I protest your description of the chick as clingy, if not, sadly, clueless.
She’s an idiot, he’s a jerk.
If he led her on just to fuck her and dump her, that’s assholish behavior. But that doesn’t mean that he was under any obligation to continue dating her. Now it may be that he had a genuine romantic interest in her, but changed his mind some time during or after the sex. It happens. (I doubt this was the case, though.)
His actions from that point on were understandable. His words were not. Accusing her of faking the pregnancy and of being a whore are about as classless as you can get. You lose your Man Card over something like that. And while he didn’t have to suck up to her, he could have at least acted a little more sensitively to her.
From the description (and remember we are getting her side only), it sounds like she kept after him long past the point where it was obvious he’s dumped her.
Overboard with the calls, emails and “late night texts” after he’s not returning her calls and refuses to see her = clingy. She admits as much (qualified in her account with “a little”, which probably means “a lot”).
They dated for a bit, he fucked her, he dumped her. Just how long did she keep up the “calls, emails and late night texts”? For weeks?
How is her being dumb and naive and him being an ultra-douche incompatible?
Thinking about this a little further, the level of his jerkness depends on what was going through his mind.
Possibility 1: He had a genuine interest in dating her, but changed his mind some time after they had sex. We don’t know if that was minutes or days or weeks.
Possibility 2: He just wanted her for sex, and thought that’s all she wanted too.
Possibility 3: He led her on knowing he would dump her.
Sadly, #3 is the most likely, and that makes him a complete tool. If it was #2, his actions are a little more understandable. Even more so if he saw her making out with other guys. #1 is somewhere in the middle, with strong tool tendancies.
In any case what he said in e-mail was pretty jerkish.
Sure, her naïveté and his ultra-doucheté are not inconsistent. Even that and her clinginess are not inconsistent. But the suggestion that she is as much to blame as he is is not correct. I would put it at closer to 90-10, well beyond the clear and convincing standard for inclusion in PLFM.
Nothing a guy says before sex means anything. Nobody’s saying he wasn’t a douche, we’re saying it should have been obvious to her all along that he was a douche, and that she really had no basis to expect anything better. It’s like the time I bought some loose joints from this really sketchy, seedy looking dude at a bus stop. He promised me it was really good weed. It turned out to be oregano rolled up into pin joints. I got burned. He lied. But it was my own fault for being a moron enough to trust some skeeveball at a bus stop in the first place. I was 18. You live and you learn. What kind of airhead believes what a frat boy says when he’s trying to get into her pants? They had a few dates. Big deal. That doesn’t mean they had established a relationship, just that he hadn’t closed yet.
No, it’s not nice, but it’s not relevant that it’s not nice. She has only herself to blame. It shouldn’t be a news bulletin that guys will say anything to get laid.
If we turn this around, and hypothesize a woman who takes a guy’s virginity, then stops calling him, and ignoring him when he gets all stalkery, does anybody feel sorry for the guy?
How sexist and paternalistic.
You heard it here first kids, girls are not responsible for their own actions. 
To be fair, Dio, there are some college guys that actually do want relationships. Even drunken frat boys.
Sure. There are also seedy guys at bus stops who really have good weed.
When you have sex, you’re accepting the possibility that pregnancy might result. If you’re not willing to accept that possibility, then you shouldn’t be having sex.
Um, I’m not sure what to make of your sarcasm. Do you actually believe that no college boy, at any time in the history of college, has actually wanted a girlfriend?
I’m saying that the fact that some wild mushrooms are harmless doesn’t mean you go around randomly eating wild mushrooms.
Ah. Agreed, then.
Isn’t that basically the consensus, both on the left and the right?
Nobody but the OP, you mean. The question presented to us for debate was whether Todd was a douchebag (the OP’s girlfriend believes he is, the OP disagrees), not whether Kathy was naive, an idiot, etc.
I’m not sure why the OP felt this was a debate so great that it needed to be in Great Debates, though. It seems more like IMHO material.
I don’t understand these claims. The only way I can make sense of them is if you claim that women have some sort of douchebag-ESP which will alert them to imminent douchefulness and if they persevere nevertheless, only they are to blame for their unhappiness.
I don’t think this can be seriously maintained. But! I would like to see this theory floated the next time we get one of our periodic “Why won’t women ever give me a chance (to sex them)?” threads.
A broad generalisation such as this is bound to offend people, specifically males. That isn’t to say that you have to care by my standards of morality; I am merely pointing out what may have caused Chessic Sense to reply in the way he did:
~S.P.I.~
Yes generally.
It’s called learning by experience. We hold people responsible for their ignorance all the time. Why is it different in this case?