Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    Why don't you pay someone to have your baby and take custody?
    
    David

    Why is adoption not an alternative?           Wil

    The ideal solution would be for John to have two or (n) wives...
    
    Is Mary more important to John than John becoming a biological father?
    It doesn't sound like it the way I interpreted the situation from what
    you have written.

    I've been trying to imagine being Mary, with three daughters
    who I will not allow to show any form of affection to my husband:
    
    It is hard to be this way, but I am doing it, and I have been
    doing it for eight years.   It is a little crazy, to live in
    the same house with my daughters, whom I love, and the man I 
    love, and not permit anything to happen between them.
    
    The man I love, my husband, keeps wanting us to have a baby.
    It isn't crazy enough around here, keeping my affections 
    straight as it is, but I am supposed to have another child,
    with whom I will share affection with my husband!  And for
    child number four, I will have no interaction with my ex-husband!
    How am I going to juggle the balls in that act?  Furthermore,
    what will my daughters think of this fourth child?  How will
    they understand my need to lovingly share this child with my
    current husband?  And as this fourth child grows up won't s/he
    be more than a little mixed up about why daddy showers all
    affection on only one child in the house?  Won't all my children
    have strange ideas about affection?  That it is somehow
    legislated in a court, and that everyone has to follow what
    the court says?  How are my kids going to know how to fall
    in love if there is no court to tell them?  Or will they fall
    in love anyway, but not be able to show it until a court says
    it is OK?
    
    Well, it's already a crazy situation, but I don't think I can
    handle a fourth child.   I hope John can understand this.
    
    Wil

    Re paying someone:
    
    There's the Groucho-club phenomenon: Groucho would want to join any
    club which would be so low as to admit him! I would question the
    character of someone who was willing to have a child for pay. I suppose
    it could be done for good reasons, e.g. compassion, even love. John
    might consider this, but it's really a variation on the theme, and
    there are thorny legal issues, like it might be against the law, 
    and/or these contracts are not enforceable (baby M?).
    
    Re adoption:
    
    John wants to raise John's baby. Part of it is the knowledge that
    John is not a dead-end twig on the tree of life; for this, John
    wouldn't have to be the care-provider -- knowledge that a child
    carries his genes would be comforting. Mostly, John hopes and
    believes that HIS (genetic) child would be a great kid to know. He has
    already raised other people's children (sort of). His experience
    with his step-daughters has made him extremely aware of the
    import of genes. His older brother adopted three infants and they
    turned out very badly. John wants to raise John's baby.
    
    Re two wives:

    This isn't a genuine suggestion, right? John wants to be a bio-Dad 
    and he wants to stay married to Mary. The conundrum before you is 
    how to accomplish this.

    Does anyone think that a late-30's/early-40's woman-sans-fertile-man
    would consider such an arrangement?

    - Hypothetical Hoyt

Wow. It sounds like there have been a lot of strange decisions,  
miscommunication and hurt feelings in this entire situation. It 
also sounds like John has been somewhat ambivalent about pursuing 
reproduction. I see a couple of options for John:

a) Decide what's most important: staying with his wife and
   accepting the situation there or leaving and starting 
   over again.

b) Finding someone to have a baby with and working out the
   details that he would like. I would strongly advise him,
   though, to make sure that this is ok with his wife. One
   possibility is to find a lesbian couple or single woman
   who would be open to having him involved with their family.
   If he's in the Boston area, he could call Fenway Health
   Center to get started on this process.

c) Find a volunteer job that allows him contact with children.
   There are many such opportunities, and I'm sure he'd find
   a lot of satisfaction from developing a relationship with
   a youngster.

d) Get counselling to help him understand what he really wants 
   and to accept his decision.

Good luck to John,
Liz

    From the description in the base note, it's almost as if John *wants*
    to rule out anything except the obvious - leave & take another wife.  
    The alternatives of divorce, adoption, and foster parenting are ruled out 
    primarily I think because John really doesn't know what he wants.
    
    This may sound callous, but a pre-marriage agreement to have a
    biological child certainly seems to set the priorities.  I feel as if
    John either has to live with the current situation, or leave it.  To
    "mildly" alter it is impossible.  How can anyone have one child out of
    four who is the sole recipient/giver of affection?  
    
    Now - the hugs/kisses John seems to crave as either a parent or as
    "Unkie" are rather naive desires.  The real parenting is dealing with a
    the 2 year old temper tantrum, or the sullen teenager, paying the traffic 
    tickets, going to parent/teacher conferences, buying those sneakers, going 
    to the football games, and *still* giving the hugs, etc... even when you 
    are in a bad mood.   
    
    It seems as if John wants the baby, but not the child.   His best bet
    for fullfillment in this light might be to run a daycare center.
    
    
    -m
    
    

    Mary and John and three girls (now teenaged) have
    had their ability to have natural affections toward
    each other controlled for eight years by Mary's
    ex-husband and the girl's bio-father.  He must be
    one powerful guy!
    
