What do you think? If other forms of birth control have failed, if a couple already has more kids than they were planning on, is this the man's duty? If he has no religious objections, but wants to "keep his options open", is that an insult to his wife? If he refuses, is she justified in refusing sex?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
It's ALOT less invasive than a women getting her tubes tied.
And it can always be reversed. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As cruel as it sounds, if a husband survives his wife, then there's the possibility he might want another family with a second wife. Therefore it doesn't strike me as wrong for him to refuse.
Dagonee Edit: Not that that requires her to get her tubes tied, either.
[ September 23, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I really do wish men were less squicked by this.
Dag: But isn't it reversable?
[ September 23, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not 100%. OK - 99%. Still, I see no need for either person to get surgery.
Dagonee
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I'm not. Me and my gf already decided: after 2 kids, I'll do it
And, you know...not even this or women's tubes being stitched is 100% guaranteed. My mother-in-law did stitched her tubes, after giving birth to two daughters. An year later...surprise! She was pregnant again! I'm glad it happened, though, because the "surprise baby" was my girlfriend, hehehe. Then she cut the tubes. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
hehe... My Mom just told my brother last month that he was the sperm that wouldn't die. Looks like he got past a diaphram and a condom. Heheh..that explains his personality.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
It takes a brave, kind, considerate man to step up and volunteer for this procedure.
Age? I would think that would be a factor. Because speaking from a woman's perspective -- I wouldn't want to be rendered "sterile" when I was 20's or 30s, in case something happened to my current family and I wanted a new family. But now, past 40, I would have no problem with it because I can't forsee myself going through the whole "new baby" thing at this age.
So perhaps the guy might feel the same way?
Farmgirl
editted to change an important "can" to "can't"!
[ September 23, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Well, I should hope it would be the surgeon's duty. I wouldn't really want my wife or myself going snippy-snippy down there. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's just got to be a better solution than surgery...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If someone is going to get surgery, I agree a vasectomy is less invasive and more practical than almost any operation performed on a woman.
And while I don't like the idea particularly, I'd rather have a vasectomy than asking my wife to have a tubal ligation.
Of course, I reserve the right to discuss this with my hypothetical wife at some future date.
-Trevor
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
You know --- this brings up the age-old debate --- where some men feel it is always the woman's responsibility to be the instigator of birth control.
So is she any less right for asking him for a hysterectomy that he is for asking her to take the pill?
I hope most couples find common ground on this issue.
Farmgirl
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
After all, the woman had to go through pregnancy and childbirth! (Assuming they are resorting to this because they have already had children.) If they are considering one or the other, the man should be the one to step up and take it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It doesn't sound like this scenario is one or the other - it sounds like its vasectomy or no sex...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Well, then, if that is the scenario, the man must ask him self which is the lesser of two evils? Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote: There's just got to be a better solution than surgery...
Unfortunately, I don't think there is. Everything other than surgery has a considerably higher failure rate. And it's not like either of these is major super-serious weeks-in-bed-afterwards-to-recuperate surgery; vasectomy is an outpatient procedure and so is Essure, an alternative to tubal ligation that also results in permanent sterility.
My husband and I aren't able to afford these right now since we don't have health insurance, and since we're in our 20s and childfree I imagine we're going to get quite the runaround when we do look for surgeons willing to perform them (yes, we're both getting snipped, just for fault tolerance's sake).
[ September 23, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Stray ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Tammy...thanks for that link!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Have all the sex you want, but if you cannot take care of more kids and she becomes pregnant...you're kinda screwed at this point.
Even if you're willing to give the child up for adoption, you still have the cost of bring the child to term and giving birth which is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
Then we factor in the expense of condoms, birth control pills and related products - none of which are 100% effective, even when layered.
You tell me - which is the most practical and cost effecient?
-Trevor
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I have looked at Essure, at at present it is the most expensive of the three options.
Stray...have you called Planned Parenthood? If you don't have medical insurance, they should help you get low cost procedures ( it sounds like you are looking for them right now?)
Dag, with some couples surgery or celibacy may be the only options ( other than a very large family) We are SUPER fertile...three of our soon to be four have been conceived on BC.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I've had a vasectomy. No plans for more kids, Teres developed problems from previous pregnancies, the pill brought too many side effects, etc.
Wasn't really an issue for me. Got two sons, could adopt if I want more. Office procedure, very quick and relatively painless. Couple weeks of discomfort. Peace of mind afterwards.
There's an exciting edge to sex when you know you might create a child. There's an equally exciting freedom when you know you don't have to worry about it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I hope you get this worked out, romany.
It can put a tremendous strain on a relationship to constantly have the fear of pregnancy hanging over your sex life; the fear of having more kids burdening your limited budget; and the bitterness that can escalate between the two of you if pregnancy happens again, against the will of both of you.
Farmgirl
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: Even if you're willing to give the child up for adoption, you still have the cost of bring the child to term and giving birth which is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
In such cases, the adopting couple usually assumes all medical costs.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
We're not terribly concerned about it right now, as the current BC is working well enough. I know the local PP chapter is very strapped right now and can't offer any assistance with anything, but then the local clinic doesn't do those surgeries anyway, and I'm not sure even the Indianapolis ones do. It's kind of on a back burner right now, as we're only just finding our feet financially.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even if you're willing to give the child up for adoption, you still have the cost of bring the child to term and giving birth which is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
In such cases, the adopting couple usually assumes all medical costs.
There's still the "opportunity cost" the pregnancy exacts on the mother, and all too often that can't be repaid by someone else.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I'm with Chris on this one. I have my 2 kids. If I really want more, we can adopt or have it reversed. It was very unintrusive and only really uncomfortable for about 5 days.
I was surprised that the doctor I went to to get a referral was really hesitant to give me one. I have a boy and a girl already, have been married for 6+ years and am very sure I don't want more kids. I am young I guess (26 at the time), but it is a reversible procedure and there are many other options out there.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If you can find a sponsor willing to do so. If there isn't a family interested in adopting your specific child, you can still donate your offspring to DFACS or the equivalent state agency, but I don't think the state will reimburse any medical expenses.
-Trevor
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Even vasectomies are not always 100% effective, but if the other options aren't working out and they REALLY don't want any more kids, YES the woman can tell the man no on sex. There are other ways of showing affection. Or not.
Some men may have issues about it, but I frankly don't understand them. Seems irrational to me, so I would suggest counselling. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I heard somewhere that vasectomies and tubal ligations were free to all military personnel. Is this true or an urban legend?
AJ
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
My pleasure Megan!
I personally had my tubes tied when I was 27. It was a very hard decision for me to make. I'd just delivered my third child, a girl. Now that I had my daughter to compliment two sons...I was ready. I was completely nervous about going through the procedure until the moment the midwife told me..."it's a girl". I wanted a daughter. I was ready. Honestly, I would have probably had it done at that time even if I'd delivered a boy. But that would have been a decision I would have regretted. I needed a daughter.
