Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To insist on abstinence until DH has a vasectomy?

473 replies

Peachesinthesummertime · 26/08/2012 18:57

We have 3 DCs, youngest is 2 months old, so frankly abstinence is quite easy to insist on at the moment but I assume that will change at some point in the future.

In the past I've used the pill for contraception but no longer want to because of increased breast cancer risk and my family history. I've also used condoms a lot in the past but no longer want to rely on this as the sole method of contraception. I've experienced several incidents in the past of condoms splitting and I really, really don't want any more kids / to take any risks. (DC3 was unplanned...)

DH insists (and has always insisted) that he will not have a vasectomy under any circumstances. He won't really discuss this at all so he hasn't given any reasons for this, just a total flat refusal.

I feel really hacked off about this. I've been through the mill physically and emotionally with 3 pregnancies in 5 years. I don't want my body to be the one that has to suffer for contraception. I don't want to have implants or chemicals or the coil (I heard it can cause heavier periods). I'm fed up with my body being the one to suffer all the time. Why can DH not make the sacrifice for once? I know a vasectomy is not fun but surely it's a walk in the park compared to the discomfort and pain of pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding?

So we're at a standstill. He won't change his mind. Neither will I. Any suggestions on how to resolve?

OP posts:
Olympicnmix · 27/08/2012 14:25

No assumption at all she'll be a SAHM, not a requisite for 25% CM. But you are right, I did assume he wouldn't be amongst the 6% of SAHF nationally or the OP amongst 16% of woman as the main breadwinner of families with dependent children. If he was doing the bulk of childcare he might be slightly less than happy to rely on condoms/MAP if he doesn't want any more.

This is about the outright refusal on one partner to even discuss the options with his nearest and dearest, and by refusing making her, yet again, take on the burden and impact to her health for contraception. Many say choosing abstinence will harm the marriage - well, I can't see any woman wanting to have sex with a man so unconcerned with her health, the resentment that he's getting his rocks off at her expense builds resentment/puts a block on desire. I would argue his refusal to discuss matter is harming their marriage and not the OP's reluctance to engage in PIV sex.

OneMoreChap · 27/08/2012 14:31

Olympicnmix Mon 27-Aug-12 14:25:03

I think you and I actually agree, but it's worth pointing out
This is about the outright refusal on one partner to even discuss the options with his nearest and dearest is really about his apparently unfounded reluctance to use one option.

Kayano · 27/08/2012 14:31

He is refusing to discuss one option

She is refusing to discuss like ... Everything else of which there are LOADS of options.

Hmm
SoupDragon · 27/08/2012 14:49

By refusing to have a vasectomy he is, effectively, forcing the OP to take hormonal contraception or have surgery. Not really any different to talk of "forcing" him to have a vasectomy.

Personally, I think that if the woman has born the brunt of the contraception and also the whole childbirth/feeding lark then it is the man's job to step up to the mark and do something in return. IMO it would show that he cares for his partner.

If, after discussion, it was agreed that something else was the right way to go, fine. To flatly refuse...? That makes him a bit selfish TBH.

BoneyBackJefferson · 27/08/2012 14:51

Olympicnmix

"MrMiyagiMon 27-Aug-12 11:36:56

I hope OPs husband sees sense and leaves the bitch..."

How singly unpleasant."

Harping back to if this were reversed, it wouldn't have gotten passed page one without leave the bastard.

"This is about the outright refusal on one partner to even discuss the options with his nearest and dearest"

and her initial refusal to do the same.

BoneyBackJefferson · 27/08/2012 14:54

SoupDragon
"By refusing to have a vasectomy he is, effectively, forcing the OP to take hormonal contraception or have surgery."

being as the OP said that she was not going to use any contraception except abstinence you are incorrect.

McHappyPants2012 · 27/08/2012 14:58

I don't belive the op is forcing him to have the op.

It is not like she is saying have the snip or it's the end of the relationship and you will never see your children again.

She just don't want PIV sex so she don't get pregnant.

It is now up to him, if he wants PIV sex he can has many choices a) leave the relationship b) have an affair c) have the snip or he can support the descion his wife has made and not try it on every 5 minutes.

BoneyBackJefferson · 27/08/2012 15:00

McHappyPants2012
"not try it on every 5 minutes."

I must have missed that post.

McHappyPants2012 · 27/08/2012 15:01

Not saying he is

Emmielu · 27/08/2012 15:04

You have more choices than him. I'd be more open to my own choices before insisting my oh goes for the operation.

Olympicnmix · 27/08/2012 15:05

Are there loads given she does not want a hormone based form of contraception given the incidence of bc in her family? It is likely her own GP will steer her away from those especially if she has already been on the pill for a considerable time. The one that might be appropriate for her is the non-hormone copper IUD, some women find it relatively straightforward to have it fitted with a few days painkillers, others find it extremely painful for longer or bleed for a number of months. If they don't want any more children, whether the contraceptive option is reversible or not is immaterial.

