Career women pioneer the post-sex future

If this doesn't sound like something from a bad science fiction novel from a few decades ago, I don't know what does.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/25/nivf25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/25/ixportaltop.html

Women bypass sex in favour of 'instant pregnancies'
By Charlotte Edwardes and Andrew Alderson
(Filed: 25/09/2005)

Women are increasingly seeking inappropriate IVF treatment because they do not have the time or inclination for a sex life and want to "diarise" their busy lives.

Wealthy career women in their 30s and early 40s, some of whom have given up regular sex altogether, are turning to "medicalised conception" - despite being fertile and long before they have exhausted the possibility of a natural conception.

They are prepared to pay thousands of pounds for private IVF treatments - even though they have unpleasant and potentially harmful side effects - because they believe it offers them the best chance of "instant" pregnancy.

Post 1

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 11:16pm

So, Mark, some people have priorities in their lives, that are different from the priorities you think you would set for yourself if you were in their place.

Why you find something wrong with it, is outside the scope of my comprehension.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 9/25, 11:18pm)

Post 2

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:28pm

I think it is great that women can do this. Much like abortion, it is giving the woman the option of controlling whether or not she wants to have a baby. It is not bad sci-fi at all, it is medical advancement.

My question is who is paying for it? If the consumer is paying for it fine, but I don't think it should be taxpayer funded. I don't know how they handle elective medical procedures in the UK. I personally like the traditional method of conception. It's fun.

Kat

Post 3

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:40pm

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this, although personally, at this point in my life, I'd rather have the sex than the baby.

Then again, I might feel differently tomorrow...

;o)

Post 4

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:53pm

************THIS IS A JOKE, HUMORLESS PEOPLE PLEASE SKIP IT!!!**************************

Summer,

I'd rather have the sex than the baby

You just need to come out of your shy introverted shell :-)

************THIS IS A JOKE, HUMORLESS PEOPLE PLEASE SKIP IT!!!**************************

Post 5

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:24pm

Ethan,

LOL!!! at the disclaimer! ;o)

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 9/26, 6:25pm)

Post 6

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:06pm

Mark Plus, what's the big deal? There are men who go to prostitutes or use pornography and assorted masturbation tools like the "Fleshlight" (I'll leave googling that term as an exercise for the reader) because they aren't willing to bother with the hassle of a 'normal' sex life. Why should women bother if they don't want to? For many years I myself didn't want to bother with partner sex and the requisite dealing with other people; why should it be any different for rich women?

Post 7

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 9:49pm

If they don't have time for a sex life how will they find time for parenthood?

Post 8

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:12pm

Blank-out, Tenya, blank-out.

Post 9

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 6:28am

If they don't have time for a sex life how will they find time for parenthood?

I am sorry that there is a limit on the point size.

Thanks for the insight, there, Tenya. (I think they are going to use nannies, daycare, and other appurtances to minimize the demands on their busy lives.... but I'm just guessing...)

Post 10

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 3:50pm

Maybe they don't want to share ownership of the child with a man they don't love, and they think it would take years if ever to find a man they love.

Or am I missing something.

Post 11

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 4:57pm

Daniel,

I think that would be a great reason to use IVF treatment (by the way, I prefer the term "custody" rather than "ownership" of the child).

What was posted speaks of wealthy career women who don't have the time or inclination for a sex life. I interpreted this as referring to women who were too busy with their work lives to have a romantic relationship. Also, I get the impression that many of these are women who have decided that men suck.

I'm sure the women who choose this route have various motives.

Post 12

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:35pm

I think its great. Freedom, baby, freedom.

Post 13

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 4:37am

It's an interesting idea, but when those women have no time to get a baby, how will they have time to care for the baby? Day-care is ok, but a child needs 24/7 care in the first months. They don't have the time to make out with John Doe, but think that they can handle a baby?

I think they live in fantasyland, because when I have last visited a friend of mine who had a child some month ago, she quit her job to take care of the baby. You just can't work the normal load, when you have to get up at 2 at night and look after the crying baby and then get to the job at 5 in the morning. She is now doing a part-time job during the day, while her husband is still holding his job. And I think that good relationships are still possible, if there weren't so many traumatized women/men in the cities. Just go to Mexico or Spain and look at the women there. They are business women, but they still want and manage a family. They don't have this psychologic traumas and problems. But that's just my point of view of this issue.

Of course, everyone can do it that way, if he/she wants it, out of different reasons. But when they say they do it, because they don't have time to date a real man, then I'd gamble on it that they don't have the time and the will to take on the baby.

Post 14

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 5:25am

While I support the freedom to choose this option without government support or intervention, I certainly question the wisdom of this choice based on comments already made on this thread regarding personal time and energy management, etc.

Perhaps a "de-packaging" of traditional marriage into its components might increase the flexibility of forming the most productive relationships. In other words, two or more people might form a Limited Liability Company (LLC) to conceive and raise a child without necessarily seeking sexual satisfaction exclusively within that LLC. The LLC charter could serve as a form of "pre-nuptial agreement" but with much more flexibility than a traditional marriage. It would specifiy values to inculcate in the child, who has responsibility for what financial and moral support, etc. It would also leave the members free to pursue sexual satisfaction outside the LLC.

Straight women who want children but not husbands could form LLCs to pool their resources and relieve themselves of the burdens of single parenthood. Straight men could do the same but with the caveat that they would need donors, surrogate mothers, adoption agencies, etc.

What I suggest here may go against the grain of Ayn Rand's ideal of man-woman relations, but I still think they have some merit.

Ethan, thanks for the clarifying disclaimer about your joke.

I am
Buzzkiller
Lord of the Humorously Challenged

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/28, 5:35am)

Post 15

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:30am

Luke,

Why *straight* women and *straight* men forming the LLCs? I suspect a good share of the women seeking sex-free impregnation may well not be so straight. (Too busy with work, my ass.)

Jon

Post 16

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:41am

I was just trying to emphasize that "alternative lifestyles" can apply to straights as well as gays, Jon. Of course homosexuals could employ the LLC strategy I suggest. All I really meant is that traditional marriage may no longer suit the unique values of many straights.

As for your psychologizing about the sexual orientations of these women ... well ... I am just taking their word for it that they mean what they say.

Post 17

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:04am

OK, Luke. Your idea might be worthwhile for those straights with unique values, as you call them.

Count me in the category that finds the whole thing very strange. Just my opinion, I�m not saying it should be illegal.

The part I cannot get inside of is the desire to have children but farm-out every aspect of having children.

Whenever an acquaintance asks me whether I think they would be wise to get a dog, whether they would be compatible with dog ownership�I ask them a series of questions that ferret out what exactly they think they want from a dog. Often, we learn than visiting the dog park once in a while will satisfy what they are after. I have never had someone proceed from there to say that they really want to be the owner, though, so why shouldn�t they buy a dog, store it at a kennel and pick it up to go to the park when convenient? I�ve never heard someone suggest such a thing�and those are just *dogs.*

Jon

Post 18

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:25am

Jon:

"Why *straight* women and *straight* men forming the LLCs? I suspect a good share of the women seeking sex-free impregnation may well not be so straight. (Too busy with work, my ass.)"

Come on, Jon. Everyone knows that 'career women' are all just lesbians. Why would a woman want to work? They just need one good night with a ~real man~ to straighten them out, and then kick off those high heels and get to baby making.

Post 19

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:39am