My relationship with my children's father was unstable and I was at a very insecure point in my life. My husband at the time absolutely refused to go through with the procedure.
I've had cravings for a baby since then. Not serious enough to even look up information on the possibilities. They’re just cravings and they pass. I'm content.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There's also a primal male reaction to anything getting cute on the "big guy," no matter how logical or reasonable.
Fortunately I don't have the standard male insecurities. I have my very own insecurities, thank you very much.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
romanylass, does the couple involved have some medical professional to sit down and discuss the options with them? (If available and covered, a nurse practitioner would be ideal, I'd think.) Having a mediator can clear up things marvelously sometimes -- having to explain to a neutral third-party adult why you are insisting on a certain course of action does make one think carefully about a possible knee-jerk reaction. It makes everyone sit up a little straighter, think very carefully, and take all matters of fact into account ... or look like a fool, which nobody wants.
Doesn't mean there's only one answer that is "okay" to present. Just means that whatever answer each party presents, it has to be thought-out, addressing of other's interests, and reasonable. All good things.
Yes to the last question. Nobody has to have sex if they don't want to, for any reason. There are manipulative and inappropriate reasons to refrain from sex, but that harks to a different problem in the relationship -- the sex part would just be the symptom, and even then (sometimes, especially then) it's important that nobody has anyone doing anything to his or her body unless it is desired.
[My $0.02.]
[ September 23, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well, let's face it - married or not, if one party or the other doesn't consent, it's still rape.
-Trevor
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:to anything getting cute on the "big guy,"
Did you mean "cute" or "cut", Chris?
FG
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I wondered, but I figured both were equally applicable.
-Trevor
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think he means like a butterfly tattoo.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I say if vasectomies are a husband's duty, then breast enhancement surgeries are a wive's duty.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*squints* Still not sure if real.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I started to explain what I meant, but realized quickly it was more fun to leave it vague.
Hey, what are you squinting at?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: then breast enhancement surgeries are a wive's duty.
*if they got any bigger, I'd be falling on my face all the time..*
(good to see your sense of humor, Chad)
Farmgirl
[ September 23, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't decide how much of the persona is faked for effect, and how much is sincere. ---- Oh, it was a joke.
[ September 23, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:then breast enhancement surgeries are a wive's duty.
I certainly don't want men to starting having that surgery!
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
quote: Seems irrational to me, so I would suggest counselling.
I disagree. Our culture gives a lot more weight to the manhood of a male residing in the testicals and scrotum than a woman's femininity coming from her ovaries and fallopians tubes. A man's attitude toward a vasectomy often reflects this.
I think we, as women, when we have a man who is squicked out by this, should be a little more considerate to their feelings rather than deciding they need to go to counselling so they'll do what we want.
Honestly, sometimes all the emotional turmoil of making the man do it and the damage that causes the marriage, and the belittlement you will inflict on your man (Just think of what you are telling him: your fear is just a stupid, silly, outdated cultural bias and you are an insensitive jerk if I have to do the surgery) just isn't worth making sure the PC or even less risky thing gets done.
We also have to take into consideration other factors. My husband had some pretty horrible experiences in the hospital as a child and all such things bother him. If he needs to go into the hospital for health reasons, then some counselling might be appropriate. But for an elective procedure, I think it would just be cruel. Especially when I do not have such a fear (either of hospitals or having my womanhood compromised).
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
My wife and I are happy with the three kids we have now. She is scared that any more would overwhelm her. We talked about the possibility of some "permanent" BC after this baby was born. I agreed that I would get a vasectomy before she got a tubal ligation, because the latter is a much more serious and invasive procedure. Why expose her to that risk when I could solve the same problem by undergoing a very minimal outpatient procedure? Still, I wasn't ready to commit. I thought there was still a decent chance we would change our minds and want more kids, and I had confidence that we could handle it.
Then, as her pregnancy progressed, the complications piled up. She had several health problems, from inconvenient to miserable to potentially dangerous. We would just get used to one and another would pop up. I felt so bad for her, because she felt horrible all the time. I was scared that there would be permanent effects, and I wanted to protect her. It didn't take long for me to come to my decision.
Now that the baby has been born, I am making the appointment. Yep. It's the big V for me. To tell the truth, the thought of the procedure itself doesn't worry me at all. It was never a question of pain or vanity. It was sort of a moral/philosophical question, trying to decide whether it would be right to make the decision, once and for all, that there would be no more kids. Now there is no doubt in my mind that I'm doing the right thing.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
edit: this was to Amka:
I don't see any reason, though, this would be "compromising" his manhood.
Plenty of men can prove that point.
Farmgirl
[ September 23, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
FG: there isn't a reason. Just the certitude that your entire life, through jokes and boasts and media and all your friends, etc, that your "manliness" has an external guage.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
FG: It's not a reasonable or rational thing at all, just a cultural belief instilled over his whole lifetime. For some men it's a major psychological hangup, for others not. I suppose I agree with Amka though; even if it's completely irrational, if the man is genuinely, deeply distressed by the thought of having it done, then his partner should be considerate of that and try to work something out one way or another.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Any more or less than a woman's ability to give birth?
-Trevor
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Olivia's husband isn't remotely insecure about, uh, any of that. I have no doubt whatsoever that if he were, she'd be considerate. Livvy's incredibly sensitive and considerate. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I think we, as women, when we have a man who is squicked out by this, should be a little more considerate to their feelings rather than deciding they need to go to counselling so they'll do what we want.
Honestly, sometimes all the emotional turmoil of making the man do it and the damage that causes the marriage, and the belittlement you will inflict on your man (Just think of what you are telling him: your fear is just a stupid, silly, outdated cultural bias and you are an insensitive jerk if I have to do the surgery) just isn't worth making sure the PC or even less risky thing gets done.
We also have to take into consideration other factors. My husband had some pretty horrible experiences in the hospital as a child and all such things bother him. If he needs to go into the hospital for health reasons, then some counselling might be appropriate. But for an elective procedure, I think it would just be cruel. Especially when I do not have such a fear (either of hospitals or having my womanhood compromised).
Amka, you didn't specify whether you were speaking to Olivia or me (or both), but I'd invite you to take another read on my post above. "Going to counselling" doesn't mean "pressure the man to do what the woman wants." I would never assume so, and if someone would assume that must be the intention, then -- like all assumptions of intention -- it might be more reflective of what is brought to the assessment than what is already there.
My point is that having a third-party mediator (even just informally) means that both main parties are likely to think through what it is they present as a favored option very carefully and with good reasoning, taking all things into account. I don't see how the example of your husband would not fit into that paradigm quite well.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: just a cultural belief instilled over his whole lifetime
As men and women become more equal, I hope this cultural belief passes away.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually Bev, equality between the sexes has nothing to do with it.
