Or should that be "Clitigation"? No, that's another blog altogether. Anyways, someone sent me this peice of legal gnus via e-mail. I think it's outrageous
that even when you're trying to be baby-safe, a schemer can find ways to make your life miserable. Read on and tell me what you think...

Now this is interesting. A man and a woman engaged in sex in Illinois, the man being careful not to have intercourse (unbeknown to the woman, he was married). However, during an oral sexual act in which he was arguably the receiver (more on that argument later), the woman secretly retained the man's sperm and impregnated herself with it at some later time. Two years hence, she hit him with a DNA-supported paternity suit, the man counter suing for "theft" of his sperm. The court's ruling?

"…when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee. There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."

It's a ruling that presents something of a 'good news/bad news' scenario for men and women alike.
For woman, the good news is that men cannot shimmy out of responsibility by childishly claiming to have never stuck it in. Sex is sex, whatever the act, and whatever comes from it is everyone's responsibility. There is also the undoubted delight in a cad being busted so mischievously - while he was standing there with his hands on his hips, convinced he was getting away with a ripper, the woman's head was percolating stuff that would turn things well and truly inside out.

The bad news for women is hidden in the Trojan horse of the court's ruling in her favour regarding the man's claims of pain and suffering, which were dismissed out of hand. It logically follows: if a court says men can't suffer the undoubted stresses of parenthood as women can - if his midnight madness and morning blues are so insignificant as to be thrown from the chambers, when hers are worth at least a percentage of $800 a month - then men shouldn't be expected to care as much as women do, either. When the wife says, "Can you change Junior's nappy, please, cause I have a headache", the man can rightfully answer, "But I don't care about this parenthood caper as you do, Honey...it's the law."

For men, the bad news is obvious: oral sex is no longer a safeguard against commitment. Like a teenager on a wild night out, sperm, when it leaves the home, is no longer playing under daddy's rules, but remains his responsibility regardless. All a guy can do is pray his little tackers don't get swept away by 'the wrong crowd'.

But the good news for men is nothing short of extraordinary, and more than makes up for the bad. For the very first time, fellatio has been described by a court of law as a "gift" from a man to a woman. I can think of few streets in our city that won't greet this news with equal amounts of dancing and protest, and one would expect the general mood of anticipation on Valentine's Day to shift considerably.

Of course, there's an aspect to this story that truly sucks, as the woman's attorney Enrico Mirabelli points out.

"There's a 5-year-old child here," Mirabelli said T. "Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth."

Well, setting aside that nobody really gives a hoot what a lawyer has to say about morals, one could argue that the child has already inherited a questionable kick off. If the kid is at all inquisitive, as we all are, the question of how he was conceived will one day arise.

And every year, as the birthday cake candles are blown, everyone will remember.