Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a feeling that this might be more popular amongst gay couples. As much as I hated being pregnant, I wouldn't trade giving birth to my babies for anything.
Adopting seems more logical then going under the knife, and tossing in donated women parts.
Agreed. Just seems way too extreme.
I think of Friends, where Phoebe has chickenpox, but her boyfriend hasn't had them - so they have to stay apart.
Quote:
CS "If I had a wish, I would go in time to when my classmate had chickenpox, and I would rub him against me" Phoebe "Or, you could wish I didn't have them now."
Not very attractive when people come up with overly complicated and dramatic solutions, yet overlook more simple ones.
So the fact the man didn't think of adoption almost makes it seems he's a tad off. As for would I go for that, no. I just wouldn't find it attractive when a man has anything female in, or on, his body f I knew about it.
Last edited by HappyRain; 01-15-2016 at 02:54 PM..
I thought surrogate arrangements mean the egg and sperm are still that of the couple attempting to have a child but only the womb is being contracted for?
Man with uterus. Seems weird and overly complicated/risky considering other options.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.