It's a uniquely male attribute and therefore one most easily associated with "being a man."
Just because a woman can do the same job as a man, earn the same amount of money as a man, a woman is no less likely to stop considering her breasts as being a symbol of her femininity.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
But women wouldn't feel their femininity threatened if they had to have a proceedure done that stopped milk from coming out, would they? I mean, doesn't the man function the same as before sans sperm? (I may not understand how this works.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It would take an awful lot for me to be willing to undergo that procedure.
Just thinking about it makes me feel ill. I am not joking. I have broken out into a sweat just trying to type this much about it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
An awful lot of woman go through serious psychological trauma when they lose breasts to cancer, yes? And the millions of women getting breast surgery can't all be doing it to get on Model Search.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Um, losing a whole breast or even part of it is COMPLETELY different than having something snipped that you can't even tell the difference!!
The organs are still there. Still complete. Still function sexually. There are still male hormones. The *only* difference is no sperm in the semen, right?
[ September 23, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It's a little complicated to empathize with, but fairly easy to explain.
The trappings of "being a man" have varied with the times, from "bringing home the bacon" to "being a good father" to "bagging the most deer."
The particular tangible essence, the most obvious feature of being a man that has not changed from 0 BC to now is a man's penis and subsequently the size and ability of the member.
To reduce or incapacitate or somehow lessen the "power" or "virility" of the basis for how a man evaluates himself is...an alien thought. It would be like thinking of suicide as a good thing - it can be rationalized, but most of us will never empathize with the emotional content behind the thought process.
A woman who is unable to conceive and bring a pregnancy to term might think herself less of a woman, even in today's relatively enlightened society.
As for the breast analogy - women still get breast implants for the appearance, as that is the major role breasts play in the aesthetic sense. The penis has a more direct function.
-Trevor
P.S. I'm not sure if this actually makes any sense or not, but here goes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
MPH - It's really no big deal (let the puns fly where they may).
Local anaesthetic, some discomfort akin to sitting down the wrong way and getting pinched. For about a week afterwards, an aching feeling and visible bruising.
I've gotten kicked there before, and had urinary tract infections, both were far, far worse.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
beverly - I wasn't comparing the actual event, but the emotional weight behind it. To many guys, losing their virility makes them less of a man. I'm not defending this statement, just trying to get the point across.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: A woman who is unable to conceive and bring a pregnancy to term might think herself less of a woman, even in today's relatively enlightened society.
This actually makes sense. But these women *want* to have children. If they don't want children, and there was an easy, non-invasive way to sterilize themselves, I think many would. That men will not says to me that because they don't have to deal with the consequences nearly as much, they don't feel as motivated.
Speaking as a woman, that is not fair and (I think) is very selfish.
[ September 23, 2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And by the same token, many men are accepting the decision making process and opting for the procedure.
But I submit there are women who would never consider doing this because all of their lives, their value as people and human beings has been tied to their ability to give birth and mother children.
It is an irrational fear for most, but I'm simply trying to explain the background of the fear.
Could you really empathize with someone terrified of water? Or open spaces? Or puppies?
-Trevor
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
For me, it only speaks to a man's selfishness if placed in direct relation to a tubal ligation. That it, any man who would rather have his wife get her tubes tied than get a vasectomy himself, when faced with the decision, is being selfish. Extremely so.
In many (most) cases, the decision may well not come down to something that stark. But if it does, that's the way I feel.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: romanylass, does the couple involved have some medical professional to sit down and discuss the options with them? (If available and covered, a nurse practitioner would be ideal, I'd think.)
Sara, my friends have NO insurance, which is why she wants him to do it. The state (Alabama) will snip him for free but not her. (as for me, I am lucky to have insurance and have told *MY* hubby that is he does not choose to get snipped before this baby is born, I will choose to get my tubes tied, and he gets to pay for it. I am kind of hoping that he is more afraid of his bank account hurting than his nethers).
quote: But women wouldn't feel their femininity threatened if they had to have a proceedure done that stopped milk from coming out, would they?
I think a lot of women think less of a man who is not willing to undergo a snip for her sanity. I habs certainly affected my marriage in various ways.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And for the record, I agree. As it stands, the notion doesn't scare me particularly, but I do empathize with the reaction of others of my gender.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Could you really empathize with someone terrified of water? Or open spaces? Or puppies?
I can totally understand the irrational fear of someone operating "there". Though, I have been ripped open and stitched up in some rather sensitive places giving birth. I'm sorry, but having given birth, it is hard for me to feel all that sorry. And yes, I am talking about a man who WILL NOT have it done when it should be done for his wife's sake. That is what I refer to as selfish.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:men will not says to me that because they don't have to deal with the consequences nearly as much, they don't feel as motivated.
Hmm...I agree with Sara about the assumption of intention, though. I don't know why they'd refuse, but if it is coming from a husband who is a father already, I don't think it comes from knowing they can blissfully skip the consequences. They've got kids already, they know they can't.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It says to me that a man is more worried about his own self-esteem than his loved one's safety.
I don't think any man should be pushed into it. But if it's truly the only and/or best method available to a couple, I don't think much of a man who would run from it because he gets all jittery.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My point is, lets say that getting pregnant again will be a health risk to his wife. Or not. Even if it is just pregnancy and giving birth, that is a BIG deal. Before the days of birth control, women were often terrified of sex because they were terrified of getting pregnant AGAIN. I really feel for them! They are the ones who have to get sick, tired, achy, and go through the valley of the shadow of death. Men should respect that and do their part!!
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: men will not says to me that because they don't have to deal with the consequences nearly as much, they don't feel as motivated.
Hmm...I agree with Sara about the assumption of intention, though. I don't know why they'd refuse, but if it is coming from a husband who is a father already, I don't think it comes from knowing they can blissfully skip the consequences. They've got kids already, they know they can't.
Just guessing, but maybe bev meant they don't have direct experience of pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding ( actually, I loved that part, it's the whole "raising them to adulthood" thing that challanges me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I want to make my earlier statements more clear: I don't have anything against a couple who decides to surgically sterilize one or both partners.
And if only one is going to be done, I'd agree it makes more sense for the man.
But if the man doesn't want to, and he's not expecting his wife to do it so he doesn't have to, then I don't think he's doing anything wrong.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*sigh*
I still don't understand why it is such a big deal that a man would not do it under those circumstances. I guess I *do* have a problem with that.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Dagonee:"But if the man doesn't want to, and he's not expecting his wife to do it so he doesn't have to, then I don't think he's doing anything wrong."
With that caveat (that the wife isn't expected to have an operation instead), I agree.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Near the beginning of this conversation, some people referred to the reversability of a vasectomy. It is true that it can sometimes be reversed, and that many such procedures take place. But they are not as reliable as has been implied.
