Posts Tagged ‘Sandra Bullock’

Infertility: Your Baby or The World’s?

Monday, November 8th, 2010

With Hollywood luminaries like Sandra Bullock, Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, and Hugh Jackman going the adoption route, and other late-life parents risking medical intervention to see their own genes replicate in a biological birth, the debate continues about what is best, for the individual, our culture, and the planet.

A few months back, I was invited to appear on CNN Newsroom with Don Lemon to talk about transracial adoption. Being that I am a doctor of psychology and the mother of two (biological) biracial children, I walk the issues everyday. Then last week, I was on HLN’s Showbiz Tonight commenting on celebrities who spend thousands of dollars and risk complications from medical interventions while undergoing in vitro fertilization. The two subjects got me thinking. When a loving couple or single parent faces infertility, which option really is best?

Of course there is no one right answer. Adoption and in vitro fertilization both carry financial, medical, and family dynamic risks.

Let’s start with economics. The average cost of in vitro is nearly $15,000 per cycle and adoption costs anywhere from five to forty-thousand dollars. But wait. Before you consider in vitro a bargain, know this: many cycles of in vitro are often required to create a pregnancy that goes full term. The success rate is 15-20% for women aged 38-40, and for women over forty, it is as low as 6%. Then there are the medical complications that can rack up more costs. Laparoscopy used to extract eggs carries risks related to the anesthesia. Then there’s the risks of infection, bleeding, damage to the bowel, bladder, or a blood vessel. Surgery to repair damage can also be costly. Bottom line: Adoption is cheaper and less physically risky.

And then there are the emotional risks and rewards. Some people believe that there is no greater joy and meaning in life, than to watch one’s own genes blend with a loved one and prosper. Others think that notion is hogwash — a parent is the person who raises a child not the one who throws genetic material their way. Indeed recent studies on non-biological caregivers and adoptive parents point to hormonal changes in the adult that occur through the acts of bonding and nurturing. And with steady rates of one in five women over the age of forty being childless, a case can be made that nature’s intention was for a village of caregivers to nurture any given child.

Then there’s the debate about “ensuring a healthy and happy baby” by using one’s own genetic material. Any mother of multiple siblings can tell you that each child is made from a unique mold. And that really good parents can sometimes give birth to really awful humans. Biology, you see, is a crap shoot.

The bigger question for me has to do with how an individual’s decision can affect all of us and our children and grandchildren. I don’t have to remind you that our habitat is overloaded. The planet earth will be expected to support nearly 10-billion people by the year 2040. My own children will be barely middle aged by then. “Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that,” Says, Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London.

And all those little humans are causing major stress for mother earth. Apparently her nursery needs clean air, water, and food for these billions of babies. With the population burgeoning, parents who are facing infertility may be given a wonderful opportunity to help the planet a bit, by taking in a hungry mouth — a baby who is already here, in a glowing package waiting for love.

I’ve had this conversation at many private dinner tables. The debate often gets lively. At one point or another, someone, usually aided by a few sips of wine, goes the politically incorrect route and sounds elitist. Fear does that to people. They want to protect the familiar. Among my educated friends, I’ve heard the uneducated argument that “intelligent” people should be able to reproduce or the world will be taken over by fools. I’ve heard the same plea made in terms of race or social class. All of this is nonsense. The factors that will raise our species and continue to help it evolve are good parenting, education, and prudent birth control.

I guess you know where I stand on the issue. I mean, what good does it make to drive a Prius, turn off your taps when you brush your teeth, and recycle, if you also create an army of carbon footprints? Of course, my personal opinion is a luxury and actually not worth much at all. That’s because my own children are biological and were easy to conceive. My heart goes out to parents whose homes are barren through no fault of their own. For them, this crisis in fertility may be a defining moment. May the force be with you.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Celebrity Love | 5 Comments »

Sandra Bullock Adopted a “Son” Without a Race?

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

When the news of Sandra Bullock’s recent baby adoption broke with the morning sun, a smile as long as the Louisiana bayou broke out on my face. Here was little Louis’s precious face on the cover of PEOPLE and on every morning television show, nuzzling his glowing mommy. I know that feeling, that intoxicating smell of a milky baby’s breath and sweaty chick-fuzz. And the flip-flops of love and worry that tumble in a new mother’s stomach. My very first emotion was happiness for Sandra, especially in this time of pain over her husband’s bad behavior.

