Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

You Might Change Your Mind About Oral Sex After Hearing About What This Woman Did

Monday, February 10, 2014 5:07
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Posted by Lincoln Anthony Blades on Feb 4, 2014

So here’s the messed up story that began many years ago: A doctor named Sharon Irons was having an affair with a Chicago family physician named Richard Phillips. Apparently, they never had sexual intercourse, but she would perform oral sex on him. Well, after Phillips ejaculated in Irons’ mouth one night, she decided to store the semen in her cheeks and then spit it into a test tube. She later used the semen to impregnate herself.

Two years later, Irons filed a paternity lawsuit against Phillips, and the DNA test confirmed he is the father of her child. Subsequently, Phillips was ordered to pay $800 a month in child support. He claimed that she stole his sperm, but the court rejected that stance, saying his sperm was given to her as a “gift,” “an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee,” according to the court decision. Therefore, the sperm was hers to keep. The judge even added, “There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.”

All of this is sad, hilarious, and low-down all at the same time. But here’s where the joke ends: There’s a child out there who was brought into the world in a cloud of malice and betrayal.



We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 7 comments
  • Osimandias

    That`s why i like spitters. :)

  • Anonymous

    For anyone to be convicted of a crime, the prosecution has to demonstrate “intent.” It was neither the perceived “intent” of the man nor the woman to conceive a child, or why not just “do it”? The man was deceived and trapped. Now, there’s the true intent. The whole “intent” of the story is to illustrate how “women’s reproductive rights” trumps all! Though guys may be instrumental (pun intended) in the input end of sex, they have no say whatsoever in the output end of things. If he gets her pregnant and wants her to have an abortion, it’s “her decision.” If he gets her pregnant and wants to keep the baby and make him pay child support, it’s still “her decision.” If whether or not to have a baby is always “her decision,” why isn’t it also her responsibility to bring it up and care for it, especially when done in such an underhanded way? The whole “women’s reproductive rights” things has made women very “cheeky,” literally (again, pun intended.) I don’t understand a judicial system that can’t see through this situation. If it were an “absolute and irrevocable transfer of property of donor to donee” then the sperm no longer belongs to the guy, it’s entirely “hers” to do with as she pleases. He no longer has any connection to it nor responsibility for it…

    • dj

      You must know by now that our courts don’t do not practice anything close to law. The word lawful does not count; it’s the word legal that our courts are concerned with.

  • Arcturus

    Another future president?

  • Saber

    It was a gift. It was payment for a job well done.
    She likely worked hard for it. Or maybe not. :razz:

  • MSG Chicken

    Wow! Weird and whacky!

    More strange then that Blue Dress story from the White House.

  • klikmaus

    Man, this story sucks! Obviously, so does that woman! :lol:

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global


Top Alternative




Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.