It’s official: Men’s Rights Activists are more obsessed with their “precious bodily fluids” than Dr. Strangelove’s General Jack D. Ripper. Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, many of the regulars are celebrating Boxing Day by sitting around on their computers worrying about evil predatory succubi burgling their sperm. Check out this little post, which has gotten 90 upvotes so far:
Yes, he really did just say “It’s as if your penis shoots magic IOUs every time you ejaculate.” If this is true, a lot of guys owe millions if not billions of dollars to a lot of old socks.
In the comments, other Men’s Rightsers shared their deepest concerns about the specter of spermburgling. SuicideBanana warns that the enemy may already be in your bed:
Reconstrucht worries about the money-hungry sperm-hunters lurking in bars:
And one future veterinarian contemplates giving up dating, in order to protect himself from the hypothetical women — sorry, soul sucking succubi — who might hypothetically use his future sperm in order to cash in big on his future vet money. Ca-ching!
Gentlemen: To fully protect your Essence, I suggest you ejaculate directly into a paper shredder, douse the results with hot sauce and arsenic, and pour the entire concoction into the nearest garbage disposal. Then flee the country.
The concept of a vasectomy just never occurs to these guys does it?
Why yes it is “predatory.” As in, not really predatory. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HAPPEN.
Okay, if the average payment is a meager $5,000 annually, what exactly are these assholes complaining about again? That’s NOTHING!
If she got him that souped up… well he’s not going to perform very well, and why doesn’t she just tell him she’s got an IUD and forgo the condom… it’s far more likely to lead to pregnancy.
I think this particular fear tactic has a fair chance to enter the mainstream. They should do a study and submit their bizarre foregone conclusions to the corporate media. It’ll put them on the map.
Oh, and then further in the comments
But that totally happens all the time. It’s how we make babies these days.
blitzgal: You have to remember, these evil women don’t spend the money on the kid; they spend it on… Scented candles! Or something like that.
I know that when I’m trying to find a good provider to enslave by forcing him to provide me with sperm, I ALWAYS go to bars. That’s where good providers hang out, dontcha know.
-no one, ever.
@blitzgal:
5,000 can be pretty heavy depending on a person’s income. But here’s the thing I don’t get.
The average cost of raising a child (over 17 years), depending on who you ask, is between $200,000 and $400,000.
The average child support payments total out to less than $100,000.
So these “predatory” women are “stealing” around $100K over 18 years in order to pay $100K-$300K in order to… what? Spite the guy? Where’s the rationale here? Do they just think that women are baby-crazy and want to offset some of the cost? Cause that’s literally the only possible reason I could think of…
No, they probably only ever think of these things in how it affects them; no scheme is too absurd for the evil sperm-stealing woman! -_-
The lulz, they don’t stop coming.
And yet the part that bugs me is that he put numbered references before embedded links.
That was an episode of Will and Grace? I’d have thought I would have remembered…
LOL they are so delusional. nobody wants anything to do with them or their sperm. MRA’s make me sick.
I just read this to the boss and we both laughed our heads off. “Have they never heard of condoms?” he asked. I told him about the used-condom notion and spermburgling and he asked if they think blow-up dolls are also trying to impregnate themselves.
😀 😀 😀
Well, katz, that’s just a criminally wrong citation format. It should be noted.
For these dudes the child is just a stuffed kitten. It’s only the feud with their ex that matters. Let the stuffies starve.
@clairedammit – makes you wonder a) if they think Will’s hypothetical lover and he just leave condoms lying around (ewwww) and b) how long do Mindless Reactionary Assholes think sperm survive in them anyway? They seem to be under the impression that their Precious Bodily Fluids are some sort of indesctructible impregnating wonder-seed.
Look. Let’s lay it out. Men fixed it so women couldn’t survive without a male protector. Women became dogs looking for their protector. Women fought for the right to read and for birth control. Women managed to find ways to survive without men. Men were incredibly threatened. Men remained in the past, obsessing about women trying to survive in a 50s scenario. Women moved on from these fools.
“Why yes it is “predatory.” As in, not really predatory. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HAPPEN.”
