If more women are going for sperm donor kids, will men similarly turn to surrogates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they tell you! I also think it’s the myth of the med student donor… do you think these medical students would do that ? Are they narcissists ? Egotists?

post doc man: are you in the scientific field ?

Engineering

Thanks. Not that you should care, but I mostly love engineers for what they do for society. Intelligence is heredity. Maybe I’ve opened up my thinking a bit here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I think men are paid a paltry sum for their DNA at sperm clinics. That is atrocious.

It makes no sense. Their DNA is devalued because of the rapid mechanism that expels it? The bias that devalues male dna?

Everything is upside down in this industry. It’s also not fair to men either to have 50 half siblings as off spring.

Repetitive, repeatable, high volume tasks are paid less in capitalism. One man can impregnate hundreds.

The creation of new ideas/things that add value to the economy are always paid more. One woman can only safely have a few babies in her lifetime. Generally, the Health risks go up with each subsequent baby.

Right or wrong, It is fairly analogous to role in reproduction. Men who require a few minutes are paid $50 and women who gestate for 9 months and give birth are paid $50K.

Once again, women severely underpaid for doing more work and more dangerous work. The guy is doing something he'd enjoy doing every morning anyway; the woman is risking her life and altering her entire body tremendously.

Right! If you break it down by the hour-the woman is making WAY less than the man! Figures.

[Anonymous]

Do you have any proof to support this statement? And I mean scientifically supported evidence regarding the "biological norm" of 300,000 years of human and pre-human behavior.

This post is as stupid as the one that preceded it. You have no evidence to support the statement that the only reason why men have children is because wives are willing to "take on the burden." What about children born to unmarried women? What about unplanned pregnancies? Stating something stupid many times does not make it correct.

You can't be serious. I'm neither of those other posters, but what planet do you live on where the concept of "SAHD" or the father wanting actual responsibility for daily care of a child, is not relatively new as it relates to human history? You got any artist renderings of Ghenghis Khan in a baby sling? SOCIAL norms have changed, but whether human or animal kingdom, mothers were always responsible. The biological norm is the male wanting to spread their seed and continue their line. There are some examples of what you believe, but not many: Congrats on your husband being a seahorse.

Sadly, you are just another DCUM poster blowing words out of your a$$ into a post without thinking at all.

First, look at the post to which you are responding. Do you have proof to support the statement regarding "300,000 years of human and pre-human" behavior? No, you do not (even you are not OP of this post.)

For most of those 300,000 years, humans lived in small units such as tribes, where we believe multiple tribe members cared for the children. Most of the caretakers were likely women, given that the men of this time were gathering food (e.g., hunting) or fighting with other tribes. However, it is also likely that women often died giving birth, leaving some of the caretaking to the older men.

Also, the tribe's men would take their boys out with them when hunting, etc., so they cared for them during this time. Ghenghis Khan came along relatively late during those 300,000 years; however, you have no idea how many boys he trained as a part of his army.

Your comments are flippantly stupid. What does the biology of seahorses have to do with human pre-history? Not much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. (Straight) Men who are the type to actually put in the work and be hands-on parents are going to be able to find someone to have kids with. The difference is the men who want kids and a wife but don’t want to have to pull a second shift may not be able to find someone but they also won’t be willing to spend the money and time to parent solo.

They will still be able to find women to have babies with because they will lie about their interest and their willingness to do the work, as they have always done.

Well women lie about their interest and willingness to have sex after marriage, as they have always done, so this is fair enough.

Do you think this may be connected to the fact that after marriage and baby they realize that their husbands have lied to them about the extent to which they expect their wife to do their (i.e. the husband's labor)?

My husband was "Mr. I support you we are equal partners" until I was delivered Baby #1. Then it was too much for him. That totally killed my interest in sex with him - who wants to have sex with an incompetent man-baby? His lack of support to me and our kid, his treatment of me as an unequal partner, and his expectation that I would provide free labor to him killed our sex life and marriage. We separated when it became clear to me that he had no intention to learn to parent.

I broke up with him after a year of refusing to sleep with him because it was clear he would never become an equal partner and I actually like sex and had my own financial safety net. Because I knew I had enough money to raise my child safely (even if modestly), I could decide that I didn't want to live in a sexless marriage (with a man baby who constantly pawed at me for sex without pulling his weight which made the whole situation feel very rapey and non-consensual like it was expected that I would continue to have sex with him no matter what.)

