Sperm Donation as a Hobby. A creepy true tale.

shereads

Sloganless
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Posts
19,242
This ran on Father's Day in the Washington Post, but I didn't become aware of it until I read a Joel Achenbach comment about it at his blog. Is it just me (and Joel Achenbach) or is there something particularly creepy about a man who enjoys fathering children he'll never meet? I understand the need for this service from the woman's point of view, but what makes a man willing to create an unknown number of children, knowing that the odds are against them all being raised without neglect or abuse? Achenbach says it sounds like someone who is "dabbling in fatherhood." In an underpopulated world suffering from a sperm shortage, that might be noble.

Family Vacation

Why would Raechel McGhee fly her two beloved children across the country to stay with a man they had never met? Because he is their father

By Michael Leahy
Sunday, June 19, 2005; Page W12


His name is Mike Rubino, but until recently none of the women who bought his sperm to get pregnant had ever seen him or known him as anything other than Donor 929. Rubino left the sperm business for good a few years ago, thinking it would be another decade at least before any children found him. Now he is standing inside the Los Angeles International Airport, staring at an arrivals gate, awaiting the appearance of two children he has fathered but never met, along with their single mother, a Massachusetts psychotherapist named Raechel McGhee.

At that moment, 44-year-old McGhee and her children are descending toward him in blackness and rain. "It is kind of unbelievable that this is about to happen, but I'm relaxed," Rubino says, not looking so relaxed, fidgeting with his brown hair, anxiously surveying an airport monitor until he's found a status report on the McGhees' flight. "On approach," he reads, craning his head toward the arrivals door. "I think their mother said she'd have the kids in slickers," he says, "and she said that she would be in a raspberry slicker." He falls silent. "Maybe this is going to take a while," he says, but then he glimpses a sliver of a raspberry-colored garment moving amid a horde of travelers, spotting a tall woman. He mutters, "There she is -- there they are."

He hurries forward, calling out to the woman, "Hi, hi."

The woman changes direction, veering toward him, smiling. McGhee looks Rubino up and down as he gets close, hugging him casually. She turns to her kids, gesturing at Rubino, and says, "Look who's here."

The children -- a brown-haired boy one month shy of 7 named Aaron, and a 3 1/2-year-old blond girl named Leah -- stare up at him, mouths agape. Rubino turns to the boy, crouches, and hugs him gently. The boy's arms hang stiffly at his side. He tentatively wraps a thin arm around this man's neck, glancing up at his mother for some sign of approval. But she hasn't noticed his glance, open-mouthed herself, drinking in the 45-year-old Rubino, this slender, fair-skinned artist in jeans and a gray T-shirt. Rubino comes out of his crouch, simultaneously lifting the boy a few inches off the floor, then putting him down the way he would a fragile package. Everyone is smiling, the boy broadest of all. "Do it again," he mumbles. Rubino reaches out for little Leah, who jumps back as if his arms might swallow her up.

"What do you say to this guy?" McGhee asks her daughter. "Who is this man?"

"This is California," the little girl says, dancing away from him toward baggage claim.

Rubino watches her, thinking, This is my daughter -- the moment so extraordinary for him as to be slightly surreal. This all began for him a decade ago in a small locked room of the California Cryobank, where, amid soft-porn tapes and magazines, he produced semen that was sold around the world. Only in the late 1990s, about five years after he had made his first deposit, did he acquire any sense of his sperm's appeal, when he was lured out of donor retirement by the flattering news that at least two unidentified women had contacted the cryobank and requested that Donor 929 provide additional semen so that they could have more children by him. This was done successfully -- his final specimens enabling McGhee to bear her second child.

"She's cute," Rubino says, pointing at Leah.

"Well, thanks," McGhee responds brightly, "but those aren't my blue eyes she has."

There is silence for a few seconds before Rubino fills it, glancing sideways at her, looking at her hair, which is the color of wheat. "You're very pretty," he says.