    It sounds like Mary and Mary's ex are still in a
    hell of a binding relationship.  Mary has not let go,
    and I bet she thinks she is sacrificing for the sake
    of the girls.  IMHO, she is sacrificing the girls!
    
    Kids can deal with all kinds of conflict in their
    parents as long as the conflict is coherent with what
    they perceive happening between the parents.  It's 
    when the parents say one thing and appear to do other
    things that the kids get screwed up.  Mary's inability 
    to voice her anger at the ex-husband who still pulls 
    powerful strings in this family is what is hurting those girls.
    Those girls are going to grow up into women who get
    jerked around by men in the same way that she is.
    (Or they will see through it and will be so gunshy that
    they will never be able to achieve intimacy, because it
    implies being totally controlled by the other person.)
    
    John thinks his main problem is not being able to 
    become a bio-father while in this family situation.
    I think John's problem is not being able to blow the
    whistle on Mary's relationship with her ex.  John
    needs to ask Mary if she wants John or her ex.
    
    If the ex-husband/Mary/John triangle gets resolved,
    I bet John's need to be a bio-father would take on
    different dimensions.
    
            Wil

    
    After Baby M, I can understand that no one would be very supportive of
    a surrogate... but to me, it makes a LOT of sense. It means that a baby
    will exist, the parent will be John, and Mary's infertility is
    circumvented.
    
    BUT: I seriously believe that bringing child #4 into John's home will
    probably wreck his marriage. Especially if child #4 is not Mary's
    child. A woman who subconsciously or consciously avoids pregnancy does
    not sound like a woman who wants a 4th child under any circumstances.
    
    John does not seem thrilled with the arrangement at home. Child #3 is
    only 12 from MY math. There's still time for bonding if John gets
    lucky... I would ask John to consider taking Mary back to counseling
    and presenting to HER, through an intermediary, the fact that his needs
    in the marriage haven't been met, and discussing the alternatives.
    
    Another alternative! John could become an active sperm donor! And leave
    a message at the sperm bank that he wishes to be an active uncle of his
    issue. Right now, that seems like an immediate option to try.
    
    Question: how will Mary feel about John the uncle? How much of John's
    time will be taken up in uncling? I think even uncling could still rock
    the marriage a bit.

    It's hard to fathom Mary's relationship with her ex. Privately she'll
    characterize him in purely negative terms. In front of the kids, she's
    silent. On the phone with him, she's pleasantly chatty. But then she's
    pleasantly chatty with everyone. In general there's a lack of affect.
    
    The sperm bank donation idea is a good one, and actively being looked
    into. The lesbian couple idea is absolutely inspired! When I was on
    campus, lesbians had a tendency to be hostile toward men, and John
    probably would prefer not to have his child think of him as the source
    of all evil. Possibly that hostility was a collegiate reaction that
    mellows. It's worth checking out.
    
    John is confused about what he wants. He's made a decision to make no
    radical changes in his life for a year or so, to give him a chance
    figure things out. An extract of replies to this topic will greatly
    assist him, I'm convinced. Please keep the replies coming (and I'll get
    John's feedback too).
    
    - Hypothetical Hoyt
    
    P.S. How would one DO a surrogate mother? Ads in the paper? Put up
         signs down on campus?

    I think that John should collect the $50k out of the butt of the wifes
    ex. Then go adopt a kid! And or the John should say good-bye to the
    selfish wife who has stalled the game out till the final bell. And the
    crap of the ex showing no affection to the stepfather John who has
    cared for these offsprings for these years is out and out cold and
    heartless. I vote either get John on the pot of getting what he wants
    or John packing the bags and finding someone who will be a partner to
    his relationship. Sounds like his present partner has quit big time on
    John who is being the middle man of two people who are very selfish.
    And one is the present wife, and second is the other selfish person is
    the ex. And I don't think that John needs the srink as much as the
    other two creeps. $50k in support!!! Throw the ex in the big house
    time! 

     re .11
    
    Remember, adoption is out. john wants a kid made from his own seed. A
    kid who will bear some resemblance to him. Hopefully a kid who will
    inherit all of his good qualities. john has listed some of his negative
    impressions about adoption. Its in his family. Its not what he's after.
    He wants to be part of the process of creating a child and helping come
    up in the world.
    
    I seriously think John needs to give his wife an ultimatum and consider
    ending the marriage.

    .12 but the woman is 45 and past the point of no return! And $6000 at a 
    5% chance is rather steep odds! Unless of course John collects $50k
    from the wifes ex. And I think I would start that move before I go for
    the ultimatum. This way if she says to take a hike to him at least he
    walks, hopefully, with $25k or less! He has been suporting his wife and
    the children that he has not fostered and is forbiden to for 8 years.
    Or at least thats the story we are told. And too bad its not in paper
    reguarding the child for its his word agianst hers and she wins on
    those notes when they get to court.
    
