To be annoyed with his relaxed attitude?

[rentingSucks]

So my partner and I decided to start trying for a baby last month. I was a little unsure about the timings for a few reasons but was ultimately convinced. The next few months wouldn't be bad timing for me for career and personal reasons so it made no sense to keep putting this off.

But here comes the problem, my partner is too relaxed about trying! He just seems to want nature to take its course and not think about optimal times for trying. So last month, due to being tired, away for work, and on a extended family holiday we only did it twice, neither time anywhere near ovulation, yet he thinks there is a decent chance (there isn't as my period just came a few days early).

I feel this is unfair - he isn't the one who is putting their life on hold, having to take vitamins, or think about their drinking at events. Is it really unreasonable to want him to be a bit more open to trying on times when I know there should be a better chance?

'Trying to have a baby' is a huge turn off

'Having sex that could potentially lead to becoming pregnant 'is different

You ttc for 1 bloody month. And you needed to be convinced into even agreeing to it...

So just relax and seduce him around that time of the month but just don't tell him that you want to have sex because it is 'that time of the month'.

You really need to relax OP and just let nature take its course. I have two DCs now but it took me 18 months to conceive my first.

There were no medical issues but I had quite a demanding job and it was only after a month long honeymoon abroad that I finally conceived. We also didn't time ovulation etc - we just did it as before, ie when we felt like it.

Unless there are unfortunate medical issues then relaxation is key IME.

OP if you are happy with no commitment and no commitment to a child, good on you I guess, but most people do want commitment. And btw, of course de factos do NOT have the same rights as married couples. If they did, there would be no need for LEGAL MARRIAGE. Would there? You should look into it, because so many misinformed women say it's not necessary, we have the same rights, only to get the shock of their life that they DON'T have the same rights. You are setting yourself up for great loss, simply because you don't understand that de facto and marriage are NOT the same thing, and if they were, no one would get married. You're misinformed, and we're just trying to help you.

@SaraNade as previously mentioned I am not in the uk and am well aware of my legal rights. I also don’t understand why you think without marriage there is no commitment to each other or a child? It’s not like marriage is some un-breakable bond! I see no harm in not being part of an old, and in my opinion outdated, tradition.

If you are not married you would be VVVUR to try to have a baby. You partner obviously does not have the same interest in having a child as you have. Your legal rights for support as an unmarried mother are nil. If you split up he would have to support a child but would not have to support you. If you don't love him enough to commit and marry, forget about trying to have a baby.

You both don’t sound ready for a child. You haven’t even been able to successful communicate and agree on how many times you’ll have sex a week.

Put it on hold!

My husband was really clear that, whilst he was very excited to TTC, he didn't want to have sex on schedule. I do see his point, humanity got this far without tracking apps and ovulation strips.

Your partner is in line with the official advice to just crack on a couple of times a week for a year and a few sources actively advise against tracking. So he is in the right really, you just might have to inspire him to action a little more often!

(All this said, of course I tracked, I just never mentioned it to him but sometimes he would eye me suspiciously and say 'Did that just happen because today was a good day?' to which I feigned innocence. He never learnt what all the symbols in Clue meant so he couldn't prove me wrong )

Marriage isn't just about relationship breakdown it is that you are not next of kin,your rights if one of you dies or needs medical decisions making are not the same.Forget that it was an old,outdated tradition and remember that it is a legal contract that protects you both.

Do you have reason to believe you'll have difficult conceiving? If not, I think YABU. A strict routine for conceiving doesn't suit everyone - it takes away a lot of the romance and sort of niceness of it and reduces it to a job, or a chore, for a lot of people. I'd have hated it and so would DH. We took a natural, relaxed approach as we had no reason to think we'd not be able to conceive this way and we were lucky in no time. I understand if you have difficulties to behave how you are but without difficulties I think it's OTT and unnecessary and I'd have felt a bit like a machine rather than a human being! I understand his behaviour. I much preferred things happening naturally too.

In the Uk unmarried mothers have very few rights when the relationship breaks down, its hard to ensure maintenance is paid and childcare is expensive, that’s why posters are freaking out that you’re not married.