When I was doing the research as part of my decision, everything I saw warned that you cannot depend upon the possibility of reversal. There are no guarantees. And the longer it has been since the original procedure, the less likely it is that a reversal will work. Basically, the doctors tell you that if you have a vasectomy, plan on it being permanent.
When you take that into account, it really is a big deal. If the couple in question can be well satisfied with any other, non-invasive method of birth control, they should probably go with that instead. But if they want to make 100% certain, once and for all, the man should really go under the knife rather than wimping out and making his wife do it.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bev, if life were a simple tit-for-tat, it wouldn't be an issue.
But you read Mr. Head's earlier post - he was that uncomfortable just writing on the subject.
That is, granted, an extreme example, but it doesn't make the fear any less real, if irrational.
Look at the man's reasoning before condemning him.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bev, there's lots of reasons to not want to do it - moral, emotional, logical.
Dagonee
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Moral?
For that matter, logical? From which axioms? Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Some(many) Catholics would be against any kind of birth control.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My husband, I can understand. It isn't about his masculinity, it is about his extreme, beyond squickishness, feelings about any medical proceedure. I do have compassion on him for that.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
My mom's last kid was via C-Section, so while they were in there, they tied her tubes while they were at it. Same went for my older sister. So to me, a tubal ligation isn't so big a deal in that context. C-Sections are becoming more and more common, so why do we have to have to debate on the "selfishness" of men exclusively?
Either way, I think it's something that needs to be a mutual agreement.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's not purely that. I don' thave the same emotional response about a procedure on, say, my big toe.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Apply that same squickiness to the concept of infringing on a man's masculinity. Granted, if the man in question has a Prince Albert, no dice.
Although I feel the need to repeat, cowardice and the easy way out are not valid reasons to avoid one's responsibility. Accepting pain to spare the ones you love suffering, to me, is a cornerstone of what it means to be a man.
But that's just me.
-Trevor
Edit: C-sections - that's another topic starter.
[ September 23, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
TMedina - I am sure there are women with similar hangups.
In fact, I find it rather ironic that at that very moment that was supposed to be the pinnacle of my womanhood, when I gave birth, I could not have cared less about my womanhood. There were other, more important things going on than me being a woman.
A man's duty in procration is fulfilled when he ejaculates. Ejaculation itself involves lots of feelings and emotions and intimacy and all that fun stuff. His organs are pretty obvious characters in this story.
A woman needs to recieve the sperm, but her duty in procreation involves ovulation. And for most women, that is a date on the calendar. There is no wow involved in it and they don't really care unless they are trying to concieve (or avoid it). When a woman is aware of ovulation, it usually involves pain.
Her womanhood is experienced during sex, just like a man experiences his manliness during sex. A woman doesn't need ovaries to have and enjoy sex. If those ovaries are removed, she is still very much a woman.
If a man's testicles are removed, things may change. His libido goes down (libido in both genders has more to do with testosterone than estrogen. If a woman is experiencing a low libido, they aren't going to give her estrogen, but a wee bit of testosterone.). He may have impotency problems. This affects his manhood, so anything happening close to that area of obvious manly organs may cause some emotional discomfort.
So while the hangup may be 'irrational', it is not completely without basis and not hard to understand why 'tying the tubes' is typically emotionally more difficult for men than women.
Kat - I was picking up on what Olivia actually said, not making a judgement on how she would react if her husband was squicked out by having a vascectomy.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Okay, I missed page two when I refreshed to see if there was more...
Give me a few to catch up.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Amka, just because it's cultural and understandable doesn't make it any more rational. Counselling can help with stuff like that. Once you understand something, it becomes somewhat demystified.
And I would never pressure my husband to do anything like that. He's actually suggested it, and is completely okay with it (I'm the one who's balking, because I don't know if I want to stop at two babies). I admit, if he had a problem with it, I might have hesitated to use the word 'irrational' even though I really think the cultural problem with the proceedure IS, in fact, not a rational one.
Ron's just totally not insecure at all about his manhood. Me, I do have issues about my femininity. I really used to think that having smallish breasts made me less of a woman, somehow. That was also a cultural thing, and irrational. I'm a woman. I've had babies and fed them, despite being skinny and small-breasted at the time. I wouldn't consider surgery to augment my bustline, mostly because my breasts provide me and my beloved with a lot of pleasure, and cutting on them would ruin that for us.
My former fears seem silly to me now, and yes, irrational. Just because something is common culturally doesn't mean that it doesn't go against reason/rationality.
I don't advocate women manipulating their men. I DO advocate men getting over their hang-ups and realizing that beaing a real man has more to do with what you do and how you treat those around than with whether-or-not an itsy-bitsy tube is intact.
I would be understanding and supportive of my hubby if he had the afformentioned irrational hang-up(as I have been with one or two other hang-ups in the past having to do with feces and diaper changing ), but I'm glad I don't have to.
Religious obejections to the big V are another matter, of course. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
If the proceedure involved removing testicals, I would totally understand and be against it. But all their parts are retained. The sperm are still produced, they just don't enter the semen.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Wow, I would really disagree with a woman being less upset by an absence of ovaries. As much as having our period and going through menopause can be a hassle, it is something many, many people miss when they have a hysterectomy or go on birth control pills.
I hated being on birth control pills. I absolutely hated not feeling my cycle the way I had before, even with cramps and mood swings.
Sorry if this is too much info, but I don;t think it is fair to assume anyone, man or woman, is required to make such a choice.
[ September 23, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
How did we get from vasectomy to castration (which is the removal of the testicles)??? That's a huge jump. No one is suggesting removal of the testes OR the ovaries for that matter.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bev, you're still applying logic to an irrational fear.
How dare you not come to the family picnic! Great aunt Myrtle will be there! What? You're terrified of wide, open spaces? Bah, suck it up! You're just being stupid.
Granted, some men can and probably do hide behind this, but I think it's fair to say there are at least some who have legitimate problems with the idea.
-Trevor
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
for real. Tube tying doesn't remove the ovaries and the woman continues having her period.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Maui, Bev said that if the "Big V" involved actually removing anything, she would be completely against it.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor, the thing is I don't understand the fear of wide-open spaces any more than I understand the fear of having a vasectomy. My fear in having my tubes tied would be regular surgery-related fear. But the proceedure would be sooo much more invasive. If I were a man, I can't imagine it bothering me that much.
If my life depended on that person going into the wide-open space, I would hope that they would choose to do it.
[ September 23, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That's the critical impasse, I suppose.
Some people are so terrified of something or their phobia is so extreme they are unable to function well, if at all.
Now granted, this is an extreme attempt to try and articulate how a fear, irrational or not, can influence otherwise rational and logical decision-making.
-Trevor
Edit: But, well, you're not a man. Any more than I can say, "well, carrying around basketballs for 9 months and passing them through a smaller orifice certainly wouldn't bother me if I was a woman."
[ September 23, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
The fears are legitimized by the fact that they have them, then? I can go along with that. I know irrational fears still have a lot of power over people who suffere them.