     

    .12, I agree completely.  And even if John's wife responds to the
    ultimatim, there may still be just too much to be worked through.  IMO
    John is in a relationship that is emotionally very unhealthy, and since
    his wife and her kids have bought into it completely, it's probably
    starting to look like the norm....
    
    I completely understand John's powerful instincts to be a biological
    father; when my bio-clock went off, I decided that I needed to choose
    one goal to focus on (getting a partner OR producing a child).  It was
    *not easy* prioritizing that.
    
    I'm now an ESP (elective single parent!) (a Mom) and I often say that 
    it was the best decision I ever made, perhaps the ONLY real decision I 
    ever made.  My best wishes to John, and I hope he doesn't beat himself up
    too much about not having taken enough action soon enough, etc.... 
    It's great that he's confided in you; that's a start.
    
    Leslie

    
    Hmm...
    
    I guess that leaves John with even ANOTHER option. If he has the money,
    he can go ahead and find a surrogate, and then keep the child as a
    single parent. Forget Mary...

    What an interesting hypothesis.
    
    I believe this is a perfect case to adopt an alternative marriage style
    (AMS), one with three partners, woman man woman.
    
    It's not unheard of, becoming more acceptable just as other coupling
    styles are. It sounds as if John is emotionally tied to Mary and the
    children. And is not prepared to leave them, indeed, truly loves them. 
    At 45, I can fully understand why Mary does not want to become a new
    mother, it's an incredibly draining experience, and she's been through
    it three times already.  Yet John has not been through it.  It is an
    experience that consumes his thoughts, one he wants to make his life
    complete.
    
    It sounds as if there is no want of financial resources, that they are
    comfortable and stable.  A perfect setup for introducing another,
    perhaps younger woman that could bear his child, and become part of a
    different kind of extended family.  The key would be finding that other
    woman, someone who would fit into John's existing marriage, someone
    that Mary would like and accept.
    
    This is not as far-fetched as it might sound.  This is not a case for
    becoming a Mormon or anything 8-).  Historically, multiple partner
    "marriages" are more common than you might believe, though of course,
    not societally or legally accepted.
    

    re: .16
    
    You forgot something.  This is not an alternative marriage style with
    woman man woman, but one with (woman + 3 children) man (woman + child).
    Such social/emotional complications are not exactly trivially dealt
    with, especially if the man treats each woman/child combination
    entirely differently - context switching could take up most of his
    life!
    
    -m

    
    > How does one go about finding a surrogate parent?
    
     You start off by talking with an attorney....
    
    David

    I appreciate that the solution offered in .16 is not one that
    is 'socially acceptable, but it is one that many couples have
    used quietly and apparently comfortably for many hundreds
    of years in the past.....

    it was one of those 'of course' situations....... where folks
    worked it out, but no one talked about it. The man generally
    gave lots of attention to the child, the  wife  accepted the
    situation, and sometimes became friendly with the mother
    of the 'other' child.....and sometimes or many times when
    the child became an adult, he/she learned his/her 'true' heritage...
    i.e. this sort of problem is the 'meat' of most Victorian romances,
    which says to me, that it is far more common than we can imagine.

    something that is a common plot for novels, has to have some
    resonance in the world that buys the books.

Does "John" get some satisfaction out of playing the part of a scatter rug?

I ask only because it appears to me that he is doing just that. Putting
away the things that seem to be important to him while he allows others
to define his life around these parameters.

I'm not so sure that I'd jump at the "get out of the relationship" responses,
were I in John's shoes. But I'd sure as hell strive for some redefinition
of the current one, complete with attention to step-daughter relationships
(especially in lieu of any bio-father financial support - if he's as far in
 arrears as has been suggested, what's the point in "honoring his wishes"?),
and a reassessment with Mary as to how _THEIR_ family ought to get along.
John's been taken advantage of for far too long here.

-Jack

    -jack
    
    i'm with you in this one, *why* since bio dad has basically
    coped out of the realtionship, can't john start getting some
    affection form 'his' daughters...or at least have John and his
    wife and the girls sit down and let John admit how left out
    and how hurt he feels about the fact that 'his' girls can't
    kiss or hug or touch him...
    if my husband felt he couldn't hug or kiss our kids, i'd think 
    that would really mess them up as adults in their relationshps
    with people of the opposite sex..
    perhaps John should bring this up with his wife.
    
    Bonnie

    John and Mary couldn't adopt even if they wanted to.  They have three
    children.
    
    The surrogate idea is a disaster in the making.  John is doing it for
    all the wrong reasons.  Fundamentally he wants a child who will love
    him.  Well, he has inherited three - except that for eight years he's
    stood back and allowed the ex an unnatural degree of influence over
    them and Mary.
    
    It's way past time for him to be a man and not a mouse.  Mary *has* to
    accept that her ex is that - her ex.  Either John is her priority or
    not.  And part of that is that the kids *must* be allowed to bond with
    him.
    
