Oh, one of the fun spots in the evening came when I'm out for a walk with these two girls, and one of them says,

"strange, have you ever thought about donating sperm?"

To which the other (who has known me longer) replies quicker than I possibly could:

"Oh yeah. strange's really cool. I asked him about that a long time ago. Isn't he just gorgeous?"

Quite flattering, yes. I don't think I'd mentioned, this was a Lesbian Party. There were your random straight people strewn about, but most of the crowd were lesbians, from really young to fairly old, and maybe a few young gay men.

All this to explain, I apparently now have two different women who, due ultimately to my inability to respond quickly enough, seem to have gotten the impression that I am at least open to the idea of donating sperm so that when they really want to settle down and raise a child with their significant other, they can have children.

Hm. All this because I do have one friend, the one through whom I've met all these others, who I once long ago told that if she ever wanted children, I would donate. But honestly ... does it make sense that just because I'd be willing to do it for one person, I'm automatically okay with doing it for any person?

To put it in proper perspective: There's all the people in the world of the gender(s) you're attracted to. What percentage of them are you willing, theoretically, to have sex with? What percentage would you imagine you'd want to have sex with on a regular basis? And what portion of those, do you imagine, would you be willing to have a child with?

Because even though I obviously would not be in any sort of romantic relationship with the mom if she was a lesbian -- wouldn't we still need to have a good relationship, anyway?

Well, possibly, it may seem I'm not getting the proper concept of "donate". If they are asking, "Just give us some sperm, and go away forever" ... well, that would all be very neat and tidy and simple, but I'm actually pretty sure I wouldn't be doing that.

When I offered to my one good friend, it was due to the fact that we did have a good enough relationship, with enough apparent mutual trust, honesty, and appreciation that we would always be close -- even close enough to have a child together.

The sort of arrangement I kind of imagine, if I were to do such a thing? If possible, both mothers are recognized as primary guardians or caregivers or whatever, the child is legally theirs, yet I'm also recognized as biological father, with rights to at least partial custody.

As far as it goes, I really don't imagine myself being much of a pain in the ass about wanting to "raise" the kid if I did become part of such a family. I'd want to be enough a part of the kid's life to have some sort of concept of who they were, and if they were happy, and for them to have some sense of familiarity and comfort with me.

Which is to say, the moms could by and large just keep the little monster at least until its become at least marginally verbal. Don't get me wrong, babies and especially toddlers are insanely cute, they really are adorable ... but you know, I've never changed a diaper in my life, and I can't say as I've a particular hankering to. As well, in my life I have been (as have we all) in the presence of some kid in those very young years who is just screaming their fucking head off ... for no apparent reason! For hours!

Sure, I've seen kids who are 3,4, 5 who scream like that, too ... but honestly, my estimate is that 9 times out of ten that's the result of really poor parenting. Sure, easy to say when it's not my kid, but so far as I have been around kids, I'm aware of how I can interact with them: If I can talk to them and they can talk to me, generally we can reach some sort of accord where we will at least be civil, if not cordial.

Most times, actually, kids just like me. Which I suppose is why I'd be willing to for the first several years at least, be no more essentially than a fun uncle who visits occasionally. This shouldn't be a problem if the moms and I are friends anyway.

But, as the kid grew older, I think I just might want to have them stay with me every other weekend, or whatever it is with partial custody. Just so that, as the kid is reaching 8, 9, 10 and especially the teen years, they definitely will feel the presence of a caring male parental figure. Even if it's not in the traditional family sense, I think that's important.

________________________________________

Man, can I get off an a tangent. Where I was meaning to go here was with what the night overall left me with, not so much with my theory of sperm-donation.

What I was wondering ... perhaps the dating, mating, whatever we'd like to call it question, at its heart ... I mean, the fundamental one that sorts us all neatly into little categories of singles and couples, players and broken hearts, cheaters and faithful ... maybe it all comes down to the difficulty of chosing sex or companionship?

Of course, since we're talking primarily about "significant other" sorts of companionships, there would normally be sex involved there, as well. But there is a distinction that makes this separation -- when we say sex, we mean good sex.

Honestly, sex isn't too terribly hard for much of anybody to come by, right? I mean, if all you want to do is get laid -- most of us with all our limbs and teeth and at least passable hygiene could pull that off. It's just a matter of standards, right?

For instance, whatever you look like and whatever flaws of personality you may have: someone who is considerably older than you, someone who is considerably heavier than you, less tasteful than you, less charming, charismatic, likeable, less intelligent, considerably less attractive -- maybe even less hygenic -- sure, you maybe don't want to have sex with them -- but if you were desperate enough, you could.

Thankfully, most of us are not that hard up. But, while getting decent sex is not a particularly bad deal -- the question in a relationship becomes, "Is settling for a lifetime diet of it worth sacrificing any and all possibilities of amazing, mindblowing, oh-my-fucking-god, entire body tingling, breatheless, I-had-no-fucking-IDEA! kind of sex?

Because it rather seems to me, that most of those who actually manage to pull off the couplehood thing for any truly substantial amount of time ... most of them seem to have found the good companion whose company they enjoy, and if along with that you have pretty good sex -- well, doesn't that sound like a keeper?

Well, I'm still single at thirty, and believe it or not it really has been by choice -- and I'm afraid I have to say, no, it really doesn't sound so great to me. Not so much.

My basis for even contemplating a relationship is mindblowing sex. It may not always be that way throughout our relationship, but I want to know right at the start that we at least have the ability break the furniture and amaze the neighbors enjoying each other. If we can't do that -- is there really such a good reason for us not to just be friends?

Because mediocre sex only gets more mediocre as it goes. Even if a person if fantanstically phsyically beautiful, if they're just boring in bed inevitably you'll be bored with them in bed. And if you start with someone you don't even enjoy at the beginning ... man, that's gonna be a long 50-60 years.

Of course, that's why some just stay in the relationship, and continue seeking wild freaky sex on the side. My problem is -- well, I think I'm just a little too possessive to be open to a completely open relationship, and as I've no desire to cheat on anyone or be cheated on, I require that satisfying sex is a part of the relationship.

Some, who are completely aware of their partner's unvaryingly horny state yet who've long since bothered trying to feign equal interest ... they are free to trust that the hornier partner is faithful, but in most cases I've seen they are not. And by the same token, a highly sexual person in an otherwise happy relationship with a sexual drizzle might feel perfectly justified and even reasonable to just seek out physical ecstasy on the sly.

The single varition of this dynamic, of course, would be the players and the played. One side just looking for as much fun and sex as they can get, the other at least ostensibly looking for love and stability. The problem with all of this, of course, is that either option is equally valid. Both seem fairly important to having a full life -- unfortunately we imagine ourselves forced into having to prioritize, and place one ahead of the other.

Well, Fiddlesticks I say to that! I want it all, and I want it because I don't think I'd have the drives for it if it wasn't possible. There's billions of us, and I'll potentially come into contact with -- who knows, a helluva lot in my lifetime. And I'm meant to believe there isn't one girl out there who is as fantastically sexually insatiable as myself, whose values and and viewpoints are compatible enough that we truly enjoy one another's company?