You Don't Even Know You Are the Father!

I guess this is an only in the UK story because I don't see how this would fly in the United States.

Manlaw: Another reason to ALWAYS wrap it up. Don't take any chances. As it has been proven time and again, the courts will find a way to screw a man over if they can.

Who wants to be a millionaire?

More like who doesn't want to be like Mike right now?

$168 million is A LOT of money to pay out in a divorce settlement, record-breaking for a celebrity according to this article.

But, the report says Juanita signed a pre-nup that said she could get 1/2 of Jordan's fortune, she got 1/3 or Jordan's fortune.

And they say women do the most vindictive things....

Pilar Stofega could be a first-ballot inductee into the Haters Anonymous Hall of Fame.

Granted.

Men do some really stupid stuff every now and then. But you have to admit when women want to get grimey, women come out swinging with their nails sharpened.

Manlaw: Pilar Stofega (and women like her) if you somehow find this blog...take this friendly advice and read "He's Just Not That Into You.". This book should be required reading for every woman over 21. Scratch that. He's WAY BEYOND not into you anymore if he's married and living a peaceful life.

I Ain't Saying She A Gold Digger...but

THIS APPEARED ON CRAIG'S LIST -- THE RESPONSE IS PUUUUUURE GENIUS.

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25-year-old girl. I'm articulate and classy. I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think I'm overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250K. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:
- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms
- What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my feelings
- Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?
- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper eastside so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?

- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY.

Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.
* it's NOT ok to contact this posterwith services orother commercial interests

Disclaimer: Sometimes a manlaw writes itself...like this guy did with his response. lol.

PostingID: 432279810
THE ANSWER

Dear Pers-431649184:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple acr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won'tbe getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump."I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.--

Ask Manlaw (Part 2)

In an attempt to spur more conversation manlaw brings back a feature we call "Ask Manlaw".

We will answer questions based on your experiences in a blog entry. The brothers of manlaw will attempt to give our expert opinions.

We will not reveal the person who submits the question.

If you want to ask the brothers any question, e-mail us at brothersmanlaw@yahoo.com.

How Not To Become a Single Woman During Football Season

I don't have any scientific research to back up this claim but I'm going out on a limb and saying there's a spike in breakups during the fall because of football season.

And guess what?

It is not his fault.

Football was there before you were and that will never change. Don't make him choose football or you...because you just might get your feelings hurt.

Seriously.

So, that's the manlaw/PSA for you ladies...and don't say I didn't save you from becoming a single woman during football season.

Also...check out the links below

Read This (Part 1)

Read This (Part 2)

Man's Not So Best Friend (Part 2)

You can call this a knockout blow for "Roy."

As the article states, "that's a pseudonym for a guy in New Jersey that was told in 1999 by his ex-wife "Bonnie" (also a pseudonym) that their youngest son was actually the child of "Patrick" (also a pseudonym) the boy's godfather with whom she'd been having an affair."

Sounds like a simple "he thought-she didn't tell the truth story"

However, the article also states... "the next year, "Roy" decided to sue "Patrick" for reimbursement of child support he had paid to take care of the child, "Darren." A lower court sided with "Roy" and ordered the biological father to pay the child support, a decision he appealed. The Appellate Court again sided with "Roy," and it was appealed to the Supreme Court."

As you probably guessed (if you didn't click on the link above), Roy lost on a technicality according to the article, "In its unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that "Roy" was not entitled to a child support reimbursement because under the state's Parentage Act claims must be filed before a child turns 23 years old."

Hence the manlaw: First, fellas read part 1 of this series. Second, find out if your state has a Parentage Act on the books, if yes, read every line of the law if you are involved in a paternity dispute. I believe the Parentage Act is different in every state that has one on the books.

Personally, I think Roy went about this the wrong way. He sued the wrong party. I would have sued "Bonnie" because it appeared to me that she 1) knew what the law stated and 2) she knew he wasn't the father all this time and 3) she f$cked up three people's lives (Roy, Patrick and Darren) in the process of revealing this information.

You think Roy will make the same mistake again? Well, I hope nobody is that f$cking stupid.

