Safe Sex

Apparently, eligible bachelors are taking measures to have safe sex, just not quite in the manner you’d think:

Hamptons bachelors are getting vasectomies so gold-diggers can’t trap them

I bet it’s not just bachelors in the Hamptons, although the New York media, easily among the most parochial in the world, would like to think so. (I especially like the added wrinkle that they’re having their sperm frozen prior to the operation, so if they decide later to have children, it will be entirely their choice.)

Why would they resort to such extreme measures? From the article:

Child support is 17 percent of the father’s salary up to $400,000, after which the amount is at a judge’s discretion, according to Garr. For someone who makes $1 million a year, Garr estimates annual payments of $100,000 — a total of $2.1 million until the child turns 21. Meanwhile, a vasectomy is typically covered by insurance or costs $1,000 out of pocket.

If I were a healthy young bachelor, I’d do it too. (I did have it done, of course, only at age 42, long after I’d become a daddy. I just didn’t want to become a repeat offender.)

This was always going to be a possibility in the Battle of the Sexes, by the way, after that loony court decision which ruled that even an anonymous sperm donor could be held liable for child support. Predictably, after that, fertility clinics reported that the donor count had fallen to zero and the flow had dried up [sic].

And it’s not just for child support, either: if the woman is an illegal alien, a U.S.-born baby becomes a residence visa.

And if you think I’m being overly cynical about this, please read the horrifying experience one guy encountered (also from the article):

[He] doesn’t want a repeat of last summer, when a woman he met at a party tried to pull a fast one after sex.
She offered to dispose of the used condom, but when she was in the bathroom for a while, John got suspicious. He found the woman seated on the toilet and inserting his semen inside of her.

Now that’s cynical.


  1. Wasn’t there a situation a few years ago that went something like:

    1) Man divorces wife for adultery.
    2) Woman is pregnant
    3) Thru genetic test man proves he did not father child
    4) Court decides man still has to provide child support, because it’s in the child’s best interests.

    And people wonder why men are cynical.

    1. I’ve read that situation many times over the years, and it is always the man that loses. However, to take it one step further, read this. I have to assume that the courts were looking for any excuse possible to shackle the man.

  2. Somehow, I think the 19th Amendment has cascaded down to this, and is the root of the present feminazi/Progressive war on white men.

  3. Styrene maleic anhydride (SMA). It’s a goop that can be injected into the spermatic duct. It coats the walls, and fatally damages all sperm passing through. It can be flushed out with DMSO, restoring fertility.

    The technique has been under development for over 30 years, and has been proven safe, effective, reliable, and 100% reversible. But there isn’t any way to monetize it…

    (There’s another technique which places removable soft plugs in the ducts. But the blocked-up sperm accumulates and causes problems; SMA is better.)

    1. Rich,
      Call me a Great Big Wussy, but having someone inject one’s dick with styrene-whatever is enough to make even sex with Nigella Lawson an iffy proposition.
      Although, of course, Nigella’s passed through the Menopause Door — so it’s a moot issue, really.

  4. Your comment “…after that loony court decision which ruled that even an anonymous sperm donor could be held liable for child support”demeans the function of the court: to protect the innocent. The innocent, in this case, is the child. Biologically it takes a father and a mother to make a child – at least today. Regardless of any contract between mother and father, and any other party (mothers 1 through 9 or fathers a through z, or whatever combination becomes the fashion of the social progressives) the child should always be able to demand support from their biological parents – the child did not enter into the contract. If I had my way, it would be US law that any child could require support from either biological parent in the event that any other acting parent can’t or won’t supply it. If that dries up supply – so be it.

Comments are closed.