To insist on abstinence until DH has a vasectomy?

[Peachesinthesummertime]

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?

Great post Nurse

NurseBernard

"So what if he's prepared to wear condoms?"

Because that means he doesn't fit nice and tidily in to your "three types of men" senario.

Besides which, any men that " neutrally, or even begrudgingly have a vasectomy" shouldn't be having one.

Of course it does - oaf-man 3 will wear a condom if it means he gets his leg over.

You keep sticking up for the oafs though, Boney.

THE CONDOM SPLIT RESULTING IN CHILD #3 OP DOES NOT TRUST THEM!!!!!!!

Why would anyone be happy with their partner begrudgingly having a vasectomy, how selfish is that! But as long as your happy that's fine.

Why would any man be happy with their wife begrudgingly using condoms, risking the chance of pregnancy and the toll that - and childbirth - and taking the main hit of caring for a newborn - will take on her body, how selfish is that! But as long as he's happy that's fine.

NurseBernard

"Of course it does - oaf-man 3 will wear a condom if it means he gets his leg over.

You keep sticking up for the oafs though, Boney."

And you contradict yourself. By wearing a condom the man is takling responsibilty for contraception.

As I've said before I would rather stick up for those that don't want the operation than those that would force someone to have an operation.

So because the wife doesn't want to use any form of contraception, doesn't want to be sterilised herself it means he has to be, even though he doesn't want too? I don't think so.

I'm not contradicting myself Boney - condoms are clearly not a viable option for the OP.

Are you (and Moomin ) seriously suggesting she just suck it up, use condoms as their method of contraception - even though the risk to her is pregnancy, childbirth and another child to raise?

You don't see the irony of what the OP's husband is effectively potentially forcing her body to do? Do you really not?

You really believe that we should just accept that contraception - and it's potential failure - should only have repercussions for women, and that men shouldn't be inconvenienced in the slightest?

NurseBernard
"I'm not contradicting myself Boney - condoms are clearly not a viable option for the OP."

Unless condoms are no longer a form of contraception then you are contradicting yourself.
You keep jumping from general points to the OPs singular issue at will.

My point is simply that
you cannot not force a person to under go any surgery that they do not want to have done

I also accept that abstinence is a form of contraceptive that will never fail and that the OP can and should use this method if that is what she wants
But it should not be used as a weapon to get what she wants if her partner doesn't want it i.e the surgery.

So yes, you are indeed saying that she should suck it up and use condoms, even though the risk to her is pregnancy, childbirth and another child.

That this is a risk she should be prepared to take, rather than the DH have a vasectomy. She should use condoms and risk the above, rather than abstain if there is any risk at all that this might be perceived as being used as 'a weapon'.

It is preferable that the OP just acqueisce to sex with her DH, using condoms.

No she could be sterilised herself if she really doesn't want to use one of the many contraception options that are open to her

Yes, yes, that's the solution Moomin - let her have her womb and ovaries and Fallopian tubes all removed; that's way more preferable than her DH being inconvenienced in any way, shape or form. Whatever you do, make sure the DH doesn't have to be put out at all; just dump it all on the woman to sort out.

Seriously....

NurseBernard
"So yes, you are indeed saying that she should suck it up and use condoms"

I haven't said that she should use condoms.

The title is
To insist on abstinence until DH has a vasectomy?
I last posted
I also accept that abstinence is a form of contraceptive that will never fail

If the OP is ok with abstinence (her body, her choice) then that would seem to be the way to go.

But she doesn't want to Why is her not wanting to any less valid than his?

This thread is a feminist's nightmare.

So you're saying she's not being unreasonable, then?!

uhm ... I'm firmly of the opinion that the OP INBU, but this - let her have her womb and ovaries and Fallopian tubes all removed - isn't what happens with a female sterilisation. I've had one and the way it was explained to me, I have a couple of little jubilee clip type things on my fallopian tubes. They didn't take anything out.

What's wrong with doing something necessary either neutrally or begrudingly? I doubt most women will skip happily to doc's to get sterilized or have coil inserted, it's not exactly anything pleasant to look forward to in either case.

So otehr forms of contraception are not suitable, neiter wants to get sterilized, therefore his wishes trump hers and it should be the op? Why?

Don't be ridiculous, noone needs to have their overies, womb and fallopian tubes removed. You sound totally hysterical now

'You sound totally hysterical now' That's a pun, right?

Neither wants to be sterilised.
Other forms of contraception are not suitable.
Abstention is the only possibility unless something else comes along.
If the conversation comes back to sterilisiation, after years of pills, pregnancy and childbirth, it is sensible and fair that the man considers the (simpler) procedure first. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.

NurseBernard

" So you're saying she's not being unreasonable, then?!"

The OP is not being unreasonable to abstain from sex.

Just to clarify.

This is a change in stance from the beginning of the thread where I believed that she was using abstinence to force her partner in to having a vasectomy.
however
I still believe that it is wrong to force somebody of any gender to have an operation that they do not want.

HazleNutt

"What's wrong with doing something necessary either neutrally or begrudingly?"

Because in the case of surgery anything less than an absolute positive should and is concidered a No.

"I doubt most women will skip happily to doc's to get sterilized or have coil inserted"

I have never said that she should

"it's not exactly anything pleasant to look forward to in either case."

That would be why anything less than a yes should be considered a No

"So otehr forms of contraception are not suitable, neiter wants to get sterilized, therefore his wishes trump hers and it should be the op?"

My point is that his shouldn't trump hers and that hers shouldn't trump his.

Well, clearly I'm a little out of touch as to how female sterilisation works but quite honestly, my points all still stand.

I am not, and have never, advocated forcing anyone to have an operation they genuinely do not want to have.

My argument has always been about recognising the nice sort of men who will step up to the plate and do this as a means of effective contraception with the woman they love.

From my point of view - that a man is not willing to do this, short of being genuinely scared of the procedure - says all sorts of things about the sort of man he is. Given the impact of this decision on his wife/partner. That she will have to be sterilised or use a form of contraception that is invasive or ineffective, potentially resulting in pregnancy and another child.

And we're now getting into discussions around no one person's wishes trumping anybody else's - which does effectively leave abstinence, as the OP originally suggested. Well, the Pope will be pleased with this outcome, at the very least...

NurseBernardTue 28-Aug-12 11:03:20

"And we're now getting into discussions around no one person's wishes trumping anybody else's"

That has been the arguement all along.

Well, not really, or else this thread wouldn't be 425 posts long; everyone would simply have said YANBU for abstaining, and the thread would've ended before it got started. :)