Multiplication of the assets

According to this survey, almost one in three American men say that they had sex with at least 15 partners, while just one in 11 American women report similar behavior.

For those that don't like fractions, that's about 33 percent of men and about 9 percent of women agree on that aforementioned number of at least 15 partners.

Hmm.

Somebody is lying.

Guess who I'm going to point the finger at?

Manlaw: Since women underreport their number of sexual partners more so than men overreport their number of sexual partners, fellas always multiple her "number" by three to bring it up to average.

You have to remember that women don't include one-night stands, non-boyfriends or bad lovers in their totals. Women remember and admit to quality while men remember and admit to quantity.

Man's Not So Best Friend

Now, isn't THIS some sh$t.

Even when a man does an honorable thing, he's still getting run over because of women and man's not so best friend, the U.S. Court system.

Manlaw: If you're going to be a sperm donor, do your homework. Also, don't be generous in Pennsylvania unless you're willing to roll the dice.

As the last line of the article states "About two-thirds of states have adopted versions of the Uniform Parentage Act that can shield sperm donors from being forced to assume parenting responsibilities. Pennsylvania has no such law."

The Donkey Kong

They say kids say the darndest things, but I think mostly that applies to adults. Consider this IM conversation I had with a friend of mine, a 20-sumn editor at a magazine in New York fashion magazine. She's cool with me using this story so long as I don't identify her, and since there are plenty of 20-sumns at Gotham City clothes rags, I think I'm good here.

Anywho, Miss Editor's losing a lil weight, so we're talking about workout programs and the like. The conversation goes:

Miss Editor: I think I may have lost too much weight
KTR: Oh no...you didn't lose the ass did you?

Miss Editor: LOL! People keep saying that...why is that so important?
KTR: Are you serious? Ass is one of the things that makes black women beautiful. Seriously, no homo. I'm not being funny about that, it's just something that tends to be a distinguishing characteristic of a lot of black women.

Miss Editor: So then what's the distinguishing characteristic of black men? Nevermind.
KTR: No, not nevermind. You're the woman, you tell me what the distinguishing characteristic is.

Miss Editor: Honestly, the DONKEY KONG! Seriously. I've been with white men, wasn't feeling it. Even been with an Asian guy, definitely wasn't feeling that....

The "donkey kong"? That's funny enough on its own. But made it hilarious is that this conversation took place as I'm in the middle of reading Scott Poulson-Bryant's HUNG: A Meditation on the Measure of Black Men In America. Hung is Poulson-Bryant's deconstruction of the myth of The Big Black Dick, a treatise of sorts on how the proposition of being labeled physically and metaphorically HUGE by society at large can at once make you a walking threat worthy of lynch-mob justice (Emitt Till), while rendering you nothing more than a plaything in the eyes of a mere horny college girl (Poulson-Bryant himself).

In short, the book's about the fallacy of the black phallus and what that does to those of us who through birth have to carry both the fallacy and the phallus around with us.

Just food for thought.

Wow

Every once in a while, we come across something that just speaks for itself. Today was one of those days.

Six orgasms in 24 minutes...(or "Damn, we really do have to talk to them?")

The medical researcher who discovered women's "g-spots" is out with a new book that says women's brains are the most important organ in achieving orgasm, and not any physical part of the body.

The book is about, simply "The science of orgasm", but in one particularly interesting chapter, she details how some women with spinal injuries could actually relearn how to, well, get off -- in one case to the tune of six (count 'em: six) in a 24 minute span.

I don't know about y'all, but as successful as I like to think I am in the bedroom, six in 24 minutes? The hell kinda hairpin trigger she got? And not for nothing, don't think we men don't understand what this researcher is really trying to accomplish: all of a sudden there's a branch of science "proving" that stimulating a woman's brain really IS the key to everything else. Right, how convenient it is that now there's a way to definitively link actually having to have a conversation with your wife or girlfriend to how well things go later on when you're trying to do anything but talk.

Keep your book, lady.

Condoms, maybe?

File this under "triflin'". According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, a man went to court recently on a theft charge and admitted before a judge that he has six kids -- on the way, that is. That's right. Not six kids already. Not five and one coming. Not even four with twins in the oven.