He turns back, looking at the children. McGhee can't get out the words she wants to say, which are Thank you. She has self-esteem issues when it comes to her appearance, having been obese once -- and her hair is a dye job, and she can't remember whether she's mentioned that to Rubino. By contrast, she tells herself, he is beautiful. She unabashedly checks him out in profile, though she already knows his physical features without having to look -- 5-foot-11, 145 pounds, blue eyes with long lashes, a cleft in his chin that she likes, strong cheek and jawbone. "You're a good-looking guy," she says, and this hangs there. Her next words come in a rush: "And why should anybody be surprised. Look at the kids. They're gorgeous."

She has committed to spending a week at his home, which some of the single donor-inseminated mothers she knows have had no problem telling her is nuts, nuts. They hit her with questions: What if this guy is a jerk?

What if he wants custody rights? Are you crazy -- staying alone in his house?

Rubino grabs the heaviest of their luggage, simultaneously reaching for Aaron's hand, carefully guiding him through the rain. Pleased, McGhee walks alongside her daughter, who then skips ahead of everyone, turning around every few seconds to stare hard at this man, scrunching up her nose and giving him funny looks.

It is a short ride to the Rubino Gallery, where Rubino's living quarters -- one long room alongside a bathroom -- rest on the other side of a wall from his small gallery, separated by an opaque, sea-green glass door. Once inside, Rubino surprises the kids with gifts -- pillowcases with their favorite cartoon characters, special bathroom lights adorned with more cartoon characters and, a reflection of Rubino's hope that they might take an interest in one of his passions, two bags of fossils. "Some of these fossils came from 100 to 600 million years ago," he tells them. "There were no people on the planet then."

The boy yelps then, having just seen frogs moving near a wall, inside Rubino's glass terrarium. He runs over, rapping on the glass to get the frogs' attention. On the other side of the sea-green door, there are Mike's paintings. Aaron is an aspiring artist himself, having sent Rubino, before he left home, one of his crayoned drawings -- a serpent with a human head. Rubino telephoned to say it was good. Immediately, Aaron sent him another drawing, inscribed with a note: "You are cool."

McGhee calls out to everyone: "We have a present for Mike, don't we? Come here, Mike."

Leah hands him his gift -- a T-shirt inscribed "BEST BUDDIES." Beneath these words is a drawing of three stick-figures, accompanied by names: Aaron, Dad, Leah.

"Hold it up," McGhee tells him. "You can wear that when we go to Disneyland. The kids have shirts just like it."

"That's sweet of you," Rubino says, looking at all of them.

Aaron is screaming from the other side of the room. "Mommmm, can we watch TV?"

"You have to ask your Daddy."

"Is it all right, Mike?" Aaron asks Rubino.

Rubino looks at McGhee, who nods.

Rubino sits on a tan sofa, Aaron plopping alongside him. They watch a cartoon, and immediately Aaron gets sleepy. He rests his head on Rubino's shoulder, sidling closer, so that most of him lies splayed on Rubino's lap and chest. Enough for one night, decides McGhee, who calls out to the kids to get ready for bed.

Aaron is whispering to his mother, asking whether he can sleep between her and Mike. She tells him that Mike will be sleeping in his own bed across the room, with his dog and cat. She points. Mike's bed is about 25 feet away. In a few minutes, McGhee steps into the bathroom, where she changes into her sleeping garb, a pair of gym shorts and a black sleeveless T-shirt from Gold's Gym. She has spent only three hours with Rubino. But when he flicks off the lights, she is ecstatic: They are spending their first night together as a family.

Mike Rubino was married in 1985, and by the early '90s, he and his wife were frustrated over their inability to have a child, as he tells the story. "We'd been experiencing fertility problems," he says, "and she had had surgery, but nothing had changed."

A hard truth took hold. "We finally realized we wouldn't be able to have children of our own," he recalls. "It was hard, though probably not as hard on me."

He tried to console his wife, who bore most of their sorrow, he remembers. Rubino was disappointed but not heartbroken. For starters, he'd wanted only one child, and besides, he'd never been excited by the prospect of diapers, late-night feedings and crying jags. Still, he felt something missing over the next year. He and his wife were watching the news one night when a story appeared about sperm banks and their use of paid donors, who bore no financial or any other legal responsibilities, it was said, to the women who used their purchased sperm or to any children born as a result. The absence of obligation, however, was accompanied by a caveat: The donors enjoyed no rights to see any of the children conceived with their sperm. "We listened to the report, and I said, 'What the hell?'" Rubino remembers. "It was a chance, if nothing else, to be part of the gene pool. And we thought we could help some people. My wife was very encouraging."