    He's not their bio-father, and I'm sure he won't pretend to be (which
    is the ex's real fear - that he'll be cut off entirely).  But John *is*
    their step-father, and entitled to a real relationship with his
    step-children.

    
    I've been a read only member of thios conference for a while, but this
    one got me fired up.
    
    What's the bio-father trying to prove? If he thinks he's protecting his
    kids by denying them normal affections then he's going to feel real
    sick some time in the future when they go down the ame path. Or maybe
    he won't, because it doesn't sound like he cares a real lot, he's just
    being a real pain in the a**.
    
    Mary needs to see where her priorities lie, John is where the affection
    and feelings are and has been for some time. The EX is exactly that as
    stated in .1.
    
    That doesn't solve John's problems, he's got to decide which of his
    feelings are strongest, for Mary or for raising his own kid.
    
    Steve

    In defense of the bio-father and his injunction against the children:
    when John and Mary first married, John felt "protective" of his wife
    (and probably jealous of her ex-husband)... and met the ex- with a
    combative attitude, court suits re child support, etc. The bio-father
    is himself adopted, and has lost or been alienated from his adoptive
    family, so he's really quite alone in the world aside from his
    children. It doesn't seem too unlikely (to me, anyway) that the bio-dad
    would want to limit the relationship between the kids and his ex-wife's
    threatening new husband.
    
    Re John not being sufficiently assertive regarding his filial
    relations, child support, etc... One reason is a sense that "It will be
    all right when the baby comes." The baby will be John's son/daughter
    and will be his step-daughters' sibling, so they really will be a
    family then. Another problem has been an unfortunate tendency to blame
    his wife for her inactions. John feels that Mary should step in to
    promote acts of affection: "Kiss John good-night, and off to bed!" John
    feels that Mary should be doing what's necessary to extract child
    support from her ex-. John now acknowledges that his wife CANNOT do
    these things, so he has to take measures himself.
    
    If nothing else, the news of Mary's apparent infertility has made John
    confront some of the issues you have raise here.
    
    - Hoyt

    RE: .19, Bonnie's comments on .16, the "second family" solution
    
    I haven't read many Victorian novels, Bonnie, so I'm not 
    sure what leads up to the situation in which one man is
    husband to one woman and fathering a child with another
    woman.  I thought that came about because the wife was
    "cold" to him, and he falls into a relationship with
    a "warm" woman of lower social standing.  His wife would
    be disgraced if he divorced her and would have no means
    of supporting herself, the man does not want to discgrace
    her, the mistress will need financial help supporting the
    child, etc, so the wife, husband and mistress all
    "adjust" to the situation.  This is particularly appealing
    to readers because it is a "solution" that many would hope
    for in their own life.  
    
    Seems to me that John is not complaining about lack of warmth
    in Mary, only that there is no child of this union.  John is
    not saying he wants a mistress, he is saying he only wants the
    child.  And he is not "falling into" having this child, he is
    contemplating a very deliberate path toward getting one.  These
    aren't three people coping with what has already happened.
    This is one person deliberately setting out to make it happen!
                                                   --------------
    John's life isn't complicated enough -- he wants to complicate
    it still more -- and we haven't heard from Mary yet, let alone
    the unknown mother-to-be.
    
    Wil

    
    How about being a Big Brother ?
    I think it would fill the emotional needs John has to
    a certain degree.  Not perfect, but a good compromise.
    
    Rich...
    

    
>    P.S. How would one DO a surrogate mother? Ads in the paper? Put up
>         signs down on campus?

I semi-frequently see ads in the gay papers for/by people who are 
interested in raising children in alternative situations.  The process 
usually involves meetings and discussions.  There are also support 
groups and seminars forming for gay men and lesbians who are 
interested in parenting.  

I'm not exactly sure how John would fit into the attempts of the gay 
community to organize itself in this area, but we have in the past 
been open to heterosexual people who are "in the same boat" as we are. 

And it sounds as if John's situation is very similar to mine: I would 
like children, but my partner(-to-be) can't have any, and I don't have a 
womb.  I am interested in a situation in which I and my lover would 
raise a child, with two very, *very* close aunts (a lesbian couple).  
I'm open to other options as well, but that's my number 1 dream.  Now, 
if I can find a lesbian couple whose dreams align with mine....

...oh, yeah.  I need a lover, still, too!  

							--Gerry

I keep reading replies about how "complicated" it would be for John to 
help raise a child with another woman, but it doesn't have to be that 
way.  If (and I understand that these are big IFs) Mary is supportive 
of the idea and if the families can work together (avoid strict 
separation), it can work.  

It has worked very, very well for some gay and lesbian couples working 
in tandem to raise children.  However, we are very, very skilled at 
thumbing our noses at society's conventions, culturally-instilled 
romantic jealousies, and roadblocks put up by strict application of 
"traditional family."

