Close
Premium Podcast Help Return to DrLaura.com
Join Family Premium Login Family
Marriage
05/13/2010
IconIn 2005, Britain changed the law protecting anonymous sperm donors and allowed children to learn the identity of donor fathers (which is bad news) and limited the number of women who can use sperm from one donor (which is good news).In 1991, Britain registered some 500 sperm donors; since the change in the law, the numbers have dropped by 40%.' Obviously, the men were anonymously donating sperm for the financial compensation, and not for the purpose of fatherhood.' Once the anonymity factor was gone, motivation declined as these men likely felt threatened by potential future responsibilities to a child they had no intention of taking any responsibility for; either financially or emotionally.Another concern about anonymity is the sanctity of the family.' I have always advised married, infertile folks who have called my program to keep their plans a complete secret.' I don't believe it is in the best interest of children to have a sense that the wonderful man protecting, providing, and loving them is not their daddy.' Anything which interferes with that child/father bond should be avoided whenever possible.' And, I never thought the origin of the haploid DNA contribution was as significant as the ultimate parent/child relationship.Britain capped the number of babies which can be created from one donor.' Sperm from one man can now be used to produce only 10 babies (in Holland the number is 25).' The United States does not cap sperm donations at all...and I think that is ridiculous.' You certainly don't want anonymous sperm in one geographical location to be used to make scores of babies who are unaware of their genetic relationship.' The statistical probability of them meeting, falling in love, marrying (aw, I'm such a romantic) and then having children is not insignificant.' This is a factor that could lead to obvious medical problems for their offspring. More >>

Tags: FamilyMarriageMorals, Ethics, ValuesRelationshipsRelativesSocial Issues
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconThere have been a number of lawsuits over the years concerning the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) during relatively casual sex in relatively casual relationships.' The New York Post published a story about a forty-seven-year old attorney who filed suit against his wife of twenty-two years, charging that her straying had left him with Herpes Simplex virus 2, an STD that caused him to experience "pain, suffering, emotional, mental, psychological and physical injuries and the loss of enjoyment of life."I guess he figured that if he had it, and had sex with her, that she'd contract it and then he'd blame it on her during their estrangement so that he could leverage his position with respect to collecting back monies he'd have to give her in a divorce.' I guess that's it...because she filed papers last month with the results of her blood test which was negative for HSV-2, commonly known as genital herpes, with which the lawyer husband says he's infected.Nonetheless, the question still remains: who is responsible for the transmission of an STD in a casual or dating relationship?' Is it the full responsibility of the infected individual to reveal in advance of any sexual activity that they have the communicable disease?' Or, is it the responsibility of each and every individual to not rely on the kindness of strangers?I believe that anyone who knowingly transmits an STD should be prosecuted criminally and sued civilly.' The severity of the consequences should match the seriousness of the STD.' Some of the STDs are curable with medication; others are simply controlled with medication; some may lead to a higher incidence of cancer; and some are a virtual death sentence.'Considering these factors, people who don't ask - much less are foolish enough to believe it when they're told, "No, I don't have anything," - who don't take precautions such as condoms (which aren't foolproof), who have multiple sexual partners, and who don't value the monogamous commitment of marriage after both people have complete physicals and blood tests to ensure a "clean slate," have to take some responsibility onto themselves for their foolishness.It's like this: when you let your dog loose off the leash and it runs into the streets to be run over by a speeding car...the car actually killed the dog; but you put the dog in the place where it could happen.' That is shared liability and shared moral obligation.DO ask, and DO tell; and be truthful. More >>

Tags: HealthMarriageSexSocial IssuesValues
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconA successful marriage requires falling in love many times, always with same person. - Mignon McLaughlin'''''''''''''''' American journalist and author More >>

