Bloke claims ex swiped his sperm to make twins
'She would take the condom and run out of the room'
A Texas man claims his ex-girlfriend stole his sperm to inseminate herself three months after they broke up.
Joe Pressil, a 36-year-old telecoms manager, is suing Advanced Fertility Center and Omni-Med Laboratories in Houston, saying they used his misappropriated man oysters to produce a brace of bouncing babies without his knowledge or consent - and after he'd already split with his ex.
Pressil said the first he heard about the test tube twins was when he received a receipt from the clinic in the post listing him as a patient. In short order he was hit with a claim for child support from his ex - with his paternity confirmed by a blood test.
However, he maintains he never visited the clinic, and has religious objections to IVF. Therefore, he asserts, his gonads were clearly tapped without his knowledge or consent, a local telly station reports.
Pressil maintains his ex had told him she was unable to conceive due to a medical condition, which also required the use of a special type of condom during sex.
A rueful Pressil told a TV reporter that in retrospect, this seems somewhat suspicious.
"...usually, a male would discard their own property, but she would always take the condom and she would run off out of the room and I just didn't think anything of it. And I didn't think that anyone could use a condom and bring it to a clinic to get an in vitro," he said.
The whole episode has left Pressil "devastated" and "violated", and presumably somewhat drained, deflated and empty inside.
His lawyer added that the whole prospect of a man having his sperm swiped without his consent was "terrifying".
A lawyer for the clinic told the TV station that some men don't like visiting the facility, and choose to make their contributions remotely for subsequent delivery by their partners. But he maintained that the clinic had signed consent forms from Pressil, and called the lawsuit disingenuous and suspect.
Perssil is claiming damages for mental anguish, loss of opportunity, loss of enjoyment of life, as well as child support, expenses and loss of earnings.
The suit maintains that "plaintiff owned, possessed and had the right to immediate possession of personal property which defendants exercised dominion or control over" and cites the Texas Theft Liability Act in asserting the defendants unlawfully appropriated his property - ie, his spunk. ®