For it to work, all parties involved have to put down their egos a 
bit, they have to pitch in for each other's "families" (eventually, it 
can operate as one large family), and place the children's needs ahead 
of any traditional defintion of "whose kid this is."

It can work.  And it doesn't have to be that complicated.  But it 
takes people rising above pettiness and ego for the sake of the 
children.

							--Gerry

    
    > very skilled at thumbing our noses at societie's conventions
    
      I don't see how this relates to the topic..Why don't you open
    a seperate topic? I have alot I would like to say about the problems
    /prejudice allegedly heaped upon the " Gay community"...
    
    David

    re .29
    
    I see how it relates to the topic. Generically, (due to infertility of a
    spouse or a lack of a womb or genetic disposition to fatal illnesses,
    etc.) sometimes the normal 1-male+1-female+1-child_produced_by_said_
    couple=family doesn't work. That's John's problem, that's Gerry's
    problem. And the additional burden is that society does not make light
    of exceptions to the rule, except the adoption route.
    
    Gerry is very correct: if you're going to buck the societal norm, you
    have to brace yourself for the reaction. To me, when all you're trying
    to do is be a parent, because you think you'll make a good parent, it
    seems sad that society can be so determined to prevent it or mess it up.

    I think that "society's conventions" are very important here, and that
    John and Mary and their coconspirator(s) must face them. In particular,
    Mary has three teenage daughters, ages 12, 12, and 15. What will the
    children feel about this new baby which isn't Mom's? Much harder, I
    think: what will Mary *anticipate* her children feeling? Mary is
    probably much more susceptible to the "what will people think" problem
    than her daughters, by virtue of Mary's small-town upbringing versus
    the kids' sophisticated everyone's-divorced-around-here environment.
    
    The idea of John fathering a child with a Lesbian adds a whole new
    meaning to "society's conventions." Very possibly the child's mother
    would have a challenging set of "conventions"... with all manner of
    ensuing controversy about raising the child in a politically correct
    way.
    
    A surrogate mother could be handled "conventionally" by the simple lie
    that the child was adopted. The teenage girls need never know better. I
    wonder how the child would feel when (s)he gets to wondering about the
    biological parents and learns "Well, John *is* your bio-dad, after
    all." Tricky.
    
    ??? Hypothetical Hoyt

>    I think that "society's conventions" are very important here, and that
>    John and Mary and their coconspirator(s) must face them. In particular,
>    Mary has three teenage daughters, ages 12, 12, and 15. What will the
>    children feel about this new baby which isn't Mom's? Much harder, I
>    think: what will Mary *anticipate* her children feeling? Mary is
>    probably much more susceptible to the "what will people think" problem
>    than her daughters, by virtue of Mary's small-town upbringing versus
>    the kids' sophisticated everyone's-divorced-around-here environment.
    
I think that Mary is the critical path, here.  If she was pretty cool 
about it all, it could work.  I can't see it working if she really 
cares what "others will think."  From what you say, Hoyt, it doesn't 
look very workable.

As for her kids, he wasn't allowed to show them any affection, so I 
don't think that they get a vote.  Of course, they will have some
emotional reactions to it, but I don't think it's fair for them to
have an overriding influence on John's life when he was denied basic
parenting of them.  The agreement that he is not their father should 
be carried through both ways, by both parties (John and Mary's kids).


							--Gerry

re: .24, Hoyt

>     In defense of the bio-father and his injunction against the children:
>    when John and Mary first married, John felt "protective" of his wife
>    (and probably jealous of her ex-husband)... and met the ex- with a
>    combative attitude, court suits re child support, etc. The bio-father
>    is himself adopted, and has lost or been alienated from his adoptive
>    family, so he's really quite alone in the world aside from his
>    children. It doesn't seem too unlikely (to me, anyway) that the bio-dad
>    would want to limit the relationship between the kids and his ex-wife's
>    threatening new husband.

See - this is the part that I'm really having trouble understanding. Bio-Dad's
wishes/concerns/attitudes shouldn't have spit to do with anything after 8 years
of non-payment of child support. What the hell's he expect to do if John is
able to form an affectionate relationship with his daughters? Take him to
court? While he owes tens of thousands of dollars in back child-support?
Wrong! This guy isn't gonna raise one finger for fear of having his own
pants sued off for neglect of duty. John should respect and honor this guy's
concerns? Only if John wants to continue being walked on.

Bio-Dad is history here. If John continues to allow this silliness to continue
he deserves every miserable minute of it that he needs to put up with.

Something tells me that the situation between John and Mary's daughters is
among the least of John's concerns, otherwise it would have been acted upon
by now.

-Jack

    John and Mary would indeed have to thumb their noses at societal
    convention if they wished to incorporate a third person, and a
    resulting offspring, into their existing partnership.  I doubt from the
    sound of it, that they are capable of this.
    
