Woman Calls Out 36-Year-Old Friend For His Creepy ‘Natural Insemination’ Surrogacy Plan

Relationships can be tricky, especially when you realize a friend has a completely warped view of reality. Usually, we laugh off a friend’s bad dating takes.

But sometimes, a conversation takes such a dark turn that you can’t just laugh. You have to run.

A 23-year-old woman recently found herself in the middle of a moral crisis when her older friend revealed his “surrogacy” plans.

Now, read the full story:

The Reaction

There is “delusional,” and then there is dangerous. 

This story made the hair on my arms stand up. It starts off sounding like a guy who just doesn’t understand how expensive surrogacy is. But then the layers peel back.

He wants “Natural Insemination.” He specifically targets women he finds attractive. He wants to isolate the surrogate from having her own children.

This isn’t about fatherhood. This reads like a manual on how to trap a woman. The original poster’s gut instinct to call him delusional was actually an understatement. She wasn’t just harsh; she was sounding a necessary alarm.

The fact that he targeted her at 23, when he is 36, also fits a very uncomfortable pattern.

Expert Opinion

The internet was quick to label this behavior “predatory,” and looking at the psychology and legality behind surrogacy, they aren’t wrong.

The man in this story has fundamentally misunderstood—or intentionally ignored—the ethics of assisted reproduction.

The Danger of “Natural Insemination” Requests

Professional surrogacy rarely, if ever, involves sexual intercourse.

Most reputable agencies explicitly ban “Natural Insemination” (NI) arrangements. Why? Because it blurs the line between a medical arrangement and sexual exploitation.

It also creates a legal nightmare regarding custody. When a child is conceived via intercourse, the biological mother (the surrogate) often has significantly more legal claim to the child than in a gestational carrier agreement.

The Requirement for Previous Births

The most glaring “delusion” in this man’s plan is his demand that the surrogate have no other children.

This goes against the gold standard of surrogacy safety.

According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a gestational carrier should always have had at least one uncomplicated live birth before becoming a surrogate.

You can view their guidelines on carrier eligibility here.

Why is this the rule?

1. Medical Proof: It proves the woman’s body can carry a pregnancy to term safely.

2. Psychological Safety: A woman who is already a mother understands the bond formed during pregnancy. She is better equipped to give informed consent about carrying a baby she will not raise.

A man specifically seeking a woman who has not experienced this bond, while demanding sexual access (NI) and financial dependence (living with him), is displaying classic signs of coercive control.

The Expert Perspective

We looked into the psychology of such rigid demands.

Relationship experts often cite “isolation” and “unreasonable rules” as early indicators of abusive dynamics.

Psychotherapist Dr. Jenn Mann notes that when a partner (or in this case, a ‘friend’) sets rules that cut you off from your own life or autonomy, it is a massive red flag.

This man’s demand that the surrogate “not have any other kids or surrogate for anyone else” is an attempt to possess her fertility and her future.

He doesn’t want a surrogate. He wants a possession.

Check out how the community responded:

Users were horrified by the implications of “natural insemination” combined with the financial power dynamics. 

Several commenters stepped in to educate the thread on how actual surrogacy works, debunking the man’s demands instantly.

This group saw the friendship itself as a liability, urging the 23-year-old OP to cut ties immediately for her own safety.

How to Navigate a Situation Like This

When you realize a friend holds views that are not just different, but morally reprehensible or predatory, the safest option is often the “Gray Rock” method followed by a clean break. Arguments with individuals who lack fundamental empathy—like the man described here—rarely lead to epiphanies. They lead to escalation.

If you feel safe enough to speak up, state your boundary once, clearly and firmly, just as the author of this post did. “Your expectations are unrealistic and I cannot support them.”

Do not get drawn into a debate about the “details.” This man argued he was “picky, not delusional.” This is a deflection tactic. By focusing on the semantics of the word “delusional,” he avoids addressing the core immorality of his plan.

The author’s decision to end the friendship via a phone call and then block access was wise. When someone reveals they view other human beings as objects to be used and discarded, believe them the first time. Protect your peace and remove their access to you.

Conclusion

It is a relief to see the author of this post trust her instincts.

She recognized that some differences in opinion can be talked through, but others reveal a character flaw too deep to ignore. This wasn’t just about a baby; it was about how he views women.

So, the consensus is clear: The OP was absolutely right to call him delusional.

But what do you think? Is there any world where his request wasn’t creepy, or was the friendship doomed the moment he brought up “Natural Insemination”?