to unconditional possession of his sperm. Plaintiff presumably intended, and does not claim otherwise, that defendant discard his semen, not return it to him.
From the August issue of Harper's, the best fuckin mag in the world