He liked imagining himself as a 55-year-old man answering his doorbell someday to discover a charming, good-looking 18-year-old on his doorstep, a young adult whose long quest to find his biological father had brought him to Rubino. "I could imagine all of the advantages and see no burdens," he says.

In 1994, after tests and assessments, Rubino became a sperm donor at California Cryobank, regarded by many as the largest sperm bank in the country. It opened in 1977, an era when gynecologists generally contacted the cryobank on behalf of their patients, who typically had no idea of their anonymous donors' physical and academic characteristics. The cryobank relied then on a small siring stable, which included several medical students from nearby UCLA.

Much had changed by the time Rubino arrived. The small stable had given way to donors -- from 150 to 200 at various times -- who had walked into the cryobank to apply for donation work. The proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases had long since made the testing and screening of sperm routine. The "Cryo" in the company's name -- from the Greek kryo for "cold" or "frost" -- was suggestive of an industry built around freezing the donor sperm so that clients could become pregnant when they wished. It was a new world, and perhaps the most important advance was the advent of a computer-friendly, online culture in which California Cryo-bank's clients could learn about both the donor screening process and the intimate details of the donors themselves.

The cryobank purports to select only 3 to 5 percent of its applicants, based on sperm potency and an assessment of intellectual, physical and emotional characteristics. Each applicant must be from 19 to 39 years old and a college graduate or an enrolled student at a four-year university. A graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, Rubino filled out a questionnaire detailing his educational background and appearance. His attributes meant that his semen would be regarded as prized sperm -- his 3.75 grade-point average as an art major and his blue eyes, slenderness and the cleft on his chin were all traits the cryobank's informal surveys indicated were attractive to would-be mothers.

Add to this his cryobank-produced audiotape -- on which he etched his artistic ambitions, mentioned his fluency in French, soulfully offered his hope of helping the infertile, and rhapsodized about his love of travel and Puccini -- and what the cryobank had in Rubino was an alluring bon vivant. Welcomed into the program, Rubino fell into the donor's standard routine. Receiving a plastic cup from a technician, he would enter one of the five small locked rooms that the cryobank's co-founder, Cappy Rothman, jokingly dubbed the "masturbatoriums." There Rubino became Donor 929. He generally produced semen twice a week for about a year at the cryobank's offices, where each acceptable specimen (anything that would yield a minimum of one vial of sperm for shipment) brought him $50 -- which translated to about $400 or so a month.

Abiding by instructions, he always walked into the cryobank the same way, off an alley and up a rear flight of stairs, so as to avoid crossing paths with the sperm-buyers. From the beginning, cryobank officials told Rubino and other sperm donors in the program that none of them would receive information about births attributable to their sperm. But, increasingly curious, Rubino tried coaxing them to hint how many children he may have fathered: 10? 20?

They'd smile but never answer.

All of the benefits, no burdens. Sounds like fun.

Continued at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061501885_4.html
 
I would have done it. I planned to do it and would have quite happily. However, in England, Teflon Tony has just passed a law, known as the 'Fucking Stupid Law made by Fucking Stupid People' which insists that every child conceived by gamete donation has the right to identifiable information about their biological father/mother.

I've just read through the website about this to double check my fact and have found that yes, as of 1st April 2005, any child produced from my sperm could track me down when they're 18. And I'm even more annoyed than before because reading that website made me very much want to donate.

You don't get paid in England. I would be doing it on the thought that I would be helping some couple, somewhere, to have a baby, that I would be making a couple's dream come true. That couple would be the parents of that child; I would just've been the apparatus. I could not deal with having a stranger turn up on my doorstep when I'm 38, hopefully with a family of my own, to talk to his or her 'Daddy.'

God I am so furious with Tony Blair. That law has its reasons, but it is basically ruling out thousands of donors who have no wish to become a father at this time. I would be quite happy to help someone else become a father/pair of mothers, but I can't do it with that qualification.

<fumes>

The Earl
 
Earl, you wouldn't worry about what kind of couple might be raising your child?

I know that one of the reasons I favor abortion rights is my own conviction that if I gave a child up for adoption, I'd spend the rest of my life wondering if the child was abused or ill or miserable.