My next thought had to do with the sweet brown melanin in that yummy boy’s skin. How could one not notice how beautiful this baby was? (Aren’t all babies beautiful?) Yet, so many politically correct online bloggers, reporters, and comment posters ignored his race. Kudos to you, but by ignoring a physical trait completely draws attention to it. I mean, if Sandra’s baby had been a blonde tow-head with bright blue eyes, his physical attributes would have been mentioned. So, why the silence over melanin? It seems we are as progressive as we are confused. Afraid to say the wrong thing. Yet to create a race-less society would be to homogenize beauty. How sad.

Here’s what’s wrong. As a single mother of two biracial children the wrong thing is to not mention how cute my kids are. How fabulous their curls spiral. How their mocha complexion looks positively breath-taking in colors like bright orange and turquoise. How their strong brown legs shine in the froth and frolic of ocean play. To ignore human beauty, whether it be white, brown, beige, curly, straight, or frizzy, is to draw attention to race as an “unmentionable.”

Even Sandra, in her PEOPLE magazine interview failed to mention her baby’s appearance, simply calling him “perfect.” Perfect he is, as is every healthy baby, but Sandra, he is also exceptionally gorgeous, partly because of his racial mix.

The thing about beauty is that it is in the eye of the beholder. We are all attracted to a set of visual stimuli that created in our brains through a series of exposures in our formative years. My particular early life experiences happened in Nova Scotia, Canada, where I was born. Many Americans don’t know that the true end of the historical “underground railroad” was Nova Scotia, where run-away slaves sought refuge and safety north of the boarder. To this day there is a huge population of African-Americas (I’m told that title is preferred over African-Canadian) on the east coast of Canada, and when I entered elementary school I attended a fully integrated public school. My first crushes were boys with brown skin. Many of my playmates were black girls. Sitting at my school desk, behind well coiffed braided heads and high cheek bones wrapped in flawless glowing completions, I developed a penchant for that version of beauty. So, it was no surprise to me that I would fall in love with a man with dark skin and give birth to such beauty myself.

Like Sandra’s son, my babies are perfect. But they are also brown. Gorgeous brown. And to say I don’t LOVE they way they look — because of race — would be a lie. I’ll never forget the first time my then three-year-old compared her legs to my white legs in the bathtub. She wanted to know why her legs were brown. I didn’t even have to consider my answer. I quickly responded with, “Your legs are brown because your Mommy is smart. I found the most beautiful man on the planet to be your Daddy because I wanted you to be the most beautiful girl. And it worked.”

All babies are beautiful, but Sandra Bullock, don’t be afraid to scream it from the top of a mountain that your BROWN baby is beautiful.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Famous Wives. Public Embarrassment.

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

Any wife who has been cheated on knows the visceral effect of embarrassment in her social circle. The gossips in the peripheral of her every move sing muffled chants about her role in the affair or why she bothers to stay in the marriage. But when that everyday wife appears in person, the tongues quiet and public smiles replace the wagging tongues.

A famous wife knows an entirely different kind of public embarrassment. She looks no further than her super-market aisles, the local radio, or the national news for the openly wagging tongues. Our hearts bleed for Sandra Bullock, Elizabeth Edwards and Elin Woods, and so we moralize, we bemuse, and we give advice as if these women were our own sisters. The media and general public feel safe in gossiping about famous people because they seem so far removed. We are reminded that their problems are much like ours, although often on a grander scale.

But what must the experience be like for an innocent wife who lives a public life? How can she tolerate the negative limelight now shinning on her family? Embarrassment often plays a role in people’s moral sense. It helps them “do the right thing,” but what if the scandal was not their fault? And what if their decision to save the marriage goes against the jury of public opinion?

The best answer to these questions, is to avoid. To emotionally survive the public humiliation, famous women must cloister themselves in the world of most intimate family members and wait for the media tide to change. Elin and Sandra are certainly doing that. And when they do eventually move forward they must defend against feelings of embarrassment by maintaining the fantasy that few people read those tabloid rags, anyway.

Case in point, a couple years back I was introduced to Christie Brinkley at a charity event. Our introduction came a few years after a media blitz concerning the infidelity of her husband with their young babysitter. When our mutual friend introduced us she attempted to find common ground for us by telling Christie that I had recently gone through a painful break up with the father of my children. Christie, immediately, clasped my hands and exclaimed, ‘Oh Honey so did I! And you wouldn’t believe what happened to me!” Then she proceeded to give me details of her husband’s bad behaviors as if I had never been in a supermarket in my life. Clearly her very efficient coping strategy was to maintain the illusion that few people knew. I commend her for that. It’s a high level survival mechanism. Compartmenting is the way our brain avoids being flooded with painful thoughts than can cause destructive behavior.And, by the way, I played along with her fantasy and acted astounded by her news.