Actually, if you follow the link to the original comment on men’s rights subreddit, then follow another link again to the article referenced by MaunaLoona, you will find an article that discusses numerous legal cases that set precedent. Disturbingly, there was one case where a man was passed out and unconscious, and the women obtained sperm by raping him in his sleep. He was still liable for child support. In another case where a woman was raped she was not financially liable for the child.
The article calls it a “strict liability theory of sperm”. It looks like there have been a surprising number of cases of “sperm burgling” going by the cases cited in that article, though most were not rape cases.
Where did this happen? Accidental pregnancy is not spermburgling. Neither is a pregnancy where the man knowingly didn’t use birth control.
Forgive me if I’m being stupid, but could someone please explain something to me. How exactly is
MaunaLoona’s comment misogynistic? Perhaps he is excessively anxious about the issue of sperm burgling. But he links to an article which demonstrates that exactly what he is afraid of has happened to numerous men, so he’s not actually wrong about the facts of the matter.
It’s all very funny to laugh at his choice of wording (“magical IOUs”) but David Futrelle has not addressed the substance of the matter.
You guyz! M, also known as Melissa, is just asking a question! Please forgive her for being stupid.
Melissa, did you read the blog title and subhead? “Misogyny. I mock it.” This site is dedicated to mocking misogynists, not deep discussion or investigative journalism or anything else. All that crap about “spermburgling” as if every other woman was out to steal squillions of dollars from poor unsuspecting men is stupid and yes, misogynistic.
(Does Melissa’s “David Futrelle has not addressed the substance of the matter” line remind anyone of Schticky?)
Clairedammit,
“then takes the used condom with his DNA and impregnates herself”
See the article that is lunked in MaunaLoona’s comment.
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
Plenty of legal cases cited as examples.
Seems these guys are getting worked up over nothing.
Melissa: it’s a bunch of dudes on Reddit (of all places) acting like this is a remote possibility in their sad lives.
Is this Dee with a new name?
Noooooo, Kittehs, you have summoned him! (unless he no longer shows up every time someone uses his name. Which I would be okay with.)
“Melissa, did you read the blog title and subhead? “Misogyny. I mock it.””
Yes I did. Hence my question about where MaunaLoona’s comment is actually misogynistic. Excessively anxious granted, but given that he cites an article which in turn cites legal cases where this has in fact his encouragement for men to be careful with their sperm reasonable.
“Accidental pregnancy is not spermburgling.”
Agreed, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
So where does it state in that first article that Smith ACTUALLY lied about being on the Pill, or was trying to become pregnant? That’s what Wallis claimed, there’s nothing cited in what I read to say it was true. And she wasn’t suing for support, only for recognition of paternity. And frankly – if he was so concerned about not being a father, wtf didn’t he use condoms? Does he say he was allergic to latex? Is a vasectomy out of the question?
There are no words to describe these sad fools.
Melissa, did you actually read the article? The vast majority of the cases cited don’t involve “spermjacking.” There are only two cases in that article that do. I think there may have been a couple more since the article was written in 1999. In other words, there have been only a tiny handful of these cases in the history of the world. In other words, it’s orders of magnitude less likely than being hit by lightning. These guys are talking as if it’s an everyday occurrence.
Aren’t these the same guys who criticize women for thinking of men as rapist boogeymen?
Excessive anxiety based on extreme mistrust and dislike of women, an assumption that single mothers get shitloads of money, a dash of biological ignorance and sense of victimhood.
Yeah, not misogynistic at all.
I have commented on this blog only a very small number of times before today, always under the names “M” or “Melissa”.
David we really, really, really need a spermburgling teeshirt range – pretty please?
For the kiddies: “I was spermburgled’
Also thanks to Turley Logger on the Josephine thread for ‘Misandrocalypse’
‘Spermburgling my way to the Misandrocalypse’
Or the Star trek remix ‘Boldly Spermburgling where no woman has gone before’ (In the starship Misandrocalypse.)
They keep coming up with these stupid hypothetical situations that these things might not even happen. I mean other who goes to a bar to get a sperm donor and who the fuck takes the used condom to get pregnant? Are they now just associating all women as batshit crazy? If they hate women so much and are that sexually frustrated and paranoid they always have their hands to keep them company.
Sperm-jacking is how feminists control the global economy. True story.
Now there would be a novel use for a turkey baster.
These men simply have no idea how to relate to women as human beings. For insight, I would again recommend Victor Malarek’s book, The Johns.