I read somewhere that stress can be defined as responsibility without power, and I can't imagine a bigger responsibility than creating a human life. To do so anonymously would mean relinguishing the power to provide a decent life for the child, or even to know that someone else was trying to do so. Wanting a child doesn't make someone a good parent. I can't determine who will make a lousy parent and stop her from having children, but I can rest easier knowing I didnt' help it happen.

I might be unusually paranoid about this. I might expect the worst of the average stranger instead of hoping for the best.

For whatever reason, I've never even considered letting a dog of mine have puppies; if I found good homes for all of them, those puppies would have puppies and I'd eventually be powerless to stop some of them from going to abusive owners. Substitute baby for puppies and I'd have nightmares. Multiply that by an unknown number of children - maybe dozens - as is possible with sperm donors, and the nightmare would be revisited every time I saw a child with a family resemblance wearing a cast or being belittled by an impatient parent at the supermarket, or pictured on the side of a milk carton and listed as Missing. I'd wonder if it was my child, and if I had helped create her so she could suffer.

Given the choice, I'd prefer non-existence to suffering. No creature ever suffered from not having been conceived, but an ungodly percentage of the conceived ones are suffering as we speak

URGENTLY EDITED TO ADD: This is not an anti-adoption post. I have cousins who are adopted, well-adjusted, and living happily ever after. It's not an anti- in-vitro fertilization post, either. No doubt, a lot of happiness has been created that way. This is just me explaining why I wouldn't create a baby for strangers.

EARL: I'm not saying that sperm donation itself is wrong. What bothers me about the story is the "dabbling in fatherhood" aspect. This man admits that he was drawn to the idea of adding his genes to the gene pool, and daydreamed about meeting his happy, well-adjusted offspring when they became old enough that they didn't need anything from him.

Now he's taking them to Disneyland. It's like the stereotypical divorced dad, who only sees his kids for fun stuff and doesn't have to make them do their homework or ttake them to the dentist. Except that Mike got to skip the marriage and the divorce and go directly to the Magic Kingdom, and is under no obligation ever to see these kids again no matter how much they might want it.

Weird.
 
Last edited:
shereads said:
This ran on Father's Day in the Washington Post, but I didn't become aware of it until I read a Joel Achenbach comment about it at his blog. Is it just me (and Joel Achenbach) or is there something particularly creepy about a man who enjoys fathering children he'll never meet? I understand the need for this service from the woman's point of view, but what makes a man willing to create an unknown number of children, knowing that the odds are against them all being raised without neglect or abuse? Achenbach says it sounds like someone who is "dabbling in fatherhood." In an underpopulated world suffering from a sperm shortage, that might be noble.



All of the benefits, no burdens. Sounds like fun.

Continued at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061501885_4.html


See, we porn writers aren't weird at all. :cool:

PS - I'm drunk enough to hijack a bus - wanna go to Cuba, darlin'?
 
Last edited:
I not only understand it, but I support it. That's liquid gold, and I don't mean from a financial standpoint. People really want babies; straight couples, lesbian couples, gay couples and single women all over the world want to be parents. If the average guy is going to masturbate anyway, he should have the ability to deposit it in a cup and make it available for everyone.

Reuse. Renew. Recycle.

And the beat goes on.
 
Edward Teach said:
See, we porn writers aren't weird at all. :cool:

PS - I'm drunk enough to hijack a bus - wanna go to Cuba, darlin'?
If we're driving to Cuba, we should both be completely sober. Once we leave the pier at Key West, we'll have 90 miles of open water and a half-dozen rogue DEA agents to contend with. That's not a 'designated driver' road trip. It calls for amphetimines.
 
logophile said:
I not only understand it, but I support it. That's liquid gold, and I don't mean from a financial standpoint. People really want babies; straight couples, lesbian couples, gay couples and single women all over the world want to be parents. If the average guy is going to masturbate anyway, he should have the ability to deposit it in a cup and make it available for everyone.

Reuse. Renew. Recycle.

And the beat goes on.
Reused sperm? Yikes. That explains Michael and LaToya.
 
shereads said:
Earl, you wouldn't worry about what kind of couple might be raising your child?