I think it will be difficult to get pregnant if you’re only having sex twice a month, are you ok with that being the norm forever? Has his lack of libido been a problem before? Usually as you get older it drops off more, how old are you guys ?

The marriage is completely irrelevant to the question. Is he aware that you need to have sex at a certain time to get pregnant? Cause in school sex ed we are basically taught how you will without absolute uncertainty get pregnant at any point (yea, jokes but you get the gist). In biology they do explain ovulation but it's much less in practical terms.

If you'd be ha ing sex 2-3 times a week I would say not to worry and see what happens. But if there is sex 2 times a month then that does require planning.

My DH was relaxed about ttc too - wasn't until I explained that I'm only fertile for 4-6 days of the month and May as well not bother outside of those times that he really understood what it took to conceive

(Also I do think marriage is important too 😉)

I'm sure you'll change your mind when you have a baby and you have a completely different name to him/her...

It took myself and DH 6 years for me to get pregnant and I learned a lot along the way.
It is a turn off to plan sex and one month of trying is nothing really. Don’t put your life on hold. I did this for years where I put off changing jobs, turned down travelling and festivels with friends. If you planned something and then had to change it because you were pregnant, would that be such a bad thing? If you are determined to get pregnant OPKs are good as not everyone is most fertile at the same time. I didn’t start using them until just before conceiving and found out it was actually around the 3 week of the month we needed to try.
If you are both young definitely give it a year before even worrying too much, just dtd as often as you can. And sorry for tmi but try to keep as much inside as you can.

I really wish more women would step back and give their heads a little wobble when it comes to ttc.

Yes, we only have a tiny window each month. Yes, we want babies, usually more so than men who don't have the rages of a biological clock tick tocking in their brain.

Asking/expecting a man to perform like some sort of trained monkey is just degrading. Imagine if you HAD to have an orgasm to get pregnant. Not a fake one, not a half arsed one, but a full on, proper real orgasm. It's not so easy if you think of it like that. We love to trot out the Mumsnet like of "well he just needs to man up"

Seriously. You're tired, stressed, have only a few days a month to get it right and your husband demands you have sex with him, not only that, he demands you have a proper, real orgasm as well.

Because thats the ttc reality for men.

OP, just relax, it will happen. Stressing about it will just make it worse.

Has his libido always been so low? Once or twice a month seems like the relationship is dwindling out unless it’s always been like that or there are health issues etc. He doesn’t sound all that keen to be honest!

@rentingSucks No one is talking about being in the UK. I'm not in the UK, either. However marriage vs live in partner is the same in basically all countries. If it wasn't, then there would be no point in marriage, would there? I've yet to come across a country where marital rights are conferred upon non-married couples, you seem ill-informed.
People like yourself come and go, thinking wrongly you have the same rights, but you don't. If you did, then marriage wouldn't exist, because there would be no distinction. Why do you think gay couples have fought so hard for marriage equality? Because it confers rights that civil unions and defacto relationships don't. It isn't rocket science. And COMMITMENT is never, NEVER, ever outdated. You have a good man there who wants to do the right thing and commit to you. I can't help think you are holding him back and preventing him from being with someone who truly values commitment and is committed to him. It's obvious that commitment, even to a child, is not important to you. Do yourself a favour. Don't have a child. At least not with this man. Find someone who thinks the same way you do, and does not value commitment to anyone. I think frankly your DP deserves far better.

Newmomof1 what a judgey person you are.

Op has clearly stated he has a very low libido and that will obviously impact on the chances of conceiving.

Op are you sure you want kids with someone who is so uninterested in actually doing what is necessary to make things happen?

And planned holidays become confusing, is it safe to do snow sports whilst trying to conceive - I assume not
Who knew skiing could be used as contraception?

Wow @SaraNade are you always this nasty?

I am well aware of the laws in Australia and am happy with the level of protection it provides me and any potential children. The fight for same sex marriage here was not about partner and property rights but around human rights. The fact that same sex couples already had protection under family law was actually a hindrance to their campaign!