Her H has given a blank outright refusal to discuss it - it's all her responsibility. Whilst I get the impression the OP has looked at her contraceptive choices; no evidence that he has even read about NSV. It should at least be on the table as one of the options to have a grown up discussion about. They both need to be thinking about her long term health and what is best for their sex life.

SoupDragon · 27/08/2012 15:13

SoupDragon
"By refusing to have a vasectomy he is, effectively, forcing the OP to take hormonal contraception or have surgery."

being as the OP said that she was not going to use any contraception except abstinence you are incorrect.

IMO I'm not incorrect. He is effectively forcing her to take hormones or have surgery so she has chosen not to have sex with him. Whilst abstinence does have the desired effect, it isn't really a form of contraception: the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. You can't have a consequence of sexual intercourse if you aren't having it.

BoneyBackJefferson · 27/08/2012 15:22

"SoupDragon*
"she has chosen not to have sex with him.""

but that contradicts what you posted about him forcing her to take hormones or have surgery

"By refusing to have a vasectomy he is, effectively, forcing the OP to take hormonal contraception or have surgery."

LoopyLoopsOlympicHoops · 27/08/2012 15:26

I think a lot of people are thinking about this all wrong.

OP does not want another baby. She is happy to have sex, but not using contraceptive methods that don't work for her, or that are invasive to her body.

Therefore, the sensible thing to do is not avoid pregnancy by not having sex, unless she and her DH can come up with another option. As he is unwilling to consider vasectomy, together they are choosing abstinence.

My point being that the lack of sex is in no way an active act. The staus quo is no sex. She is not being manipulative by saying that she doesn't want to participate in an activity that could be damaging to her without proper protection.

If sex is wanted, the onus is on the person or people who want it to work around the problems faced. As OP is unhappy with the contraceptive methods on offer and happy without sex, the onus lies with her DH to consider a vasectomy.

Olympicnmix · 27/08/2012 15:35

MrMiyagi, don't undersell yourself, I also had a problem with the reference to the act of conceiving their children in love as "sperm donation" and her "rendering him impotent"

Even if the situation were reversed, the simple fact would remain that a NSV is less invasive and quicker to recover from than female sterilisation. The OP has not shied away from being responsible for their contraception over the years but now is facing a dilemma, framed by health concerns (she wants to be around and in good health for her dcs which means not increasing her bc likelihood) Why shouldn't her H step up and consider one of the more sensible options open to them?

Kayano · 27/08/2012 15:37

Because he doesn't want to and it's his body

There

That's why

LoopyLoopsOlympicHoops · 27/08/2012 15:38

You're still missing the point Kayano.

He's entitled to say no. But she is too. Therefore they don't have sex. That isn't her fault any more than it is his.

ASAPRocky · 27/08/2012 15:40

It is not a decision to be taken lightly and he should be able to make up his own mind. If he doesn't want it don't make him as you both may regret it in the future. I would say just don't make life difficult for your self and go and get a coil for the time being. I think banning sex is a little immature. Just my opinion ..

OwlLady · 27/08/2012 15:43

it's her body and she can choose not to have sex and says she can live without it

therefore, sooner or later a decision has to be made

I feel sorry for men who will not take care of their own fertility, through whatever means and that doesn't have to permanent but I also feel sorry for women who don't enjoy sex enough, i would go out of my tiny mind, but you know it's down to you both and what works for you but your baby is 2 months old and gp's usually wan you to wait until they are 12 months old anyway

LoopyLoopsOlympicHoops · 27/08/2012 15:45

Oh dear lord.

'banning sex' or not taking part in a dangerous activity without precaution?

Witholding sex because she wanted to get her own way in an unrelated matter, for example she wanted a different colour sofa to him, would be immature perhaps. Not wanting sex because she does not want to face another pregnancy is simply sensible.

Do you think it is a man's right to have penetrative sex with his wife without taking any personal responsibility? Remember he doesn't want any more children either.

Kayano · 27/08/2012 15:48

He would take responsibility though with condoms

He could use condoms and op could take or use some other precautions and then they would both be sharing the responsibility

But OPs left him one option or no piv, which is what is not fair.

Kayano · 27/08/2012 15:49

No but you can't moan about him saying no to one thing when she has said no to numerous things Hmm

LoopyLoopsOlympicHoops · 27/08/2012 15:51

From OP: "I've experienced several incidents in the past of condoms splitting" So that is not really an option.

Why does he need lots of options? He's lucky to have any options at all, given that he hasn't even bothered to explain his refusal.

LoopyLoopsOlympicHoops · 27/08/2012 15:52

No, he can say no all he likes, but it is his choice therefore not to have penetrative sex, just as much as it is hers.

OwlLady · 27/08/2012 15:53

they don't split very often though do they, to be fair. We have used them for 17 years and have had two split and we have high sex drives, sorry to lower tone. If they keep splitting you are doing something wrong like not using enough lubricant or putting them on using handcream or vaginal cream for something else or whatever or if it was the 70s, too much baby oil