posted
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?
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't sound like this scenario is one or the other - it sounds like its vasectomy or no sex...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then, if that is the scenario, the man must ask him self which is the lesser of two evils? Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