I know that one of the reasons I favor abortion rights is my own conviction that if I gave a child up for adoption, I'd spend the rest of my life wondering if the child was abused or ill or miserable.

I read somewhere that stress can be defined as responsibility without power, and I can't imagine a bigger responsibility than creating a human life. To do so anonymously would mean relinguishing the power to provide a decent life for the child, or even to know that someone else was trying to do so. Wanting a child doesn't make someone a good parent. I can't determine who will make a lousy parent and stop her from having children, but I can rest easier knowing I didnt' help it happen.

I might be unusually paranoid about this. I might expect the worst of the average stranger instead of hoping for the best.

For whatever reason, I've never even considered letting a dog of mine have puppies; if I found good homes for all of them, those puppies would have puppies and I'd eventually be powerless to stop some of them from going to abusive owners. Substitute baby for puppies and I'd have nightmares. Multiply that by an unknown number of children - maybe dozens - as is possible with sperm donors, and the nightmare would be revisited every time I saw a child with a family resemblance wearing a cast or being belittled by an impatient parent at the supermarket, or pictured on the side of a milk carton and listed as Missing. I'd wonder if it was my child, and if I had helped create her so she could suffer.

Given the choice, I'd prefer non-existence to suffering. No creature ever suffered from not having been conceived, but an ungodly percentage of the conceived ones are suffering as we speak

URGENTLY EDITED TO ADD: This is not an anti-adoption post. I have cousins who are adopted, well-adjusted, and living happily ever after. It's not an anti- in-vitro fertilization post, either. No doubt, a lot of happiness has been created that way. This is just me explaining why I wouldn't create a baby for strangers.

EARL: I'm not saying that sperm donation itself is wrong. What bothers me about the story is the "dabbling in fatherhood" aspect. This man admits that he was drawn to the idea of adding his genes to the gene pool, and daydreamed about meeting his happy, well-adjusted offspring when they became old enough that they didn't need anything from him.

Now he's taking them to Disneyland. It's like the stereotypical divorced dad, who only sees his kids for fun stuff and doesn't have to make them do their homework or ttake them to the dentist. Except that Mike got to skip the marriage and the divorce and go directly to the Magic Kingdom, and is under no obligation ever to see these kids again no matter how much they might want it.

Weird.

I tend to hope for the best of people. I can't say that "I couldn't donate because I'm not sure that the children produced by my sperm would be in good families." I'm more of the camp that there are thousands of people who want babies more than anything in the world and can't. You say you can't determine whether they'd be lousy parents, but you also can't determine whether they might not be the best parents in the world. Second-guessing yourself is futile. Your argument is one in favour of MAD just to end the world's suffering.

Notice that I said 'the children produced by my sperm' rather than 'my children'. It was intentional because they would not be my children. The couple who would be using my sperm would be having a child, just as if they were having it naturally and it would be their responsibility to be good parents. It would not be my place to look in on them, or to interfere or in fact to do anything beyond providing the sperm.

I would not be having a child. To my mind, that child would have no connection with me at all. It would be a simple, altruistic gesture, like giving blood. I give blood because it may save someone's life. I don't ask to check if the life I'm saving is being used wisely and I certainly don't want people tracing me and saying that we have a connection because I made them stay alive.

It's why I feel so cross about the stupid law. I'm 20, I'm thin, I'm medium height, I'm athletic, I'm intelligent, I speak three languages, I'm creative and my physical looks hit most of the things prospective parents look for in the sperm databases. Yet I cannot help someone's dreams come true.

The Earl
 
Last edited:
TheEarl said:
I don't ask to check if the life I'm saving is being used wisely and I certainly don't want people tracing me and saying that we have a connection because I made them stay alive.
I see a comediane.
 
TheEarl said:
I'm 20, I'm thin, I'm medium height, I'm athletic, I'm intelligent, I speak three languages, I'm creative and my physical looks hit most of the things prospective parents look for in the sperm databases.

Hey, what are you doing later, handsome? Pick me up at 8? :kiss:
 
shereads said:
Now he's taking them to Disneyland. It's like the stereotypical divorced dad, who only sees his kids for fun stuff and doesn't have to make them do their homework or ttake them to the dentist. Except that Mike got to skip the marriage and the divorce and go directly to the Magic Kingdom, and is under no obligation ever to see these kids again no matter how much they might want it.