A big pine beetle got in my laundry basket. I picked it up in a hand full of socks when I was folding clothes. I thought What is that wet, crunchy thing mixed in with the socks? Then it crawled between my fingers.
I had a screaming, hand-flailing fit. My kids WOKE UP and came running. My throat is still sore from screaming.
Pine beetles are completely benign. They don't bite or carry horrible diseases. BUT they look like roaches, and anything that looks like a roach, culturally, can expect people to kill it. Irrational, yet compelling desire to kill harmless insect.
I'll deal with my own culturally-based but irrational hang-ups, and let other people deal with their own. Everybody wins!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I remember an episode of "Let's Bowl" where the issue was a husband and wife and whether or not he would get a vasectomy. I seem to hear about far too many men who are just not willing to do it for the masculinity reasons and their wife is forced to go through it. That makes me very angry.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
As it should - for any of the reasons listed above.
But I think the important element is, not every man who refuses to undergo the procedure is doing so from cowardice or selfishness.
As Dag has pointed out, there are a lot of reasons why one might find the idea objectionable and some I might even agree with.
-Trevor
Edit: And I suspect it's more than US culture. Anyone want to take a poll of Arab men and ask their opinions on the subject? Or English men?
[ September 23, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor, if the motivation is different, I would have to understand the motivation. If they had a religious issue with it, well, I would have some respect for that. It would depend on the situation.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Trevor,
I was responding to Amka, not Bev.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker.
Ya know Bev, I don't think we went around this much on the subject of God.
-Trevor
Edit: Sorry Maui, I missed the notation in Amka's post.
[ September 23, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
So, just to make sure I was not misrepresenting my beloved, I asked him again.
Me: If we were both sure we didn't want any more kids, what would we do?
Him: I'd get a vasectomy.
Me: That doesn't squick you at all?
Him: (Looks at me like I'm crazy) No, not at all.
Me: (continues sweeping)
Him: In fact, it excites me. *eyebrow wiggle*
Me: Why is that?
Him: All the sex, none of the consequences...
FADE TO BLACK
Nope. No insecurities there. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*applauds Ron*
Now that's better!
No, Trevor, somehow it just didn't come up. Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Sara:
I was replying to Olivia. But as far as your suggest, I think that if the couple was so removed from each other that they can't even communicate and need a mediator for this, then I would say they need a counselor anyway.
Elizabeth and maui babe:
I was comparing the removing of ovaries to the removing of testicles, not to a vasectomy. My point was that since THAT particular issue is more sensitive with men than women, it is pretty natural that the snip/tube tie issue would be similarly sensitive to many men.
I think that men value their testicles and adjoining parts more than women value their ovaries and adjoining parts, and I don't think this difference in valuation is completely irrational.
I don't think it is just an issue of someone's security about their manhood.
Which brings us to mph and his statement about his big toe vs his nether region. What if it was an eye vs. the nether region? The heart, lung, or liver vs the nether region? The brain?
I know it is a wierd question, but all risks being equal, which part of you being operated on would bother you the most?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that part of the problem is that men have spent their entire lives protecting that part of their anatomy. The idea of a needle or a knife down there.....
<---- too squicked out to continue.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ooo, eye is right up there with squickishness. And the brain.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Mr. Head, shouldn't that be "<- too squicked out to continue?"
Oh, wait - that's circumcision, never mind.
-Trevor
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Man this thread grew fast!
My answers to the original questions:
1. I don't think it's his "duty", but I would wonder what kind of man I'd chosen if he could watch me give birth and then still refuse to get a vasectomy after we'd both decided enough was enough.
2. "keeping his options open" as the reason for not wanting to have a vasectomy would be a HUGE red flag for the quality of the marriage. I'd start seriously thinking about getting a counselor. It's clear that if he's thinking about his next wife, he doesn't have a lot of confidence about keeping his current one. I'd try to stay away from taking it personally, and look at it as a sign of serious marriage problems.
3. As for withholding sex, I think that totally depends upon what you believe your responsibilities are in marriage. The way my marriage works, the answer would be "no, that's not a reasonable way to handle it", but then, when we (me, really) decided we were done having babies, he didn't balk at getting the vasectomy. By the same token, he also doesn't balk at sacrificing almost anything else if he thinks it would make me happy. If he'd said "No way", I'd have had an IUD implanted and hoped for the best.
Posted by MoonRabbit (Member # 3652) on :
I had my vasectomy in 96. I had it done right before Christmas so I could go back to work on Jan 2. Unfortunately, I was one of those rare cases with complications. The doctor couldn't find the vas on one side so he had to dig around a lot, and ended up causing some damage. Damage that expressed itself as two lemon-sized hematomas in my groin. I was on heavy-duty pain meds for four weeks. It still hurts to think about it.
Even so, I'm glad I did it. The worst thing was trying to explain to my boss (a woman, and not from America) why I was out sick for so long.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*feeling light-headed*
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
anyone else heard this song? Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
The US Dept. of Health and Human services says that they aren't that reversible .
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If you're considering vasectomy, assume that its permanent. While it may be reversible there are no guarantees, the odds are against it, and you'll have regrets afterwards that you should have dealt with before the operation.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:The state (Alabama) will snip him for free but not her.
Man -- this really surprised me in your post. Many years ago right after my third child was born, my then-husband and I wanted one of us to get snipped because he was out of work, and we already had more kids than originally planned, etc. etc. We were on Medicaid at the time (no health insurance). But they would only pay for ME to have it done, not him. I thought that was ridiculous -- why would a state agency program pay for only one and not the other?
And my doctor at the time recommended that I NOT have it done due to other health problems I was having at the time. We never came up with the money. We succeeded in not having more children -- but it really made me wonder how much government is sincere about trying to get people out of poverty if they won't agree to paying for requested sterilization. I mean -- they will pay for you to have more and more babies, but not for this?
The system is broke.
Tracy
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote: The system is broke.
*nods sadly in agreement*
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:2. "keeping his options open" as the reason for not wanting to have a vasectomy would be a HUGE red flag for the quality of the marriage. I'd start seriously thinking about getting a counselor. It's clear that if he's thinking about his next wife, he doesn't have a lot of confidence about keeping his current one. I'd try to stay away from taking it personally, and look at it as a sign of serious marriage problems.
I want to comment on this particular issue regarding vassectomy. Whenever I've seen discussions like this, the argument always comes up that a man may want to "keep his options open."
The assumption seems to be that it is the woman who doesn't want any more children, not that the couple has decided they have had enough children. Sometimes, it is true that the woman does not want to go through pregnancy and birth again (or should not, for health reasons), but sometimes, it's just that they've decided two or three children are enough. Sometimes it's for financial reasons, and the desire to give their kids the best opportunities possible.
The idea that a man is responsible for however many children he reproduces (both financially, and hopefully in other ways, too), whether he stays with his wife, or goes on to re-marry and have more children, never seems to come up.