No, this man -- and ever so loosely do I use the term -- said in open court, prior to his lawyer shutting him up, that he has six different women knocked simultaneously. Surprisingly enough, the cat wasn't even in court for custody or child support. His crime, according to the story, was running a scheme most crooks would know as playing the float. Basically, what you do is make a false deposit at an ATM machine, using an empty envelope, then immediately withdraw the cash back from the account. Because it takes a deposit a certain amount of time to clear, you're off scott free with the cash that you've "floated" yourself, at least until the bank catches its mistake.

I refuse to believe this man was stupid, despite the six kids thing (that's a big exception, I know). For one, a float hustle isn't one for the faint of heart or slight of brain. It takes sense to figure out how to make it work. Beyond that, dude had already made restitution for what he stole, a sign he was smart enough to get ahead of the system and at least try to win himself leniency. As it stands, he took a guilty verdict and walked with not a day behind bars. Last, the story says he produces music and that just got a deal worth at least 300 grand in up-front cash. This is no fool, more like a hustler, and not necessarily of the two-bit variety.

But what doesn't make sense to me is what respectable hustler would set himself up for a trap as big as having six kids by six different babymommas? Seriously, nothing in life could be worse than that, including jail. A man with as many schemes as he had should have been able to figure out a real easy solution to this problem: hit up the Trojan aisle, homie. Trojans ain't never hurt nobody.

We want prenup, we want prenup!

They say stupid is as stupid does, but maybe stupid is as stupid doesn't do.

In this case, stupid is a professional athlete, and what stupid didn't do was get a prenuptial agreement before he tied the knot. Amani Toomer, the New York Giants wide receiver, got divorced yesterday, and avoided what was expected to be a nasty court battle. Good for him, kinda.

The problem is that while he didn't have to go through the hassle of a trial, an annulment, not a divorce, is what he wanted. See, Toomer claimed that his wife was frigid, wouldn't have his babies, had at least four abortions without his knowledge and was generally a basket case after they'd agreed on having a big, happy family before they got married. In Vegas, no less.

His estranged countered that he was unreasonably demanding for sex (because we know how notorious those football players are for their low sex drives. B, please), and that he was holding back her career as a chiropractor and her aspirations to become a lawyer.

My guess is there's probably some truth to both of their claims, but that's beside the point. The real devil in the details here is that the unstated reason Toomer wanted an annulment, rather than a divorce, was to protect his assets. An annulment entitles the ex to little to nothing; in a divorce proceeding, she can get (and she had asked the court for) HALF. I personally will never understand what it is that makes women, men or anyone else feel entitled to half of the assets that they didn't help to build -- last time I checked, I never saw his wife on the field blocking for him -- but again, that's beside the point. At the end of the day, a prenuptial agreement, which doesn't seem to have been in place here, could have prevented all the drama. Outline, in writing, the terms under which both of you are comfortable parting, as well as your expectations for marriage, and you're straight. Never for the life of me will I understand why anyone getting married, pro athletes first among them, doesn't carry one around in their back pocket.

How hard can that be?

Get your wet wipes !

Okay. . .Okay. . .Okay. . .

Let's talk about Lisa Nowak. No, I'm not going to bash her or be insensitive to what people are deeming "mental anguish". We have all wanted to be the object of someone's romantic attention. I mean I remember I was like 20 and I thought my girlfriend was cheating on me. She went out and was calling me drunk saying she would be home late. My "mentally anguished" ass walked about 15 minutes to her crib at 3:00 am to sit between two cars across the street waiting to see who she came home with. Luckily for me it was only 15 minutes away and I'm a man so I didn't see the need to rock a diaper !

First off she's a married mother of 3. So already I'm losing sympathy for her "anguished" ass ! Second, how are you mentally and intellectually fit to be an astronaut but yet drive 900 miles to confront a woman about a man who ain't even yours wearing a diaper. I mean what was she listening to in the whip. How are you driving and just peeing on yourself ? That ain't gangsta ! I know. The astronauts wear diapers for take off and landing. But damn that's exiting and entering a planet's atmosphere. This is driving. Pull your dumb ass over. I'm sorry, I'm bashing.