Weird.
It is weird and dare I say unhealthy for this mother and children, who are obviously seeing the whole situation through rose-tinted glasses. To me it seems like a bad decision for the mother to get her children involved with some fair weather father. How convenient that he has loads of children to show off his virility, without having had to do the real hard work that goes along with parenting.

I'm not saying sperm donation isn't an admirable thing, I think it is. I'm sure there are lots of men like Earl who would want to donate with good intentions. But, I seriously question the motives of the guy in the article. I wonder if it isn't more admirable for donors to wish to remain anonymous, rather than being like this guy and wanting to know how many kids he has out there and and seeking the adoration of mothers with low self esteem.
 
We guys are usually quite cavalier about our semen. So much of it ends up in Kleenex or on car seats, I guess we have to be.

As for how we feel once one of those tadpoles reaches the egg, it's hard to say. I mean, I feel love and moral responsibility, but I don't know if men ever have that bone-deep kind of biological connectedness that women have with their children.

Besides, I was a pretty wild guy in college. Who knows if some of the people I meet on the street aren't mine?
 
OhMissScarlett said:
I'm not saying sperm donation isn't an admirable thing, I think it is.
I'm not sure I'd call it admirable to collect in a jar the product of an activity you'd have been doing anyway. Granted, it fills a need, but so could the technician who stores the sample, if he had an extra five minutes.

Egg donation, on the other hand, is a time-consuming process that requires the donor to undergo an invasive medical procedure. That's admirable. Unless it's done for cash, in which case it's weird.
 
Sperm competition

Years ago when I was at uni a number of us took part in a survey for an academic psychologist.

Question A . Would you consider being a sperm donor ? About 85% answered Yes

Question X Would you consider being a sperm donor in circumstances where your sperm was mixed with others ? About 90% answered No.

It apears that men generally are not at all fussed about what happens to their sperm as indicated by Dr M but in the circumstances of Question X all our more basic biological competitiveness asserts itself. :D
 
TheEarl said:
Your argument is one in favour of MAD just to end the world's suffering.
I feel for people who want to experience the joy of making a baby, and if someone wants to help a particular couple because they know them to be good people, then I'm all for it. But to randomly donate the raw materials to make babies isn't necessarily more noble than letting your dog produce extra litters so your local animal shelter won't have a puppy shortage.

30,000 children die every day, many from problems caused by a simple lack of clean water and sufficient food. If that problem could be solved by masturbating into a cup, I'd organize the parade to honor the brave.

The wish to have a child can be solved in other ways than by making a new one - difficult ways sometimes, and not as satisfying as bringing home a pristine white infant with an excellent pedigree. But we can't always get what we want - as any of the 30,000 kids who will be dead by this time tomorrow would agree, if anyone bothered to ask them.

Until we empty the world's gutters and orphanages of spare children, there are bigger tragedies than not having an efficient distribution system for quality DNA.
 
ishtat said:
Years ago when I was at uni a number of us took part in a survey for an academic psychologist.

Question A . Would you consider being a sperm donor ? About 85% answered Yes

Question X Would you consider being a sperm donor in circumstances where your sperm was mixed with others ? About 90% answered No.
It happens.

Does anyone else remember a news story a few years ago about a couple in Sweden who became pregnant through in-vitro fertilization, using a donor egg and the husband's own sperm? The mom gave birth to fraternal twin boys - one white and one black.

The parents, both blue-eyed blonds, were so deeply in denial that it was months before they even acknoledged to each other that this wasn't just a genetic fluke. DNA testing proved that the impossible had happened (impossible according to the lab): the white baby was related to the dad, and the black baby was not. His DNA matched another client of the same laboratory, who had also intended that his sperm be used to fertilize a donor egg for his wife.

Fortunately, the bio-dad of the black baby agreed that it would be cruel to split up the twin brothers, who had had months to bond. So the ethics of taking him from the parents who had been raising him never had to be addressed. The bio-dad and his wife have generous visitation rights, and the couples' intention is to explain the relationships to their sons when they're old enough to become curious.

Those are deserving parents. All four of them. Rare, but deserving.
 
Back
Top