<![CDATA[Jezebel: alex kuczynski]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: alex kuczynski]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/alexkuczynski http://jezebel.com/tag/alexkuczynski <![CDATA[Do Women Really Become Surrogates For Purely Altruistic Reasons?]]> More and more women are selling their eggs and becoming surrogates because of the current economic clusterfuck, the Wall Street Journal reports. You can earn up to $50,000 by selling your eggs or renting your uterus. Besides the physical demands on egg donors (no drinking, no smoking, no sex) and the possible physical damage (your ovaries can become dangerously swollen), what sticks out about the article is when the CEO of an egg recruiting agency tells the Journal, "Many of these women have college loans to pay off or they want to help buy a house or provide for their own kids' education. But they are also looking to do something good for other families. And some of them say they love being pregnant."

It reminded me of this passage from the hotly debated Alex Kuczynski piece in the New York Times Mag:

In our experience with the surrogacy industry, no one lingered on the topic of money. We encountered the wink-nod rule: Surrogates would never say they were motivated to carry a child for another couple just for money; they were all motivated by altruism. This gentle hypocrisy allows surrogacy to take place. Without it, both sides would have to acknowledge the deep cultural revulsion against attaching a dollar figure to the creation of a human life.

One could debate whether or not pure altruism exists (I generally lean towards no), and obviously reproductive motivations are multifaceted. But it seems to me that while "doing something good for families" might be a perk of being a surrogate or donating your eggs, the main motivation is money. And hey, according to the Journal, you can get $25,000 for your eggs if you're "100% Jewish with ... High SAT Scores... Attractive, at Healthy Body Weight and Free of Genetic Diseases." If the economy keeps going the way it is, at those prices I may be putting my eggs on the market.

Ova Time: Women Line Up To Donate Eggs — For Money [WSJ]
Her Body, My Baby [NY Times Magazine]

Earlier: Writer, Socialite Explains Her "Mad Desire" For A Baby Through Surrogacy

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5105356&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[IVF Patients To Other Infertile Females: Keep Your Paws Off Our Embryos]]> Hot on the heels of NYC socialite Alex Kuczynski's surrogacy overshare in the New York Times Magazine comes news that the majority of women who have undergone in vitro fertilization do not want to share their extra eggs. According to the Times, "53 percent did not want to donate their embryos to other couples, mostly because they did not want someone else bringing up their children, or did not want their own children to worry about encountering an unknown sibling someday."

And that's not all! Of the 50,000 embryos currently being stored in the United States, "Forty-three percent [of the women] did not want the embryos discarded. About 66 percent said they would be likely to donate the embryos for research, but that option was available at only four of the nine clinics in the survey. Twenty percent said they were likely to keep the embryos frozen forever," the Times says.

The cost of keeping embryos frozen is about $200 a year, which isn't much when compared to the cost of IVF treatments, which usually run to tens of thousands of dollars. Someone like Celine Dion, who has candidly spoken about her frozen eggs, obviously doesn't have to concern herself with costs.

Doctors say the major problem is that patients who have their embryos frozen are not given enough options up front. Dr. Anne Lyerly, an OB/GYN at Duke, tells USA Today that the issue of what to do with extra embryos should "absolutely should be raised at the beginning" of fertility treatments, and adds that the storage bill should mention it. And the Times notes that some parents even want unconventional embryo disposals that include "holding a small ceremony during the thawing and disposal of the embryos, or having them placed in the woman’s body at a time in her cycle when she would probably not become pregnant, so that they would die naturally."

All of this is sticky business when it comes to theories of personhood and the choice ramifications that go along with it. According to EurekAlert, This study "reveals previously unexplored concerns that patients have about their embryos, and it comes at a time when several states and even the federal government are attempting to enact legislation that would either assert an embryo is a person, allow abandoned embryos to be adopted by another couple, or allow unused embryos to become 'wards of the state.'" First world problems, people. First world problems.

Parents Torn Over Fate of Frozen Embryos [NY Times]
Céline Dion Candid About Having More Kids [People]
Fertility Patients Unsure What To Do With Leftover Embryos [USA Today]
Largest Study Of Fertility Patients Shows Concerns About Embryo Disposition [EurekAlert]

Earlier: Writer, Socialite Explains Her "Mad Desire" For A Baby Through Surrogacy

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5101832&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Writer, Socialite Explains Her "Mad Desire" For A Baby Through Surrogacy]]> New York Times rich person-chronicler and plastic surgery enthusiast Alex Kuczynski wrote the cover story for the this Sunday's Times Magazine about having a baby through a surrogate. A couple of things are evident: Kuczynski worries too much about what her peers think, she is fairly flippant about the things her enormous wealth allows her to do, and that women face a ridiculous amount of judgment about their mothering choices.