And. And. She was going to kidnap this chic. She wasn't even sure that homegirl was seeing dude. She just snapped and decided she was willing to risk her husband, 3 children, a career at NASA, and was going to pack a bag, fill up with gas, throw on a diaper and roll out huh ? Just like that ?
Now, was she driving a hybrid cuz what car goes 9 hours w/o a refill ? Why she couldn't piss then ?(ghetto grammar, picture we on the front porch)

She runs up on chic and tries to get in the car then knocks on the window and sprays pepper spray in the window. Oh lawd. This is the best scheme an astronaut could come up with ? And why do people cover their face on the way to court. Don't they know we got the mug shot, we got the name. . .what the hell ?

So now the real question. . .Is she just crazy in love ? or Just crazy ?
I mean I have made women cry. I have caused stress, and probably "mental anguish".
I have had pictures cut up and put in my mailbox ? I've had my house broken into by my woman and I have had a woman follow me home (walking). . .and we were young. I mean it was me and her. Not me and her and her husband and 3 kids. So, what was he doing that she would do some crazy shit like that on a hunch ?

And she's a f#$%in astronaut son. I saw armageddon. The cats go through rigorous training on how to survive in extreme environments. They are supposed to be on some top level mensa sh#t. Suduku ain't sh@t to them. They are supposed to be able to perservere through "mental anguish" not cave in and throw some D (iaper)'s on it and ride out !

All over now travelers will be trying to save time by wearing diapers. F around and see NASA endorsing depends.

"Is your life busy ? Feel like you don't time for sh!t ? Rock depends, handle your business, you can deal with that other sh#t later !"

Manlaw: if you go visit a woman and she has diapers but no kids and no old folks on a bed in the living room. . .RUN !

...to be so lucky

Meet Cindy, my homegirl who moved from Boston to San Diego about a year ago. Cindy's cool people for any number of reasons, but she added one to the list today.

See, Cindy, as she describes it, has the "worst spoiling tendencies" when it comes to her man. Today she's planning a trip for she and her guy to go to Hawaii -- all on her. Let's take a step back for a minute here -- Cindy's no pushover, despite what the name suggests. She's a multiethnic, edgy chic from Dorchester (those of you from Boston will get the implication of that off top), who's petite but with a body, easy on the eyes and soft spoken but who drag races in her spare time and could likely kick the ass of half the men I know my size.

Given that, it was surprising to hear her talking about the fact that outside of racing and her other "normal" exploits, that Cindy also enjoys "...knowing I can splurge on a guy...cooking, baking, and tons of gifts all the time." Makes her feel good, she says. I'll bet it makes him feel good, too.

But it did give me a lot of questions, though. Women my age and younger, at least many of those I've met, ain't exactly what I'd call the "cater to my man" set, regardless of what Beyonce sings about. If they are, it's usually attached to some condition or another, as in 'he's got to prove himself before he deserves, x, y, or z', or 'he's got to be great in bed to deserve breakfast'. Rarely have I heard a woman speak of wanting to spoil a man because of how it made her feel.

Cindy, though, apparently had a better role model than some of the other women I know.

"I learn from my mother, that's how she keeps my dad in love with her
after 34 years. Many women think that they're the ones that need to be
spoiled, but men need affection too. A bj and stuff in the bedroom can
only do so much. Plus, my bf is helpless in the kitchen. I just also
happen to love cooking and baking, it calms me down. It also makes it
easier when I am with a high maintenance guy who loves expensive
clothes, jewelry, cologne, and the occasional getaways. Whenever I go
out with my girls shopping, I always find something for HIM as well. So
for valentine's day, I'm surprising him with a trip to Hawaii, a package
to an all inclusive resort, and some clothes for the vacation."

Ladies, got them notebooks out?

When Sex Goes Wrong on the Net

Steamy Blog Lawsuit Heads for Trial
By MATT APUZZO
AP
WASHINGTON (Dec. 27) - When Robert Steinbuch discovered his girlfriend had discussed intimate details about their sex life in her online diary, the Capitol Hill staffer didn't just get mad. He got a lawyer.
Soon, though, the racy tidbits about the sex lives of the two Senate aides faded from the front pages and the gossip pages. Steinbuch accepted a teaching job in Arkansas, leaving Washington and Jessica Cutler's "Washingtonienne" Web log behind.