    I watched three "marriages" on one of the popular talk shows recently
    where there were 3 people involved in each, invariably a man and two
    women.  They managed just fine but had to do a lot of heavy duty
    explaining to a mind-boggled audience.  Most people simply cannot
    accept the idea of anything other than a man/woman marriage.  But in
    this instance I still say it's the perfect solution.
    
    As for explaining it to society -- the second woman is often described
    as a "second cousin" come to live with the couple. Or, a sister, a
    distant relative of some sort etc.  The fact that she may be pregnant,
    or have a child can be similarly explained.  Many adoptive parents stay
    in touch with the bio-mother these days, including extended visits, or
    a semi live-in arrangement. 
    
    Many "secrets" have been kept in families over countless generations,
    including situations just like this.  The fact that many of us have
    never heard of something like this gives veracity to just how well kept
    those secrets have been.
    
    I think the situation John finds himself is reflective of just how
    unassertive he has been about taking charge of his life, how he has
    been too comfortable in sitting on his duff and letting the little
    woman run the entire show, to be quite frank.  But I don't think he's
    ready to take charge now either, and that's really too bad.  If he's
    willing to take another year or two to "think things over" before
    making any changes then he deserves whatever happens to him.  Time is
    fleeting by him, as he is just realizing now.  It stops for no one.
    
    Just as an aside -- I don't consider Mary "infertile",  I prefer to
    refer to her as "no longer fertile".  My nit.
    

    I guess its called Oriental Philosophy, but man/woman live on in
    generations through their children. If John is longing to be a bio-dad
    because he is an adopted child, and John has no connection with what
    ever family member he can lay claim too it is clearly in the best of
    interest for John to secure a child in what ever means he can. Or just
    accept the fate that he calls a loving wife.

    
>    I think the situation John finds himself is reflective of just how
>    unassertive he has been about taking charge of his life, how he has
>    been too comfortable in sitting on his duff and letting the little
>    woman run the entire show, to be quite frank.  But I don't think he's
>    ready to take charge now either, and that's really too bad.  

First, I don't think that we know enough to be able to say that "the 
little woman is running the show" (is she domineering or is John just 
poor at advocating for what he needs?  who know?).  Second, the 
wording sounds very insluting to women, in my opinion.  Third, I think 
that a partnership is usually in *big* trouble if it's constantly a 
"who's in charge/who wears the pants?" sexist battleground.

If John can be faulted for anything, it's for not negotiating in a 
clear, assertive, and timely fashion with his partner.  Suggesting 
that he should "take charge" is a recipe for disaster.  It has "you're 
not being a real man" written all over it, in my opinion.

(I don't want someone to take charge over me, I want someone to help 
me work things out.)

							--Gerry

re:   <<< Note 591.37 by WORDY::GFISHER "Work that dream and love your life" >>>
                   -< Negotiate better; don't "take charge" >-

    
>>    I think the situation John finds himself is reflective of just how
>>    unassertive he has been about taking charge of his life, how he has
>>    been too comfortable in sitting on his duff and letting the little
>>    woman run the entire show, to be quite frank.  But I don't think he's
>>    ready to take charge now either, and that's really too bad.  

>(I don't want someone to take charge over me, I want someone to help 
>me work things out.)

I read the original note as suggesting John take charge of HIS LIFE, not
Mary's, and not the 'situation'. Your other points about negotiating more
assertively would likely need to be preceded by this step of taking charge
of his OWN life and needs.

    
    I think it's unfair to say that, when thinking of bringing a 4th child
    in to this household, "the kids don't get a vote".  As it says in the
    same note, John "hasn't been allowed" to show them any affection. 
    Don't you think that, especially as they were so young at the outset,
    that that implied to them that they weren't *allowed* to give him any
    affection either?
    
    Has anyone ever asked them what they think of this situation?  Could be
    they've been desperate to give John a hug/kiss over the past few years
    but have never done so because it's taboo?  What would bio-dad be able
    to do if they turned round to him and said (as they are quite old
    enough to do now by the sounds of it), "Dad, we *want* to be able to
    show affection to John - it doesn't change our feelings for you, but
    that's the way it's gonna be."  From the little I know about them, I
    feel sorry for these girls.  Sounds like they've been put upon as much
    as John - having to surpress their feelings and going eight years
    without being *allowed* to even touch their mother's husband!  
    
    Of course, they could be sullen little horrors, but even then I would
    imagine this came from bio-dad bad-mouthing John.  Does he do that? 
    Another thing that hasn't bee mentioned - how often is bio-dad on the
    scene?  Does he visit the house regularly?  Take the girls out?  Phone
    every day?  In which case I can imagine that some of John's longings
    stem from jealousy of bio-dad - the "He gets all that affection now I
    want some" syndrome.  If bio-dad only appears every six months or so
    then I would disregard him all together!
    
