Flutterby™! : Vasectomy: $400. Speechless look on her face: priceless.

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Vasectomy: $400. Speechless look on her face: priceless.

2007-03-02 22:30:14.050912+00 by ziffle 16 comments

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-02 23:05:55.958479+00 by: crasch

Yeah, her behavior is reprehensible. But I don't think he paints himself in a positive light either. He knows she wants to have kids, dates her for months, and doesn't tell her he has a vasectomy? Bleh.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-02 23:50:49.628824+00 by: Dan Lyke

Yeah, sounds like someone willing to waste a few months for the sake of someone else's, no matter how pathetic, misery.

But then I've never been too shy about making my fertility status known.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-03 00:30:10.68672+00 by: ziffle

It does not say she said she wanted children. He protected himself. Good for him. Smart.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-03 02:50:04.353753+00 by: shelleyp [edit history]

I'd say after this I would doubt much of anything this asshole writes.

Comment on American women? I'd say if this is an example of dating American men, I should think about moving to Australia.


Becoming gay comes to mind, too.

Or a nun.


#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-03 03:03:56.063258+00 by: crasch

It does not say she said she wanted children.

Not in those exact words, no. But he writes "She was 32 at the time and I could practically HEAR her biological clock ticking." Based on that sentence, it seems pretty clear he knew she wanted kids.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-03 05:08:02.503621+00 by: topspin

Amateur. In full contact dating, this guy would lose teeth.

Wasting his time, effort, and possibly money to get notarized copies and legal threats, wasting his money to buy her jewelry and flowers AFTER he's seen her true colors, and generally just wasting his time DEALING with irate calls/messages when the drama was unneeded.....

and ziffle would label him "smart."

What would be stupid?

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-03 17:38:49.4819+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

Well, we all have our perspectives...

I have seen this too often - children for divorced women become a cash cow - plain and simple. I once told someone I thought her son should live with his Father because he needed a male influence. She was all in favor -- but - when she realized she would have to pay support - it was over, and the poor child was kept until he was 18, all for the worse.

The girl in question here, knew the guy was using condoms, so his views were obvious. If he was not certain of her for the long term, he acted very responsibly. Surely no one is suggesting a child should be born with out both parents agreeing? In this case it was planned - in fact "There were threats of legal action".

Her actions, that of sleeping with others without an agreement with him that they would do so, surely was none too honest. Her lying was not exactly being sincere? Her actions toward him were as you say, reprehensible - but more, they were criminal acts in my opinion. Unfortunately we have not reached the point where this kind of action is characterized as a crime. She is surely a criminal and should be arrested. She blithely placed his entire future in jeopardy without regard for him.

And maybe he liked her and was waiting to see if his feelings toward her were warranted. Maybe he was heart broken - but once he realized the danger he was in, and realized the horror of what she was trying to do, decided to even the score, emotionally. Note that all he did was bring her to her senses in a mature and legal way. She deserved far worse.

He was in danger. Anyone who has dealt with the family court system knows that Fathers always get the raw end of the deal. (98% of the time the female gets custody unless the father is an attorney then its 96%) Many men wind up paying for children they did not sire. regardless, they then get the courts on their case, which dispose of his life, his emotions, and his income for decades without regard for what is best. It's a life sentence, provided by irresponsible women who care not a flip for the damage they cause.

And what if he had taken her at her word? Married her, thought she loved him like he loved her, and they had the baby, and after a while she decides (as part of her plan) 'I am out of here', and he has to move out, leaving his house and paying her to have some boyfriend live in his house and sleep with the women he loved and trusted, and watch some other guy deal with his children, and have the ex and the boyfriend denigrate the (supposed) father? And very often, if he tries to establish a relationship with his children, his access is blocked by the changing schedule of the Mother, who wants him out of the way? The system provides lawyers for the Mother, but the Father has to try and pay for any access to the courts. The courts are often on a 'commission' where they get a percentage of the 'income' from the child support. There is no 800 number to call to ask that the sheriff show up and force the wife to allow access. There is no rule requiring the Mother to divulge where the money he sends is spent. But there should be. But of course this is 'dating' in America.

So yes this is dating in America. And until we change the laws to prosecute women for this kind of thing it will continue.

So he was smart - very smart. I hope this does not damage him - I hope he can learn to trust again with a nice girl, whom is trustworthy, whom he loves and his love is returned, sincerely.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-03 18:27:21.070334+00 by: topspin

She blithely placed his entire future in jeopardy without regard for him.

No... no... you ignore that HE KNEW he was shooting blanks. HE was NEVER in danger. HE knew that. No paternity test could link him to the child. You continue this insistence that his "danger" justifies his hurtful and dishonest (and uncalled for and stupid) actions toward her, but YOU know and HE knew there was no danger. Only SHE thought there was danger for him, as he CLEARLY acknowledges from the start.