I don’t believe that I am uncommitted to my partner, I don’t need a marriage certificate to prove my commitment. I also really fail to understand how I would be uncommitted to child just because I wasn’t married to it’s father??

I think you need to do yourself a favour and relax a little...

@rentingSucks You don't seem to understand the debate that occurred in Australia. It is FACT that same sex partners did NOT have the same protection under family law was PROVEN during the marriage equality debate. Maybe you should actually read up on what happened in Australia (and why the lack of rights for same sex couples in family law [as proven by the ABC and the govt, as well as the Dept at the time] was part of the very reason people voted in favour of ssm. Maybe don't talk about a country you don't understand? PS Even if you were in Australia, here you would not have the same rights, even as a defacto heterosexual couple, as a married couple. This has been proven time and time again. It is not me saying this, there are countless links in Australia that prove that defactos do not, even now, have the same rights as married couple.

wow your sucking all the fun part out of it lol poor hubby

This is only an example. The facts as outlined by Magda below show it was about rights in family law, and that is why the Yes vote was so high. Also, 2 other cases were highlighted where two separate gay couples had a partner die in Australia, and they weren't considered next of kin (despite civil union which was registered) nor listed on the death certificate. You wrong. Sorry, but you are wrong on Australian law at that time. The debate in Australia wasn't so much about love, it was about recognition that gay couples - and defactos, did not have UNDER LAW. Marriage gives them that recognition and those rights they did not have prior to January 9 2018. Defactos today, still do not have those rights. This is legal substantiated fact.

It is what won the yes vote.

"Then she broke down describing how the issue is about “more than just love”.

“It’s not just about matters of equality ... I feel teary again,” Szubanski told hosts Carrie Bickmore and Waleed Aly.

“It’s about illness and death. Here I go again but boy. A friend of mine ... her partner, long term partner, had cancer.

“She wanted to be in the room with her when she was having a painful treatment and the doctor said ‘next of kin only — parents, siblings, no spouses’.

“She wasn’t allowed in and she had to stand outside and listen to the screams of the woman she loved, unable to even comfort her. Now, in whose universe is that fair? What God thinks that’s right?”
www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/magda-szubanski-breaks-down-in-passionate-plea-over-samesex-marriage-vote/news-story/2a1877cc257f3e695622933616056af2

wow your sucking all the fun part out of it lol poor hubby

There wasn’t a whole lot of fun going on in the first place, since he’s more of a twice-a-month guy.

That being the case, he’s hardly likely to morph into some sort of stallion just because they’ve decided to TTC. So whilst I don’t exactly think OP is BU, she certainly seems a bit unrealistic.

NB This is personal to me because I was heavily involved in the Yes case, and the myth that 'they already have the same rights' was so heavily debunked, it is actually in part, credited with winning the Yes case.

"By Liam Elphick
14 SEP 2017 - 11:24 AM UPDATED 21 SEP 2017 - 3:15 PM

In the midst of the postal survey on marriage equality, various arguments are being put forward as to why same-sex couples should not be able to marry. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has urged a ‘no’ vote in order to reject political correctness. The Archbishop of Melbourne has argued that marriage equality must be rejected “for the health and future” of society, while many others have been concerned about the protection of religious freedom. Indeed, it seems the issue of marriage equality is about anything but marriage.

Each of these arguments have been rebutted and dealt with in depth, but one primary ‘no’ argument remains largely untested: that same-sex couples already have the same rights as their married counterparts. Many columnists and commentators have raised this view; the Courier Mail’s Des Houghton recently stated that, “homosexual couples are accepted and have full legal rights. They already have equality and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise”.

Notwithstanding the symbolic importance of allowing same-sex couples to be able to call their relationship a ‘marriage’, it is also a complete myth that same-sex couples already enjoy the exact same rights as married couples."
www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/09/14/do-same-sex-couples-really-have-same-rights-married-couples

Jesus OP you need to relax a little. Not everything needs to be so regimented you know. You say your partner has a low libido, so how the hell do you expect him to 'perform' at the flick of your fingers? You're gonna put the poor man right off sex at this rate!