Celebrity problems make our own pain feel, somehow, normal. Our very real human emotion of empathy helps us have a shared emotional experience when we witness a celebrity’s love life. Suddenly we are not alone in our own journey. And we are comforted by the knowledge that money and fame do not protect us from relationship problems. So, my advice, down the road if you are ever introduced to Sandra, Elin, or Elizabeth, pretend you know nothing.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Celebrity Love | No Comments »

The New Trophy: A Married Man?

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Not so long ago, women who had sexual relationships with men who were legally bound to another woman were considered social outcasts. Our language clearly illustrated the sexual double standard that existed. While he was a gentleman who “stepped out” of his marriage, she was a whore, slut, or home-wrecker (as if he had never laid hands on the wreaking ball, himself.) My favorites are “Mistress” and “Kept Woman” because they, at least, imply some outlay of financial resources indicative of an emotional connection.

In cultures throughout history our complicated human social structures have always made room for extra-marital affairs. During the sexual repression of Victorian England where a high status woman faced scandal if even an ankle were exposed, the brothel business boomed. It is estimated that the ratio of prostitutes to males over the age of 18 in Victorian England was 12-1. And most of those young women died early from STD’s.

Sadly, the same tragedy is living itself out in the Indian/Asian sex slave business today. One of the shameful growing pains of feminism is that high status women are delaying marriage (often to the age of 30) to pursue a career, while keeping their hymens intact. The result is a lack of available sexual partners for men who are still required to marry a virgin. Today’s version of Victorian England? Millions of impoverished girls being sold into brothels by their own families.

But here in modern America, women have almost as much sexual freedom as men, and many seem to be happy to live it to the fullest. And, while the media pays lip service to the tired refrain of  “she’s a home-wreaker,” Rielle Hunter, Rachel Uchitel, Michelle “Bombshell” McGee, etc., the truth is the freedom these women have to stage a tell-all about their affairs is the new boundary for men. Women who were kept secret and sequestered for fear of public shame can now, come out of the closet or Vegas hotel room and, finally blame the one who broke his commitment.

I know you’ll beat me up for saying this, but none of these women ever stood at an alter with the wife of her man and made a commitment to honor her. Of course, you can argue that any card-carrying member of the girls club should honor all women, and that being young, female, single, and orgasm hungry, shouldn’t give you a hall pass to bad behavior. I totally agree with that. But who really broke their commitment to marriage? The single woman who has never met the wife, or the guy who met her, married her, and made a giant promise to her? Gentlemen, I hand you the wrecking ball.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Celebrity Love, Sex | 1 Comment »

Sandra Bullock – So In Love with Hope That She Forgot to Believe The Background Check

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

Back in 2003 when glamorous Hollywood leading lady, Sandra Bullock first laid eyes on Jesse James, a tattoo-covered motorcycle enthusiast, the rest of the world collectively raised their eyebrows. But Sandra, apparently, was in love’s delusional la-la land, telling people that there are church going family men who fool around on their wives, so appearances can be deceiving.

In the case of Jesse James, appearances seemed to have been accurate. When she met James, he was already on his second marriage, this one to a porn star who would go to jail for tax evasion. He had two kids with the first wife and another child on the way when he shifted his focus from his pregnant wife to the bigger prize, Sandra Bullock. Today, after five years of marriage, the former body guard and star of Discovery Channel’s “Monster Garage,” has issued an apology to his wife and children, while a sexy tattoo model (who knew such a career existed?) is blabbing to the media about her hot affair with Mr. Sandra Bullock.

So, what’s a girl to do when a man targets her and then showers her with love and lies? Answer: Read his rap sheet not his lips. If the trail he took to get to you is lined with the bodies of disappointed women, your only job is to stop that bad boy before he reproduces.

It’s an old adage, but if you want to predict someone’s future behavior, look no further than their past behavior. As Sigmund Freud so brilliantly observed, “human beings have a compulsion to repeat.” Or, as modern relationship experts prefer to word it, “Leopards don’t change their spots.”

Could Sandra have avoided this the Jesse James heart break? After all, when she married at the age of 41, few potential partners would have a squeaky clean relationship track record — or they wouldn’t be single at all. What she could have done, if she, like so many other women could shake her infatuation with hope, is to keep her own values intact. The flirtations of a married man should never be accepted. Ever. And pay close attention to his history, not his rationalizations for his “situation.” Sadly, his history is her future. Not surprisingly, James told his latest paramour (likely not his only affair) that he and Sandra were separated while she was actually off filming “The Blind Side.”

Tags: ,
Posted in Celebrity Love | 3 Comments »