He could've walked off, met her in court if needed, gotten the "throat swab" if she carried it to that, and then walked off. He could've moved on with his life once he perceived she was attempting to entrap him. He could've taken care of himself and not sank to her level emotionally, nor continued unneeded physical contact with her. He CHOSE otherwise. He chose to lower himself physically and emotionally to her using, deceitful, cruel ways. HE CHOSE THAT.

There is nothing smart, nor emotionally healthy, about his behavior.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-03 19:43:58.868417+00 by: mvandewettering

I have never understood the point of dating someone (much less marrying someone) that you have that much contempt for. I mean really, can't you simply date someone you like? I don't know about you, but my life always was too short to waste in unhealthy crap like this.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-03 22:26:26.157493+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

topspin: I think I understand how you feel, and it would seem so simple, BUT many courts have ruled that the husband must pay support for the child even though he was not the father. He was in danger. Surely no one likes being put in danger by someone. And the whole process of going to court is emotionally draining and expensive. The outcome is never clear. Maybe he liked her and was distraught. What did he do to deserve her actions? Does he not have a right to feelings?

Mv: I concur.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-04 00:24:19.75469+00 by: topspin

Ziffle, I'd suggest that it's EXTREMELY rare for the court to order child support for someone who has always denied paternity AND has had a vasectomy. His writing DOES NOT reflect that he was worried about that in the least. As you probably know, NOTHING can stop someone from suing or dragging you into court. One is ALWAYS in "danger" of such and his actions DID NOT prevent her from taking him to court. The "protected himself" argument is moot.

He states clearly that he never wanted a commitment with this woman. "I never made any move towards commitment but she brought it up ocassionally. <sic> For me, this was a casual but pleasant relationship." That DOES NOT suggest in any way they were exclusive in his or her eyes. That she slept with others was HER business. He may have also. That IS what casual implies.

He mentions in NO WAY being hurt by her actions, rather he's perversely amused or something. "At this point, I'm just as giddy. I get to pull the reverse "oops" on her." Note his giddiness and his "get to pull the reverse 'oops'" comment suggest he rather enjoyed this from the START. As she threatens, he laughs. There's no sense, nor mention of his feelings being hurt in this whatsoever. None. You're supposing it.... you support it or drop that supposition, okay?

"What did he do to deserve her actions?" Nothing... and I'm not denying him feelings. He's not mentioning his feelings, so I'm not either. Again, you'll have to offer some inkling of where you think he shows his feelings were hurt, if you want to lend credence to your argument to justify his actions.

He's a fool, in my eyes, for wasting his time and not just saying, "I'm fixed" as soon as she mentions pregnancy. He somehow feels superior to "some guy in a band" and equates that guy with "criminals and thugs" though he suggests nothing to distinguish himself. Nice... a fine example of respect for the lady first and then for some guy he doesn't know. A credit to humanity, ziffle, eh?

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-04 00:52:55.543258+00 by: ziffle

topspin: It's not rare at all. Well I guess we will just have to disagree on the facts and our conclusions. :)

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-05 01:35:29.567508+00 by: Dan Lyke

I would take this a step further even. Even if "...I could practically HEAR her biological clock ticking..." is discounted, you don't date someone for months without figuring out a bit about shared goals. And he says "...she was a good lay, easy on the eyes, and reasonably good company."

So he knows she wants children, he hasn't told her about his vasectomy, and he's with her for the sex.

Now philosophically, I think it's pretty fair to equate telling falsehoods with violence, no? With either, you're coercing someone into doing something that they don't want to do.

So he's lying to her because the sex is good. Let me rephrase that: he's using violence to get sex.

We have a word for that.

She's clearly not all there, she's lying too, and it sounds like she's pretty stupid (I mean, she was dating this guy for a while...). So what we have here is the frat boy tripping the retarded kid and laughing about it.

Now I'm no fan of women who cuckold. And I know several men (and a woman or two) who've taken the children of such deceits under their wings as if they were their own, with no immediate reward, just the knowledge that maybe, several decades hence, "their" child will come back to them and say "I realize you didn't have to do all of that for me, and I really appreciate that you did" (and, having seen that, I can tell you it's a pretty emotional moment), but it seems pretty clear that he was leading this woman on, that she wasn't all that bright, and that, much like people who climb into the lion cage at the zoo, he should have known that something bad was going to happen.

And she apparently felt safe enough with him that she thought he'd raise her kid.

Yeah. Sympathy factor: Zero. It's not that hard to find and have relationships with women who don't want children.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-05 03:56:38.660273+00 by: Larry Burton

I found neither party particularly worthy of any sympathy so the story was just funny to me. What would have been even funnier had there been a postscript to the story turning the tables on the guy. Without folks like this where would Springer get his material?

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-05 15:24:46.923599+00 by: ziffle

Well I'd say using a condom everytime sends a message ...

here is one maybe we can all agree on:


Aweful, deceitful...

#Comment Re: made: 2007-03-05 16:24:09.262633+00 by: Dan Lyke

Total agreement on that one, Ziffle.