| Subject: Re: wrong using married donors? |
Author:
Donna
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Mon 07 February, 2005 21:13:29
In reply to:
FQ
's message, "Re: wrong using married donors?" on Sun 06 February, 2005 06:36:41
Short answer to long rant....
Nothing wrong with a married donor, only wrong when aforementioned married donor is keeping his donor status a secret from his wife and family. This is just my opinion and preference, but I will not be party to such a lie by omission.
Some women might also feel uncomfortable asking a married man to donate sperm. Not because they are looking for some single guy to marry, but because it is a difficult enough process finding a compatible known donor without adding to it the complexities of a husband wife relationship.
Next time perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions or make assumptions. Thank you.
marriage>What is so wrong with using a married donor? A
>substantial amount of sperm samples you get from sperm
>banks are from married donors. In fact, our health
>authorities in the UK have started a push for
>prompting married men to donate sperm through their
>doctors.
>
>They reasoned there would be less threat of infection,
>and potentially better genes, if the donors did not
>come up because they wanted to, initially, but because
>their doctors chose them.
>
>You wouldn't like a married donor only if you had the
>romantic idea of setting up a family, with that
>person, after conception. But for that, you could
>simply use straight dating and be outright that you
>want children (&marriage) straight away. You may
>laugh, but there are certainly men out there, for whom
>that would be their ideal.
>
>The main advantage of sex is not that AI doesn't work
>and NI does. It is simply that NI is a much more
>poweful motivational tool.
>
>Artificial insemination works fine. People telling you
>it will not work at all are trying to corner you into
>something you would not like. The only technical
>discussion point is whether NI is slightly more
>efficient than AI.
>
>Anecdotal evidence does suggest that NI is more
>efficient. It has never been tested conclusively in
>humans. Who would like to try it out? However, in many
>non-human mammalians (cats, rabbits etc), ovulation
>can be induced by a somewhat rough intercourse. In
>humans, ovulation itself is induced regularly by a
>pace-setting mechanism inside the brain which
>synchronizes with the ovaries. However, there are
>other additional targets such as cerival patency
>(sperm passing through the cervical canal into the
>uterus), tubal capture of eggs (like in baseball where
>a high-speed flying ball is caught by a glove), and
>nidation, the nesting of the embryo into the uterus.
>So there are plenty of targets where the sensual
>perception of intercourse and the body response can be
>effective.
>
>Of course there are several additional pluses and
>minuses. The minuses are the risk of infection is much
>higher through the tears in the vaginal lining. You
>can get infected by sperm itself, and this is the
>reason for frequent obligatory testing. However, the
>risk through sperm itself is much smaller than through
>intercourse. There is also a much higher risk of
>emotional problems and feelings of guilt (I've slept
>with a person who is ugly and who I don't love, I
>betrayed my lover etc).
>
>On the plus side, it is much more rewarding for the
>would be father. Male satiety after intravaginal
>ejaculation is greater than after masturbation. So
>there could be, theoretically, less problems in
>receiving donations several days in a row around the
>ovulation time, or in retaining the person as a
>regular donor for the necessary stretch of time. If
>you read the comments on this site, a lot of
>recipients lose contact with their donors after 2-3
>cycles, because these are no longer willing. So it
>could enhance the motivation. However, nothing is
>certain, it is just a rule of thumb. So if you find a
>male extremely attractive, and he is not a serial
>donor...
>
>The key thing about sex, is that with it, your circle
>of potential donors is much wider, so you can choose a
>much better candidate. If you get dreary people
>looking for sex, it means you are casting the nets
>into a wrong place.
>
>One should not choose people that don't come up to
>your aesthetic expectations, as donors, even if they
>don't ask for sex. If you feel they are ugly, what
>your brain is trying to tell you is that they will be
>poor donor material. If you choose such a person, your
>brain may shut down the pathways needed for normal
>fertility. So choose people who look nice to you
>(beauty is in the eye of the beholder), appear
>intelligent and show high acquired social status. This
>is one aspect where having a known donor beats having
>an anonymous one.
>
>
>Anyway, good luck in your search!
>
>
>
>
>
>>Well, I've tried posting here several times, I'm on
>>practically every newsgroup and bulletin board I could
>>find and I've hunted high and low for a sperm bank
>>near me with open donor programs.
>>
>>It seems there is noone in my area who is genuinely
>>looking to be a donor and isn't either married and
>>trying to hide his donor status from his wife, just
>>trying to pressure vulnerable women under pressure
>>from their biological clocks into having sex, out for
>>money, living in outter Siberia, or just saying they
>>want to help, but when it comes down to it, they
>>dissapear.
>>
>>So, I've had it. Looks like being a mom is not in my
>>cards and after almost 2 years of looking and 3 donors
>>that were set to go then backed out, I am DONE.
>>
>>I did meet some very nice women on this board and
>>other newsgroups and even a few men that seemed to be
>>genuine (but sadly, too far away) so I haven't lost my
>>faith in humanity completely, but just wanted to say
>>bye and thanks anyway and wish the rest of the people
>>on here luck!
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
