Camilla Cavendish in the Times slightly puzzles me.
I have four girlfriends in their late thirties
who are considering using American sperm banks to beat the fertility
curve, or taking up offers from kindly gay friends.
Umm, why gay friends? Why not heterosexual strangers? And do they prefer draught or bottled?
Sounds like the laddish “I’d could cure her” brag. Only the other way around.
Is more like a perverse idea that gay men once they’ve impregnated her wont want anything to do with raising the baby or try to marry the woman.
Or maybe that the function of getting pregnant can be separated from any sexual pleasure.
Maybe they want a mongoloid (from late pregnancy) who is good at dancing?
Perhaps they want to get some fresh, vibrant, young sperm, because as we all know, old sperm is poorer quality sperm. Why don’t we make things fair and start getting at middle aged fathers? I have to confess this latest attack on women makes me very angry, as do comments about ‘mongoloids’ (see above).
I’m with Mrs McMuffin and as a woman in her mid-thirties I’d rather have a baby with someone I liked and admired who happened to be gay (which doesn’t mean he won’t want to take a role as a father) than a stranger any day.
Tim adds: One of the few blog comments (having seen the photo) which makes me say “Damn”.
BTW Rob Thanks for suggesting that reduced mid-thirties female fertility is automatically going to produce handicapped children. For your info none of my friends have.
Why not do it with a heterosexual friend, that’s my question. I mean, why the gay angle?
fun with insemination
Beyond individual preference, there’s no definitive reason why a straight friend couldn’t act as a donor, or why a gay friend would necessarily be a better donor. Though Cavendish might not intend to argue a gay or anonymous donor is the preferred ch…
Leave a Reply