I don't really feel as though I am making myself that clear, but maybe someone can sort through what I've said, and figure out the message here.
[ September 24, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I *think* I see what you mean Ela. I know if my dh and I divorced, and he re-married, he would have to marry a rich woman or make a major change in his work attitude to support our kids and raise even one more.
Yes- the system is way, way broken.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Exactly, romany. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I would agree that if there were no other influences on the situation, the man should absolutley be the one to be sterlizied, due to the way the two procedures compare. I know that I would much rather choose to undergo it myself than force anything that ... well ... terrible (all surgery freaks the heck out of me, and is thus, terrible ) on my wife.
A few things though, one is that if the wife decides she doesn't want kids (more kids) and the husband doesn't agree, it should not be the husbands job to go out and get snipped, nor should it be the wife's job to be sterlizied either. If the two don't agree on something this important, now is not the time to be forcing something like this on either one! It should always be a joint desicion, and then, when that join desicion is reached it shouldn't come down to who wanted it first, but who is the best person to do it. It's not about one vs. the other, it should be about the couple acting together, choosing together, or perhaps I'm just missing the whole point of marriage. In other words, if the wife wants to stop having children and the husband doesn't at first, but then later comes to agreement with his wife about it, it shouldn't be forced on the wife to get it done just because she wanted it done, it's now something both of them agree is right, and who wanted what win is just a way of dividing a marriage. The same goes the other way around of course, if the husband wants to stop, then it shouldn't fall to him because he was the one who wanted it.
Second point is that though the man is a better canidate for this due to the comparison of the prcoedures, I don't think it's fair to say he always has to do it or he's just uncompassionate and doesn't really love his wife. Tube-tying is a much more serious process, absoltuley, and much more can go wrong with it. So I would hope (though I'm sure it's not true) that on average men do get sterlizied more than woman do in these situations. But why should we discount his fear just because it's irrational? Will the lack of logical basis some how make the whole experience less painful and emotionally damaging for him? I would say that at some point the desire not to do it (unmatched by an equal desire not to do it by the woman) would outweigh the difference in procedures.
When is this point reached? I have no idea, and I have no desire to try and figure out some level of fear and pain that equates with the difference in procedure, but I would argue that it does exist.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It's not that I mind killing threads so much as that I think I said something of at least a kind of value... and so I'm going to bump this once and then let it die as it will.
Hobbes Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If you don't want children, and you don't want to get one of these operations, then why not just not have sex?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Or stick to non-reproductive sex.
But accidents happen, and the time to address them is beforehand.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: If you don't want children, and you don't want to get one of these operations, then why not just not have sex?
Answer: Because I like to have sex? Is that the right answer?
I view a vasectomy as like James Bonds' Licence to Kill, but in a frolicking kind of way. However, personally, I doubt I will ever have one done. To those that do, that is their own business.
As to whose duty it is?
What if I perform my duty without my wife knowing? Is that a good thing? To call a vasectomy a duty is hard for me to understand. I would hope a decision like that is a mutual one between a husband and wife. As for a duty for a man to undergo or for a woman's duty to undergo tubal ligation, I cannot call it a duty more than a choice.
A duty implies that I should not procreate!
I must do my duty and prevent my sperm from joining with an egg and resulting in offspring BEFORE it is too late!
I do not mean to ridicule the word "duty" or its use, I am just over-analyzing, I suppose.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Two cents
After my second child I realized that hormonal birth control had not been successful in preventing pregnancies for me, and my husband and I did not want to have any more children, because I personally could not handle the post-partum depression. I asked him:
"Do you want me to get my tubes tied?"
He considered it carefully, and then said that he did.
I asked him:
"Would it make you feel unmanly to get a vasectomy?"
He said that it would. It was very hard for him to admit that to me, and I didn't question it. A tubal ligation didn't seem to be "defeminizing" myself so I had it done. We're both happy with the decision.
I honestly can't understand why my husband would feel unmanly after the two children he made despite the birth control...it's obvious to me that he's able to procreate. But if he feels that way, it's okay. He's totally sensitive to me in every other situation; who am I to complain?
Also, my insurance only covers *my* sterilization, and if that's not stupid I don't know what is.
/two cents
Note: Jes would have been fine with it if I had not wanted to get my tubes tied. It wasn't like he *expected* me to just because he didn't want to. I offered.
Second Note: If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have had it done. There are side-effects, just let me point that out.
[ September 25, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I honestly can't understand why my husband would feel unmanly after the two children he made despite the birth control..."
Interesting point. Many men I know, whose wives could not get pregnant, were relieved when they found out that it was "not them," or devastated to know it was.
So what is the deal with that? Are we still thinking that a man's virility is linked to his sperm count? It seems so silly, but I know it is a real thing for many men.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Technically, a man's virility is linked to sperm count.
I mean, if you are refering to the ability to copulate.
[ September 25, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Seriously, after I get medical insurance, I'll be first in line for the scalpel. Snip, snip and all that!
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote: Technically, a man's virility is linked to sperm count.
Really?
What if they're shootin blanks?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, I'm thinking of the definition of "virile" which means "ability to copulate".
Oh wait, I see. I was thinking copulate was implying the ability to get someone pregnant, but apparently not.
[ September 25, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I honestly can't understand why my husband would feel unmanly after the two children he made despite the birth control."
This seemed to be the virility you were referring to, and also what I meant. The "unmanly" part.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Meaning of COPULATE Pronunciation: 'kâpyu`leyt WordNet Dictionary Definition: [v] make love; "Birds mate in the Spring"
Synonyms: couple, mate, pair
Copulate does not mean only to fertilize.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Right. Note my previous post. : )
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I was not trying to be a pain, PSIT, I was just using a different definition. It's amazing how sly words can be, isn't it?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, I know. I toyed with not making that last post; I hoped it would be received as teasing. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Yes, PSIT, I took it that way.
Seriously, though, it is a sad thing that a man feels somehow less manly for not having a high sperm count.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yes. I feel like it is obvious that to some degree, sperm count is something guys worry about from a relatively young age, meaning will they be able to get a woman pregnant? But once it's happened a couple of times it doesn't just go away. They have attached alot of importance to the ability, and it makes sense. After all, it's devastating to a woman to be unable to get pregnant, and some women feel unwomanly after a tubal.
I'm rambling, sorry.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
AHA! A possible solution?
Women are less likely to feel *unwomanly* after a tubal because they continue to be mothers afterward, assuming they have kids already.
But for a man, it may, subconsciously, feel like his "role" as the father is over once conception has occured. Intellectually he knows that he's got to be Daddy, but biologically his part is pretty much diminished at that point.
So a woman's future as a mother isn't threatened by the surgery, but perhaps men feel like their potential fatherness is?
Not to say that it's not natural to feel fatherly to your kids, but it's generally not a strong physical bond.