Even if this was a thing, the chances of sperm being viable from a condom (especially with spermicide) and it being the right fertile time of the month are vanishingly small.
These guys have a better chance of wining the bronze in women’s gymnastics than of being spermburgled.
So, do you think the problem with this case was the sperm theft rather than the rape?
Being made to compete against women? MISANDRY!
The Kitteh’s Unpain Help,
I don’t think the question of whether or not Smith did or did not lie was ever even addressed. The point is that legally it makes to difference whether or not she lied.
David,
Multiple cases are cited demonstrating that:-
1) It doesn’t matter if the mother has lied about her fertility or use of contraception
2) It doesn’t matter if the father was a victim of statutory rape
3) It doesn’t matter if the mother deliberately impregnated herself with sperm from a used condom
4) It doesn’t matter if the sperm was obtained via nonconsensual sexual acts.
I would say that this demonstrates that legally the man his held accountable for his sperm, even when he is being tricked, deceived, or raped etc.
I actually don’t actually disagree with the courts judgements – the needs of the child must come first, and the child needs financial support. However this is a harsh situation for men, and justifies their caution regarding where their sperm ends up.
Granted it is a very rare event, and their anxieties are excessive.
That is the thing that freaks me out, Amnesia.
In 31 states a rapist is entitled to visitation rights, so I guess the courts don’t have a problem with rape. They just want to make sure there are two parents for every child no matter how abusive those parents may be.
So if you agree, Melissa, what’s your point other than you don’t think we’re being nice enough to the poor dudes?
stillivefallen — “Are they now just associating all women as batshit crazy?” — now? Haven’t they always been? (In other words, yes)
kitteh — “I just read this to the boss and we both laughed our heads off. “Have they never heard of condoms?” he asked. I told him about the used-condom notion and spermburgling and he asked if they think blow-up dolls are also trying to impregnate themselves.” — one of our old regular trolls accused me of being misandrist for saying “dude, they’re called condoms!”, I’m going to guess it was Steele just because he really loves to call people misandrist.
pecunium — what’s the source of you glitter “citation needed” gif? I want one that says “dude, they’re called condoms!” Also — “If she got him that souped up… well he’s not going to perform very well, and why doesn’t she just tell him she’s got an IUD and forgo the condom… it’s far more likely to lead to pregnancy.” — I’m not sure these fools would even know what an IUD is.
Amnesia,
“So, do you think the problem with this case was the sperm theft rather than the rape?”
I’m surprised you feel the need to ask, but I regard rape as a vile crime quite different and more disturbing than things like theft, assault or fraud.
Obviously multiple wrongs were done to that poor man. Since it came up in a discussion of paternal child support responsibilities, I discusses it in that light. I had no reason to go off on a tangent, and don’t feel that would have contributed much to the discussion.
@M: Second result on google search on “strict liability” of sperm came up with a major legal article, by a WOMAN, arguing that there are problems with this legal theory (which, I’d hasten to add, was clearly created by a legal system dominated by men until very recently), and also arguing that feminists should challenge this use of strict liability.
But as far as I can tell after skimming the first ten page or so, the article isn’t really dealing with the issue of SPERMBURGLING, but statutory rape and sexual assault of men by women and the issue of the ensuing pregnancies: I know few feminists who deny that men can be raped/sexually assaulted (most of the ones I know just refuse to accept the contorted evidence from the misogynists that claim women are JUST AS LIKELY to rape men, as men are to rape women).
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume152/issue6/London152U.Pa.L.Rev.1957(2004).pdf
As usual, the MRA dudes seize up on what is, at core, an actual problem men can face and hyperbolize it to death, adding in all all their foolish folkloric (stealing used condoms to impregnate self) ways, and pose themselves as the quivering damsels in distress tied to the railroad tracks of feminist/wimminz’ oppressive society in a way that manages to distract from, you know, the actual problems.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume152/issue6/London152U.Pa.L.Rev.1957(2004).pdf
seeing if the links works better here.
If not, here is the google search page–second article down, click if you wish to see.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9Cstrict+liability+theory+of+sperm%E2%80%9D&aq=f&oq=%E2%80%9Cstrict+liability+theory+of+sperm%E2%80%9D&aqs=chrome.0.57j0j62.2089&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8