Kuczynski talks about the deep pain and secrecy many women face when they are infertile, and "the terrible, wishful math" she tortured herself with each passing month because of her own infertility. Alex wasn't getting any younger and at age 39 enlisted a surrogate to carry her and her husband's baby to term. Kuczynski is self-aware enough to know that paying a ton of money (about $25,000) for a baby-carrier when so many foster children need a good home will be considered by some to be immensely selfish, and this is how she explains her unremitting desire for a biological baby.

What began as wistful longing in my 20s had blistered into a mad desire that seemed to defy logic. The compulsion to create our own bloodline seemed medieval, and I knew we could enjoy our marriage — our lives — without a child. Yet I couldn’t argue myself out of my desire…Die without having created a life, and die two deaths: the death of yourself, and the death of the immense opportunity that is a child. Not being pregnant suddenly seemed like a public statement, one that left me feeling exposed and vulnerable.

The thing to remember is that, for all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, decisions surrounding fertility are fraught with incredibly deep and often ambivalent emotions. In 50 years we're all going to be gestating babies in free floating artificial uteri anyway, so everyone needs to give other ladies a damn break.

Her Body, My Baby [NY Times Magazine — not online yet]

Earlier: Scientists Predict That Babies Of The Future Will Be Born To Centarians With Artificial Wombs

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5099373&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Insanely Wealthy Pay Fellow Preppy Scads of Money To Arrange Grown-Up Frat Parties]]> The New York Times "Thursday Styles" section has always been a repository for ridiculous trend pieces about the über-wealthy (see the entire oeuvre of Alex Kuczynski ), but the piece in today's edition about Exeter grad Allison Storr is even more outrageous than the usual paean to $1,000 socks. Storr is a "personal manager," which means CEOs, real estate barons and corporate lawyers pay her to choose their wardrobes, tastes and friends. Because they're way too busy and important to spend time on piddling things like interpersonal relationships. Anyway! Storr earns $4,000 to $10,000 a month to be a "personal decider in nearly all things lifestyle-related" for the rich and stupid. The best part of the article, though, is the description of a party Storr planned for a partner in a top shelf NYC law firm. "Last summer, Ms. Storr organized an '80s theme party at the lawyer's house in the Hamptons for about 200 of his friends, with a $5,000 budget," frequent wealth-chronicler Deborah Schoeneman writes.

$5,000 for an '80s theme party?!?!? Um, the brothers of Beta Delta Zeta called, they want their party idea back.

"It was honestly one of the most fun parties out there," the lawyer said. "By now all my friends know that Allison works for me." In all fairness, most big shot lawyers are just overgrown frat boys with paunches and graying hair, so maybe Storr is actually ingenious instead of insanely derivative. She's laughing all the way to the bank with this racket. I have a really great idea for a disco inferno winter soiree if any of you CEOs out there are in need of a new "personal decider"...

Need a Life? She'll Arrange One [New York Times]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=320409&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA['International Male': One Man's Shopping Site Is Another Man's Soft Porn]]>

The first time I saw an International Male catalog was at the all-girls Virginia boarding school I attended in the 1980s. The cool girls — the ones who owned their own horses and got BMWs for their 16th birthdays, with car-size bows on top — got the catalog in their mailboxes, along with subscriptions to GQ. The uncool girls, if we were lucky, got to peer over their shoulders at pictures of male models in thong bikinis. I found the presentation of male genitalia, packaged and posed and seemingly aroused, totally terrifying. Were they really that long and tuber-like? And were men supposed to stare at you in such a brooding, animal way, their eyes glowering at siesta level, their mouths puckered in baby-doll O's?
So wrote NY Times reporter/socialite Alex Kuczynski in yesterday's T: Style magazine in an essay about the catalog. Having never heard of International Male before [What are you? 23? Oh, yeah. -Ed.] I went to take a look myself at what Barneys Creative Director Simon Doonan describes as a catalog full of "objectified men". My favorite images from the current catalog, after the jump.

intlmale1.pngNew Push-up Thong: Padding hidden inside lifts you up and out. ($23)


intlmale2.pngContour Thong: Our famous Contour underwear with a sleek thong back. The V-seam pouch is contoured for a natural look and terrific support. Machine wash. Cotton jersey. Import. ($8)


intlmale3.pngGauze Caftan: Think of all the occasions you have to wear such a comfortable piece of clothing: the beach, the pool, Sunday mornings at home, late at night. Oh the comfort. Made from a lightweight and airy cotton gauze. Loose, full sleeves. Deep cut neck. Side slits. ($29)


intlmale4.pngTimes Square Leather Trenchcoat: 120 square feet of soft lamb leather. 56" long. Single-breasted. Banded collar. Silvertone buttons run from collar to waist. Darted/pleated back. 5" long leather cuffs. On-seam pockets. Slightly padded shoulders. 3/4 polyester lining. ($399)


intlmale5.pngUNDERGEAR® Kensington Denim Vest: Flap pockets, metal buttons down the front. Cotton denim. Machine wash. ($45)

Nude Awakening [NY Times]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=300567&view=rss&microfeed=true