Thoughts?
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
You may be onto something, PSI.
And if it's not too nosy, what side effects from the tubal? I ahve heard other women say the same thing.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
For me:
I used to have slight cramps in on side or the other during ovulation, and it would travel down the tube.
Now, it stays exactly at the site of the clamp, and it's very painful, as in it rivals my fairly considerable PMS cramps. Like, I'm down for the day, and I have a high pain tolerance.
Also, my periods come more often and last longer. Which may or may not be related to the tubal, since I'm comparing it to the cramps I had before I got pregnant with my kids.
But the pain is definitely related. That's my only real complaint, but it's painful enough that I would have waited until Jes was willing to have a vasectomy if I had known about it.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: I feel like it is obvious that to some degree, sperm count is something guys worry about from a relatively young age,
Isn't this ironic? I mean, all through adolescence, fear grips a young man wondering if he should have sex. Fear, or course, of getting a girl pregnant. Then once a man is married, he worries that his sperm count might not be sufficient to procreate and father a child.
This is all the proof I need that Satan exists.
On a side note, my wife and I tried for 4 years to have another child. She has endometriosis, and my sperm count was checked and found to be normal, just barely (strikingly similar to my sanity). I told her I would meet her at a bar unexpectedly, get her drunk, go back to her place and um...(you know)...and then split. Of course I would tell her I would call her and then I wouldn't. So naturally, in about a month, I would hear the shocking news that I got her pregnant.
But in the end, we went to a fertility clinic and had another major workup done. Our first treatment was set for a Monday, and she found out the Friday before our appointment that she was pregnant. I like to think I just work better under pressure.
quote: Technically, a man's virility is linked to sperm count.
I agree by definition, but virility and sperm count have nothing to do with the desire to copulate.
And that is all the evidence I need that there is a Heaven...
Edited for severely brain-damaged early-morning typos...
[ September 26, 2004, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Interesting point. Many men I know, whose wives could not get pregnant, were relieved when they found out that it was "not them," or devastated to know it was.
So what is the deal with that? Are we still thinking that a man's virility is linked to his sperm count? It seems so silly, but I know it is a real thing for many men.
While it for some may be a question of "virility" and "manliness", I believe there are more fundamental reasons for such a reaction, most having to do with the natural insecurities plagueing both sexes. It is intrinsic to a relationsship that the only part whose feelings can be totally known is your own. The partner with whom the difficulty originates is at a disadvatage since -- however sure you are of your love for each other -- it is so easy to listen to the little nagging voice and wonder whether not this at least at some level means that your spouse is questioning your relationsship. Being the comforter in this kind of situation places you in a position of power since you need not doubt your own assurances that you will stand by your love whatever happens. And that is ever so much easier.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: But for a man, it may, subconsciously, feel like his "role" as the father is over once conception has occured. Intellectually he knows that he's got to be Daddy, but biologically his part is pretty much diminished at that point.
. . .
Not to say that it's not natural to feel fatherly to your kids, but it's generally not a strong physical bond.
This makes me sad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Me, too. I think part of the problem is that a lot of bonding happens very early on when caring for the infant. Too many fathers don't participate in the feeding, diaper-changing, rocking to sleep, and general care of newborns.
Some of this is probably fear. Some of this is probably holdover attitudes by fathers that taking care of the baby is the mother's job. Some of it is also caused by the mothers being unwilling to really turn over some care all the way to the father.
One book I read reccomended the mother go out and leave the newborn entirely in the father's care as soon as the mother is up to it physically, making sure he knows about feeding, diapering, etc. This tells the father he is trusted by the mother and that he can actually do this, teaches the mother that the baby will survive the father's care even if it's not quite what the mother would do, and makes the father not hand the baby back as soon as s/he starts fussing.
Not that this will be an issue for me. Eve will probably have to make me give the baby back.
Dagonee
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Me, too. I think part of the problem is that a lot of bonding happens very early on when caring for the infant. Too many fathers don't participate in the feeding, diaper-changing, rocking to sleep, and general care of newborns."
My husband did this from the start. I am getting all teary thinking about the forty-minute diaper changes with my daughter, when they would just play with all her little toys, and the mirror. She was always happy on the changing table, so that is where they bonded.
He stayed home with the kids for a few years, either alone, or with both of us, because he had a home business. He bonded immediately, and the kids go to him now, at eight and ten, as soon as they do to me, if not sooner.
Being a man is about being able to let go and show all the love that is in your heart, even though people have told you you should play it cool.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Elizabeth, your husband sounds just wonderful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep, he does.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Thanks, he is.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But for a man, it may, subconsciously, feel like his "role" as the father is over once conception has occured. Intellectually he knows that he's got to be Daddy, but biologically his part is pretty much diminished at that point.
. . .
Not to say that it's not natural to feel fatherly to your kids, but it's generally not a strong physical bond.
quote:I think part of the problem is that a lot of bonding happens very early on when caring for the infant. Too many fathers don't participate in the feeding, diaper-changing, rocking to sleep, and general care of newborns... Not that this will be an issue for me. Eve will probably have to make me give the baby back.
Good for you, dag.
With both my kids, my husband did all of this except the feeding part, since I was breastfeeding. He took the first week off from work after the births of both my children, and did all the diaper changes and baths, and walked the babies around the house and chattered to them when they were fussy. He continued doing all the baths for the children, as well as many diaper changes, and walking and rocking babies, even after he returned to work. Bathtime for the kids was "his job" for years, till they were old enough to bath without supervision.
It makes me happy that he was always, and still is, so involved with his children, and makes me sad that a father would think his involvement is "less" after the donation of a sperm.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You breastfed?!
::ducks::
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Icky: Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
My husband does everything but feed too, and takes three weeks off after each birth. He is very good with a colicky baby and saved my sanity some nights ( he has a "colicky baby dance"). He doesn't get why a father wouldn't do all that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: But for a man, it may, subconsciously, feel like his "role" as the father is over once conception has occured. Intellectually he knows that he's got to be Daddy, but biologically his part is pretty much diminished at that point.
. . .
Not to say that it's not natural to feel fatherly to your kids, but it's generally not a strong physical bond.
"This makes me sad."
"Me too, Icky."
Warning: This post sounds defensive, but I'm not really trying to defend myself.
I really couldn't let this go...there's so much more I want to say. First of all, let's make it very clear that I see an important need for a father in a child's life. I'm not minimizing his role or anything. Hopefully a good father feels a strong bond with his child, especially in a protective sense.
But I would not be surprised to find out that many men feel like the most important part of being a father is the "sperm donation". I mean, consider the fact that society has hammered into them again and again that single mothers can do just fine without a *man* to help them, and that kids in single-parent families grow up well-adjusted and happy. I mean, that's all well and good for building up single mothers and giving them something to strive for, but how does it make the men feel? Useless? Worthless in the family, for anything more than bringing home the bread so mom can stay home with the kids if she wants?
