posted
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.
posted
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.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not purely that. I don' thave the same emotional response about a procedure on, say, my big toe.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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."
posted
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!
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