While sex scandals turn over quickly in this city, lawsuits do not. Steinbuch's case over the embarrassing, sexually charged blog appears headed for an embarrassing, sexually charged trial.

Lurid testimony about spanking, handcuffs and prostitution aside, the Washingtonienne case could help establish whether people who keep online diaries are obligated to protect the privacy of the people they interact with offline.

Cutler, a former aide to Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, says she created the blog in 2004 to keep a few friends up to date on her social life. Like a digital version of the sex-themed banter from a "Sex and the City" episode, Cutler described the thrill and tribulations of juggling sexual relationships with six men.

One of those men was Steinbuch, a counsel to DeWine on the Judiciary Committee. Cutler called him the "current favorite" and said he resembled George Clooney , liked spanking and disliked condoms.

"He's very upfront about sex," she wrote. "He likes talking dirty and stuff, and he told me that he likes submissive women."

When Ana Marie Cox, then the editor of the popular gossip Web site Wonkette.com, discovered and linked to Cutler's blog, the story spun out of control. Cutler was fired and Steinbuch says he was publicly humiliated. He went to court seeking more than $20 million in damages.

The case is embroiled in thorny pretrial issues, with each side demanding personal information from the other. Steinbuch wants to know how much money Cutler received from the man she called her "sugar daddy." Cutler demanded Steinbuch's student evaluations from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law School, where he teaches.

Steinbuch also recently added Cox as a defendant in the case, though he has not served her with court papers. A trial date has not been set, but Matthew Billips, Cutler's attorney, said there are no settlement talks that might head off a trial.

"I have no idea what he wants," Billips said. "He's never said, 'This is what I think should be done."'

Neither Steinbuch nor his attorney returned phone calls seeking comment. In court, attorney Jonathan Rosen said Steinbuch wants to restore his good name. Students in his legal ethics class all search the Internet and learn about the blog, Rosen said.

"It's not funny and it's damaging," Rosen told a judge. "It's horrible, absolutely horrible."

To win, Steinbuch will have to prove that the details of their sexual relationship were private and publishing them was highly offensive. Billips argues that Cutler never intended to make the blog public but, in the information age, data is easily copied and distributed beyond its intended audience.

If the case goes to trial, its outcome will be important both to bloggers and to people who chronicle their lives on social-networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook. Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said he may teach the Washingtonienne case this spring during his class at Georgetown Law School.

"Anybody who wants to reveal their own private life has a right to do that. It's a different question when you reveal someone else's private life," he said, adding that simply calling something a diary doesn't make it one. "It's not sitting in a nice, leather-bound book under a pillow. It's online where a million people can find it."

Rotenberg asked, what if Cutler had secretly videotaped the encounters and sold the videos without Steinbuch's consent? There has to be a line somewhere, he said.

Since being fired, Cutler moved back to New York, wrote a novel based on the scandal, posed nude for Playboy and started a new Web site, where she solicits donations "for slutty clothes and drugs."

She wouldn't discuss the case but said she's amazed by what has happened.

"The fact that anyone was interested in the first place was a surprise," she said. "The fact that there was a lawsuit in the first place was a surprise. That it's still going on is a surprise."

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman was surprised, too.

"I don't know why we're here in federal court to begin with," Friedman told attorneys for both sides in April. "I don't know why this guy thought it was smart to file a lawsuit and lay out all of his private, intimate details."

In that sense, the Washingtonienne lawsuit has become a study into when to make a federal case out of something and when to just let it go away. It's a question lawyers wrestle with all the time.

Lanny Davis, the former special counsel to President Clinton who now advises companies during times of crisis, tells clients to decide whether they want justice or simply to set the record straight and get a message across.

"If you're looking for justice, the court system is the only thing you have," Davis said. "If you're looking to get the full story, good and bad, into one coherent narrative, the court system is perhaps the worst possible forum."