    I really think the present daughters should be getting a better deal in
    these discussions.  Everyone has been talking about how messed up they
    may become as adults, but what about now?  If she hasn't already done
    so, Mary should be finding out from them what they think of this ban on
    hugs etc.  Or perhaps Mary doesn't want them to show affection to John
    either - could it be she's afraid of sharing his affection with anyone
    and that's the reason she has upheld her ex's wishes all these years
    and also doesn't want another child?  Worth looking in to.
    
    I must admit I have never heard of such an injunction being taken out
    here in the UK.  What a sad situation.
    
    Sam
    

RE: .35

Sorry, this gets to be a "flame."
    
>    Many "secrets" have been kept in families over countless generations,
>    including situations just like this.  The fact that many of us have
>    never heard of something like this gives veracity to just how well kept
>    those secrets have been.
    
Indeed, many such secrets have been kept -- but at enormous cost to
the people keeping the secrets.    When secrets like this are held
in a family, they become barriers between the people in the family
and between others on the fringe of the family.  What does it mean
to become intimate with someone, if I am keeping such a secret?
How can I keep one part of myself so secret and yet be revealing of
other parts of myself?  Who can I trust?  What does trust really mean?

The "I" in the above paragraph is, at first, John and Mary and the
other woman.  But the "I" quickly becomes the kid.  The kid learns
that there is something secretive about his or her nature.  It is 
hard for a kid to compartmentalize what is ok to reveal and what is
not ok to reveal.  The kid is not even sure if he knows what's what
anyway.  Every kid wonders at some time if he isn't adopted, if perhaps
his parents are really someone else, etc.  Good parents, who aren't
worried themselves about keeping secrets, can make reassuring statements
and eventually the kid comes to trust in the parent's story, adopt it
as his own story, and know that if some kid challenges the story on
the school playground, he can "fight" out who he is, because his parents
will stand behind him (proudly).  The kid who must keep the parent's
secret, however, is in a terrible bind.

So, unorthodox marriages have to be "out in the open" for the 
healthy development of the kid.  If the kid's mother is "married"
to his "aunt" and his father is married to his "uncle," the kid
is going to get a lot of grief from his school mates.  But he can
fight it out, if the parents will fight it out with him.  That is,
if the parents are not keeping secrets.  For the parents to not 
keep secrets means that they had better be pretty gutsy about 
their place in society, and how they relate to society's "norms."

I was the victim of a fairly simple secret that started when I
was in college.  I dropped out of college in my senior year, 
joined the Air Force, etc.  My mother could not face her sisters
with the "failure" of her son, so she never told them.  (I have
no siblings, so just my parents kept this secret.)  I had little
contact with my cousins, aunts and uncles.  The following summer
my mother told me that she had told my relatives that I had 
graduated.  She said, "They don't need to know, Bill."  I was not
exactly feeling proud of having dropped out of college, so I 
reluctantly went along.

Twenty years later, when my parents began to die, I realized that 
I had no contact with any of my relatives, and that in order to
renew some contact with them, I would have to maintain my parent's
"secret."  I had never maintained that secret in my world.  I had
never hesitated to tell people that I "went to XXX, but dropped out 
in my senior year."  On application forms, I always just said
"three years college, no degree."  My wife had a BA and MA, and
we used to joke (openly) when people got to talking about college
that we had "an average of one degree each."

This last summer, I renewed contact with my cousins.  My mother
and her sisters are all dead.  I told my cousins about my parent's
secret, one of them told me about her daughter that was born out
of wedlock, another told about her former husband's philandering, and
we all relieved ourselves of the secrets that we had been keeping
in one way or another for the sake of our parents.

The secret that I was given to bear came when I was 21 years old,
and it put up barriers between me and my cousins.  That was tough
enough, but secrets that start at birth or that come in early 
years are impossible for the child to deal with.  The child doesn't
have the strengths to carry those secrets.  The child can only send
the knowledge underground, can only deny its existence.  The 
literature of therapists is filled with stories of self-defeating
clients who finally unearth the "secret" that they buried in their
psyches at some tender age.

I have talked with people who work with victims of child-abuse who say
the elaborate family coverups that are often constructed are worse than
the abuse.  Mothers who know that uncle X routinely fondled their
daughter when he came to visit (and said nothing about it to anyone)
are doing the daughter more harm than uncle X.  It is the secret that is
so damaging, far worse than the abuse itself.  And when it finally 
comes out, the daughter's rage is correctly aimed at the mother, and
only secondarily at uncle X.  (The daughter's rage may be lessened
when she learns that the same thing happened to her own mother, that
it is a "family secret" that uncles have the "old country" right to
fondle the young girls.)

Well, sorry for the tirade on secrets.  

I flame when I hear someone thinking about deliberately setting out
on a path that may involve the construction of elaborate family secrets...

Wil

    
>>>    I think the situation John finds himself is reflective of just how
>>>    unassertive he has been about taking charge of his life, how he has
>>>    been too comfortable in sitting on his duff and letting the little
>>>    woman run the entire show, to be quite frank.  But I don't think he's
>>>    ready to take charge now either, and that's really too bad.  
>
>>(I don't want someone to take charge over me, I want someone to help 
>>me work things out.)
>
>I read the original note as suggesting John take charge of HIS LIFE, not
>Mary's, and not the 'situation'. 