The sad thing is that his kid recognizes how lame he is - he now tries to foist his labor off on to her. She is not going to leave him as a father, but even as a young child, telling him what kind of groceries he had to buy for her, telling him he had to provide an appropriate sleeping space for her, etc., totally killed her desire to live at his house. She lived full time with me, and he never took any custody.

Yet, he considers himself a great dad and shows up to every ceremony that celebrates her accomplishment so he can bask in the reflected light as a good parent. She is his prop, as was I.

If you want a good sex life after marriage, don't treat a wife like a house slave or nanny.

Your toxicity oozes through this whole post, but this vignette reflects worse on you than it does your “lame” exH tbh.

I supported the father-kid relationship cheerfully for years, but a parent can only cancel on a kid so many times, never invite her for a sleepover, get married and voluntarily drop child visitation, skip Christmas to go visit stepmom’s parents, buy a new more expensive house without any bedroom for her, etc. For so long without a negative impact. Even a 10 year old understands the message sent when step mom uses the extra bedroom for a dressing room and dad accepts that and makes DD sleep on the sofa on the rare occasions he even has her over. I never interpreted these actions of her dad to her - she had a therapist who, thankfully, helped her understand the concept of parental neglect and how to set appropriate boundaries and maintain the positive aspects of the relationship. Without the therapist, she would have grown up thinking that this level of inattention was normal and she would have sought to replicate it in her relationships, which would have been very unhealthy.

Men love to assume that women wreck their relationships with their kids, but you reap what you sow in terms of your parental efforts.

Sure, my post does reflect on me - on the fact that in private, not in front of my kids, I am not willing to pretend that his lame effort equals good parenting. TBH, for far too long I pretended his behavior was good parenting, and I think it was unhealthy - making the kid doubt her own perceptions and feelings. If you equate women being honest with toxicity, that is a you problem.

[Anonymous]

I've literally never met a man who wanted to raise a child on his own. Totally understandable that many women would prefer single motherhood. But I don't know any man who wouldn't rather have a woman to raise the child with. Honestly, most women are better bets than men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. (Straight) Men who are the type to actually put in the work and be hands-on parents are going to be able to find someone to have kids with. The difference is the men who want kids and a wife but don’t want to have to pull a second shift may not be able to find someone but they also won’t be willing to spend the money and time to parent solo.

They will still be able to find women to have babies with because they will lie about their interest and their willingness to do the work, as they have always done.

Well women lie about their interest and willingness to have sex after marriage, as they have always done, so this is fair enough.

Do you think this may be connected to the fact that after marriage and baby they realize that their husbands have lied to them about the extent to which they expect their wife to do their (i.e. the husband's labor)?

My husband was "Mr. I support you we are equal partners" until I was delivered Baby #1. Then it was too much for him. That totally killed my interest in sex with him - who wants to have sex with an incompetent man-baby? His lack of support to me and our kid, his treatment of me as an unequal partner, and his expectation that I would provide free labor to him killed our sex life and marriage. We separated when it became clear to me that he had no intention to learn to parent.

I broke up with him after a year of refusing to sleep with him because it was clear he would never become an equal partner and I actually like sex and had my own financial safety net. Because I knew I had enough money to raise my child safely (even if modestly), I could decide that I didn't want to live in a sexless marriage (with a man baby who constantly pawed at me for sex without pulling his weight which made the whole situation feel very rapey and non-consensual like it was expected that I would continue to have sex with him no matter what.)

The sad thing is that his kid recognizes how lame he is - he now tries to foist his labor off on to her. She is not going to leave him as a father, but even as a young child, telling him what kind of groceries he had to buy for her, telling him he had to provide an appropriate sleeping space for her, etc., totally killed her desire to live at his house. She lived full time with me, and he never took any custody.

Yet, he considers himself a great dad and shows up to every ceremony that celebrates her accomplishment so he can bask in the reflected light as a good parent. She is his prop, as was I.

If you want a good sex life after marriage, don't treat a wife like a house slave or nanny.

Your toxicity oozes through this whole post, but this vignette reflects worse on you than it does your “lame” exH tbh.

FWIW, I don't find this poster the least bit toxic and I applaud her at her courage for leaving her deadbeat husband. I doubt she needs to say anything for her daughter to recognize that her dad is useless as a dad. Having to tell him what groceries to buy or that she needs a sleeping space? That's not anything the mom is doing. Even a young kid picks up when one parent is this incapable.