Tags: EducationMarriageQuote of the WeekRelationshipsRelatives
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Tags: EducationMarriageQuote of the WeekRelationshipsRelatives
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Tags: EducationFamily/Relationships - FamilyMarriageQuote of the WeekRelationshipsRelatives
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconI was at first stunned - then not - to read that research from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health points toward white, middle aged women as being particularly prone to depression leading to suicides.' I'm a middle aged, white, female baby-boomer, so this caught my attention, especially since the researchers seemed clueless as to what would be behind this spike.Having talked to women for over thirty years on the radio, I think I know.' We middle-aged, white females from the sixties were sold a bill of goods by the originally well-meaning women's movement.' The bits about equal pay for equal experience and competence were kind of a no-brainer.' The bits about men, marriage, sex, babies, and home-making being negatives in our lives - because, of course, they were oppressive and demeaning - also seemed obvious at the time.' So, with the introduction of consciousness raising (that is, learning to mistrust, not need, and even loathe men) and women's studies programs (which conceived of elevating women by making them perpetually angry victims), we were on our way to a collision course to today: depression and suicide.Women who dared to buck the feminista trend and actually marry and make babies, kept close to the sisterhood by not being very sexual, loving, or sensitive to their husbands - or just kept them as shack-up studs - and put their babies in day-care.' They did all of that so they could work at their careers full-time and have financial power.' The thinking was, what if "he" took off with some bimbo or died on them?' Money is power and safety!' They also did all of that so they could feel like "somebody."' I still have women tell me today that they only allow themselves to feel good when they have a successful career; the loving appreciation of a husband and children are swept aside like so much emotional dandruff.'These white, middle-aged, female baby-boomers starved themselves of the fulfilling emotional meal of actually being a hands-on mom in addition to being their husband's girlfriend.' Many of them are now divorced, and their adult children hardly spend time any time with them.' The kids learned how to spend time without Mom because she was so "busy, busy, busy" while they were growing up.I'm not surprised that so many of these women are depressed and suicidal.' Feministas lied to them that they could and would "have it all:" they only had to sacrifice the loveliest parts of their womanhood.I'm not among them, because I caught myself entering that depressive state.' I've been there...done that.' Saved by a marriage and a child! More >>

Tags: ChildrenFeminismHealthMarriageMotherhoodMotherhood-FatherhoodParentingSocial IssuesWomen's Point of View
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Tags: Family/Relationships - FamilyMarriageParentingPersonal ResponsibilityRelationshipsRelatives
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Tags: EducationFamily/Relationships - FamilyMarriageQuote of the WeekRelationshipsRelatives
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconEverybody wants to know what I think about Madonna's public comments during her' very public and rancorous divorce.' I think they pretty much match her general public image, demeanor, and behavior.' I have always found her incredibly objectionable, offensive and intentionally vulgar - all under the rubric of free-speech and free-spirit.To start, I'm not convinced that most current celebrity marriages are indeed commitments of mind, body, and soul as they are intended to be (think Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward).' For the most part, very 'out there' performers are exceedingly centered on themselves and want someone to adore them, serve them, be a reflection of their perceived wonderfulness or importance, fulfill a fantasy or simply put...the sex was great and the public relations aspect boosts their visibility.When the so-called object of their affections becomes tiresome, more or less important or successful, demanding, and no longer reflects a narcissistic boost...they are dispensed with.When a divorcing spouse makes public vulgar, insulting, and humiliating comments about the other spouse, children are devastated and tend to either compulsively go towards the attacked party to protect and defend them, or compulsively go towards the attacking parent so they won't also be victimized by that parent.' Either way, children become emotionally fragmented, confused, and distrustful - and that will likely be an issue for their whole lives, especially when they are ready to establish relationships.Celebrities with the usual chaos in their personal lives are the fodder of media sales and ratings.' Celebrities with quality relationships are ignored (Tom Selleck, for example).These celebrity musical chair relationships are obviously not a great image for our impressionable youth.' Quite frankly, most divorces don't need to happen at all.' Weathering lousy times is a sign of character and commitment.' Most of the time when folks call me all angry and convinced they need to divorce, they are simplifying the situation because they haven't taken the responsibility needed to help maintain a quality comradeship.' I tell them short of abuse, addictions, and repetitive affairs, they should treat the one they want so much to leave as though they loved them with their last breath - for a month - and then watch and feel what happens.If one parent decides to leave for selfish or foolish reasons, the truth of the situation can be spoken to the children without the nasty parts.' For example, "Your mother, sadly, has decided to leave to be with a man she met on the internet.' I'm hoping that she will find that she misses us all so much that she wants her life with us back.' Until then, let's pray and stay as positive as possible."This approach states the truth, which I believe children in this situation need, but opens the possibility for hope.' Children will over time form their own conclusions when mama never calls, visits, or comes home.' That parent will have destroyed the relationship with their children all by themselves.I try to remind folks considering leaving for less than important reasons to stick around and create the kind of homelife that will best send their children into their adulthood with optimism and an open heart.' I tell them that this is their moral obligation...to put themselves second. More >>

Tags: CommitmentDivorceFamily/Relationships - ChildrenMarriageParentingPersonal Responsibility
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Tags: DatingMarriageRelationshipsSocial Issues
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe