Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
From the Atlantic:
BEING ADMITTED TO California Cryobank as a sperm donor is a bit like getting into Harvard. The bank accepts fewer than 1 percent of its 26,000 annual applicants. (Harvard, in comparison, accepts about 6 percent of its approximately 35,000 undergraduate applicants.) Cryobank has even set up clinics in Cambridge, New York, Los Angeles, and Palo Alto specifically to be near the prestigious colleges from which it hopes to draw donors.
Raul Walters, whose name has been changed, represents the Cryobank’s ideal candidate. He is tall and good-looking, holds degrees from top schools, and enjoys a clean bill of health: no one in his immediate family has a history of cancer, early-onset heart disease, or mental illness.
Raul made about $10,000 total by donating a couple of times a week for a year and a half, at $70 a sample. He didn’t dwell on the outcome—the possible children, the various mothers. He went on with his plans for a legal career, his artistic pursuits, and his own family life. Last year, he mentioned to colleagues that he’d been a sperm donor during his time off. “Have you ever Googled your donor number?” one of the other lawyers asked.
Read more here.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Slate recently ran a piece against engagement rings:
The retail fantasy known as a "traditional" American wedding comprises many delicious absurdities, ranging from personalized wedding stamps to ring pillows designed for dogs to favors like "Love Mints." Of all these baubles, though, perhaps the most insidious is the engagement ring. Most Americans can say no to the "celebrity garter belt" on offer for a mere $18.95 from Weddings With Class. But more than 80 percent of American brides receive a diamond engagement ring (at an average cost of around $3,200) before they get married. Few stop to think about what, beyond the misty promise of endless love, the ring might actually signify. Why would you, after all? A wedding is supposed to be a celebration. Only the uncharitable would look a sparkly diamond in the eye—never mind a man on his knee—and ask what it means.
Read more here.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
From the Republic:
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. — A Middle Tennessee couple has started a website to connect families who want to adopt with vendors who can help them raise money for the endeavor.
Troy and Amber Lucht of Murfreesboro said they decided to create the site after adopting an Ethiopian boy three years ago. Shortly after bringing him home, they decided to adopt again but needed to raise money for all the expenses and thought about other families who needed help financially with the process.
Troy, who is an Internet developer, came up with the idea to create http://www.olivetreepromise.com as a way to help other families raise enough money to adopt, according to The Daily News Journal (http://on.dnj.com/tCY3rg). The site connects families to vendors who are interested in helping.
Read more here.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Stunning new results from a study conducted by academics at Middlesex University and the University of Surrey:
Psychologists from Middlesex University and the University of Surrey found that when presented with descriptions of women taken from lads’ mags, and comments about women made by convicted rapists, most people who took part in the study could not distinguish the source of the quotes.
The research due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology also revealed that most men who took part in the study identified themselves more with the language expressed by the convicted rapists.
Read more here at the University of Surrey's news website.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
This article addresses an important concept theme in family law scholarship: that of belonging. This paper will address the boundaries of belonging, the need to preserve boundaries to preserve communities, particularly the community of marriage, and to protect and maintain the opportunity and value of belonging to such communities. One of the paradoxes of belonging is that the need to belong also creates a need to exclude; in order for belonging to occur, there must be boundaries, standards defining the relationship, and criteria separating members of the group from nonmembers. The boundaries of marriage must reflect the key purposes of the community. This article explains why allowing same-sex couples to marry would seriously undermine the basic legal and social institution of marriage. This article seeks to establish five basic points about the boundaries of marriage. First, boundaries and exclusion are necessary for all communities, including the community of marriage. Second, boundaries must reflect, protect, and reinforce the core principles of the community. Third, gender integration is a critical, core purpose of marriage. Fourth, legalizing same-sex denies and undermines the core gender-integrative purposes of marriage. Finally, in setting the boundaries of basic social institutions such as marriage, it is especially important to follow the legitimate process of democratic self-government, and not abuse or circumvent, evade or cut off those important political processes which help society learn, grow, unite and heal.