I don't see what else can be expected.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Mothers can be as unbonded as any.
I mean, there are single parent families consisting as father and children.
Oddly enough, my father was bonded to me more than my mother. My mother neglected me when I was an infant and my father and his family came and got me after my uncle called my father and told him that my mother had stopped taking care of me and I was in danger.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No need to defend: I know you're not describing your own position, but what you're disappointed to percive in society. But the reason this makes me sad:
quote: But I would not be surprised to find out that many men feel like the most important part of being a father is the "sperm donation".
is that I did not donate any sperm to my children. So if there are people who feel this way, then I have no role as far as they are concerned.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Icarus, I think it's about how you feel and not how others feel. I don't worry about those who feel being at home with my children is a waste of my youth and an indictment of their lifestyle.
Even the notion of "biological father" is being questioned in psychiatry today because the presence of a father is of such ecological, if you will, significance.
And while I somewhat agree with PSI's position that single motherhood has been glorified at the expense of the role of fathers, I also think we could go too far in the direction of insisting that getting a father for a child is worth making a bad decision.
Anyway, I discussed this with my husband about 5 years ago, and I felt that because I wanted to get my tubes tied at 35, wouldn't it be better if he just got a vasectomy? He didn't see it that way. I guess it is normal for women to see reproduction as a phase in life, whereas men see their fertility as lasting most of their lives.
But in the scenario described, if we kept having one baby after another really close together, and we were weighing sterilization realistically, I would hope he would see that it would be safer for him to get the procedure.
P.S. There was a case in Utah where a woman agreed with her doctor to get her tubes tied during/post the delivery of her 10th child. Didn't tell the husband. Husband (after learning the truth, sometime after the procedure) takes doctor hostage. I mean, there was just so much wrong with that, it's hard to know where to begin. But it is apparently possible for the wife to exercise that option without spousal consent.
Withholding sex is not a good solution either. The couple would need to go to counseling (getting back to the original hypothetical) not just to change his mind, but to bring them both to a point of more effective communication. If no progress is made and she does get pregnant again, I would think she should get her tubes tied at the next delivery. I don't quite know what the procedure for that is.
I had a bright idea the other day- maybe in addition to the barrier method that we already use I could also try the mini-pill to see if it helps stabilize my moods. I'm still thinking about it, but I think multiple birth control methods might be a better choice than abstaining.
[ September 27, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, that attitude far precedes the "Rise of the single mother" in this society. Our society has been hammering it again and again that a _mother_ ought to do much of the childrearing, period. Single mother empowerment added a new angle of attack on this point, wasn't the actual problem. Every portrayal of single motherhood I've seen showed a very difficult situation, but one that was able to be handled.
But that's just my perception.
RE: thread original topic. My dad got it done shortly after my brother was born (late 70s), which was only 20 months after I had been born. Which probably scared my parents a bit, since my dad was out on 3 month submarine tours, and my mom was student teaching in Maine, so they didn't have a ton of opportunities.
Maybe because I knew that, and fairly early on (no doubt explained to me when I was in 4th or 5th grade as to why I didn't have any more siblings), it didn't seem like a big deal. I expect to get snipped after the 2 or 3 children my fiancee and I figure on having, barring surprises.
Of course, I had one of the best fathers in the world, who impressed on me, through example, respect for authority without the fear. That's a whole separate thread though.
-Bok
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
This notion of "withholding sex" bothers me a little, although I can't really speak to the female opinion on the matter.
The term is being bandied around like it was a game or a punishment.
Frankly, if the husband is unwilling to consider the options involved and ramifications, the woman must take the matter in hand (as it were). The ten kid scenario is a case in point - unless you intend to go on welfare or have one hell of an inheritance, you won't be able to support ten kids easily, or at all in contemporary American society.
I assume the woman isn't enjoying the fact she chooses not to have sex with her husband as it's a fairly enjoyable act, unless the opinion runs that it's her obligation to provide marital favors for her husband?
-Trevor
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The ten kid scenario is a case in point - unless you intend to go on welfare or have one hell of an inheritance, you won't be able to support ten kids easily, or at all in contemporary American society.
(emphasis mine)
I assure you that there are people that are able to raise a family with ten children with nothing more than a modest single income. It's not easy, and it requires a lot of sacrifice, but it is far from impossible.
edit: This is without welfare or inheritance
[ September 27, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
1. Use no birth control, high risk of having a baby 2. Use only birth control, low risk of having a baby 3. Wife gets operation 4. Husband gets operation 5. Choose not to have sex
Pick your poison.
[ September 27, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hey Bok! My dad was also a dolphin (served on submarine during his time in the Navy) and was also the best dad ever! (We have something in common!)
Farmgirl
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: The term is being bandied around like it was a game or a punishment.
It's unfortunate, but probably as pervasive as the desire for a man to remain "intact" that a wife can withold sex to get her way.
That is why this issue is confusing. Normally it is something petty like "stop playing basketball with your friends" or "find a better paying job." But where the abstinence is directly linked to the target behavior (repeated pregnancy) I guess some folks have more trouble saying witholding sex is definitely unethical.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I have no problem saying that witholding sex to get the man to change his mind is unethical (or, not that this happens a lot to my knolwedge, witholding sex to get the woman to change her mind). Witholding sex because you can not accept the consequences that result, that would be ethical, but if you have to "withold" sex instead of just making an agreement with your spouse to wait to have sex until a desicion is made on the issue then there's probably a problem in the relationship.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
May your rosy view of life continue, Hobbes. Not that I do the unethical thing, but that waiting until a thorny issue is decided would result in 9 years of abstinence. Sometimes it's necessary to just compartmentalize a problem and focus on what you like about your spouse and not what is bother you. By "you" I mean me. But the whole "never go to bed angry" thing wouldn't really work for me.
I think the issue is not whether life can be perfect and everything resolved at the end of the day (like some Star Trek episode). It's whether one let's his/her anger interfere with their ability to go about their lives. The "unethical behavior" may be a symptom, but a person conducting their lives that way probably has a lot of other problems.
Oh, and in Arab culture it is the woman who is punished with no sex.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
"Withholding sex" from women isn't as rare as you might think. Apparently one way that men express extreme discontentment or stress is by shutting down sexually. Technically the man isn't withholding, but it amounts to the same thing. They get stressed out or upset and sort of "forget" to have sex. I know, it sounds completely absurd. : D
While that might not sound as bad for a woman as it would for a man, it can be. Imagine that a man is stressed out from work, or subconciously resentful of his wife, or whatever, and seems to be shutting people out. What the woman really needs at that time is some expression of love or closeness, and it can be painful for her when the man just isn't interested.
-----
Thanks, Dr. Phil. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker. That puts a lot of my life in perspective.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I was on heavy-duty pain meds for four weeks. It still hurts to think about it.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)