That is exactly my point.  His life is intertwined with theirs.  He'd 
better be talking to them while he is taking charge of his life, 
because it will most certainly affect them.  

I am operating on the idea that, when you form a partnership and 
family, you no longer unilaterally take charge of your life without 
checking in with your family.  I know that some people do not do 
family and partnerships that way.  Then, we are coming at it from two 
different points of view.


							--Gerry

re 591.5

    with his step-daughters has made him extremely aware of the
    import of genes. His older brother adopted three infants and they
    turned out very badly. John wants to raise John's baby.


I can understand fully wanting a child related to yourself; I just have to vent
about the children 'turning out badly' and the implications that line of
text has as to the reason!

Geez!

	Re: .42

	I have to agree.  I'm surprised the Skinnerian contingent hasn't
	jumped all over that reasoning!  

    Skinnerian, nothin'!  I've known some pretty bad babies raised by their
    natural parents....
    
    Ray the real real bad adoptee

  >>  Skinnerian, nothin'!  I've known some pretty bad babies raised by their
  >>  natural parents....
    
  >>  Ray the real real bad adoptee


	Yes, that was the point.  Wanting to be a biological father is
	one thing, but I see this as a rather weak argument against
	the alternative.  At least in terms of behavior.  Now, if one
	is worried about baldness or something along those lines...
	that's different.

Hoyt, 
   Based on your comments in note 646.*, I would question the second line...

>    It seems to John (late thirties, reasonably good-looking and charming,
>   well-educated with intelligence and income in the 90-percentiles) that

Debbie (normally read-only)
    

    Re -1: Good one, Debbie! Got yerself a twofer there. Ouch!
    
    Well, it's decided: last week my wife and I officially gave up on the
    idea of getting her pregnant. The fertility specialist was _extremely_
    discouraging. It wasn't pleasant for anybody. Sticking my wife with a 
    syringe of moodifying hormones -- NOT fun. And it just put off the next
    step...
    
    ...which is going to the counselor at the fertility clinic to ask 
    the question posed in this topic: what alternatives are there for a
    would-be Dad with a no-longer fertile wife? Happily, my wife is open
    to this idea. We'll see how she feels when we get down to particulars.
    
    I'm going to extract this topic and write up a small summary, to carry
    to that meeting. Since the date of the original topic posting, my ideas
    about adoption have changed somewhat. I was very negative before. Since
    then I've spoken to several friends who find their lives full of love,
    because a child arrived from some corner of the world. One of my loser
    adopted nephews came out this summer, and revealed himself to be a way
    cool dude. He wasn't a loser, he was just young! I'm also less enthused
    about some of the less conventional ideas mentioned here, maybe because
    I'm a little less desperate, and/or I'm more interested than I had been
    in the welfare of the child.
    
    I thank you for your contributions (including yours, Debbie :). I hope
    there will be more, as the continuing saga unfolds!

    I'm gone in a week, so I thought I'd write a last response on this
    topic before heading out.
    
    In a counseling session, I expressed my conviction that I _will_ raise a
    child, and asked my wife to decide whether she is willing to help me
    and participate in raising that child with me. I expressly left the means
    of procuring a child to later discussion; the first decision was whether 
    she would be willing to share her home with me and the child.
    
    She has elected to NOT participate, knowing that her decision means we
    divorce. She has stopped attending the counseling and refuses to
    resume. She doesn't discuss the child issue or our marriage with me, her
    friends, or her family. I suggested that she write down her thoughts and
    share them with me in that format; she says she's written but she
    hasn't shown me anything. She appears to have chosen divorce.
    
    So I've abandoned thoughts of adoption and surrogate mothers and egg
    donor programs: I'll be taking whatever time is required to get my head
    together (and secure singlehood), then be looking for the love of my
    life and the mother of my children.
    
    Thanks for all the suggestions to this will-be (!) father. I've taken
    real comfort from my participation in MENNOTES; thanks for being there,
    everyone. With luck, I'll get another Digital contract someday and once
    again poke my head in here to see what's going on.
    
    XXX - Hoyt      

    Good luck, Hoyt, in everything.  Hope to see you back again.  - Vick

 Give 'em hell, Hoyt. You're picking the tough road to fulfillment, but that
will only magnify your sense of acheivement when you finally have your own 
child. Good luck, and Godspeed.

    Good Luck Hoyt! Remember when the tuff get going the weak get f*cked.
    So get tuff or they will f*ck you.

    Hoyt,
    
    "In pursuit of a good cause, there is no such thing as failure."  What
    you are doing is indeed a good cause.
    
    Good luck.  Good-bye.
    
    Kris

    Good luck with the bumpy times, Hoyt.  Give me a call or write if you
    want...
    
    Ray