To ask if you know anyone personally who got pregnant by lying about contraception?

[Pavemw]

Just that, really. I have an extremely close friend who confided in me at new year that her 11 year old dd wasn’t actually an accident. I have known her half my life and our kids are friends. She was with this man for a short time and the relationship did not last the pregnancy although he does see his dd and has been pretty good to my friend financially.

I can’t get my head around it. This is someone who I go to for advice. She’s always empathetic and kind. I can’t even believe she would have done it and I don’t know why it’s bothering me as much as it is. I don’t know her ex, haven’t seen him in many years. I almost feel she’s lied to me too, which I know is silly. She said she was late 30s, had been told her fertility wasn’t great and had had enough of being messed around by men, so when this next one seemed keen to commit she just went for it. I know she has been treated badly in the past and has always put her heart out there only to be messed about or strung along so I can almost feel how frustrated she would have been but… to do this? I can’t imagine it as I had my two in a happy marriage. Maybe I being horribly judgmental. I can’t reconcile this with who I thought she was all these years. Am I being dramatic?!

They stayed together though so I guess neither of them thought it was the ultimate betrayal ?

Can you explain which bit of that post is man hating?

.

Strangely no. They were very rocky for a long time when the kids were small but seem to have sorted it now. he earns a lot of money and she likes nice things. She’s very subservient and he likes having the little woman.

it works for them.

If a woman keeps asking a man to have a baby and he keeps saying no, would it not occur to him to think ‘let me take charge of contraception for a change to make sure there is no baby’ ?

This duality where the woman becomes responsible for ensuring the man does not have a baby at the same time as desperately wanting another baby is quite unfair on the woman.

I can’t explain it any better than I already have in 2 posts.

Telling me I don’t understand contraception is mansplaining.

This duality where the woman becomes responsible for ensuring the man does not have a baby at the same time as desperately wanting another baby is quite unfair on the woman.

This is exactly it. I had a friend in this situation and I just said to her take out your IUD and just tell your partner that if he doesn’t want another kid he’s responsible for wearing a condom. She wouldn’t do it though as he persuaded her it was unfair on him (doesn’t like condoms- the usual). She’s desperate for another baby, but her happiness doesn’t seem that important to him,

That’s really sad, especially the socio-economic reasons that mean women stay with men at the expense of their own happiness because men often hold the financial power.

Why should a woman be forced to give up her chance to have a child because a man has lied to her for years to get what he wants and consequence free? It’s her body after all.

I genuinely find people who think like this terrifying. Babies aren’t a revenge plot or a great equaliser against someone that’s wronged you. The way to deal with a man not giving you the children he “promised” is to leave him and find someone more suitable.

Some MNetters love to say that MN is now full of people who hate kids. I think you’d have to hate them to advocate these circumstances as OK for them to be brought into the world.

I’m speaking as someone who was forced to give up my chance to have a child at 32, due to a medical emergency. Oddly enough, nobody suggested to me that I had the right to avenge myself, and they were quite right not to.

I know right? Some people seem to have forgotten that the pill was actually a feminist revolution.

Babies aren’t a revenge plot or a great equaliser against someone that’s wronged you

eh? It’s not a revenge plot! It’s got nothing to do with revenge.
It’s taking back control of your own fertility , so you are able to have a baby before it’s too late , after some feckless man has wasted so much of your time making promises he hasn’t kept because he wants all the benefit of a relationship without any responsibility or commitment. ,

Not if he trusts his partner. It's a shame that trust isn't a given in some relationships.

I've also got to wonder what would happen in a long term relationship if the bloke started to use condoms. Is that a sign he doesn't trust his wife, could it be because he's cheating and got an STI? How would you react if your partner started using a condom?

It's morally wrong to string someone along obviously.

On your other point, what did you mean when you said "Risk is risk". I read it as you were suggesting that the risk or pregnancy is the same whether contraceptives are used or not. Can you explain what you actually meant?

@Tandora

This duality where the woman becomes responsible for ensuring the man does not have a baby at the same time as desperately wanting another baby is quite unfair on the woman.

In a relationship the contraception should be agreed by both partners. Making a unilateral change and not informing your partner is wrong. Whether or not the bloke has been stringing her along for years.

I think we fundamentally disagree on this.

If “taking back control” of one’s fertility requires undermining someone else’s control of theirs, then it’s not taking back control, it’s controlling someone else.

The fact that this has been justified by a portrait of him “wasting her time” is what makes it a revenge plot. The man who cruelly wasted all the woman’s fertile years gets punished by having to give her a baby regardless of how he feels about it.

Taking back control would be leaving the man who has been stringing you along and finding a man who wants children. Not forcing a man who doesn’t want them to give you one as repayment for messing you about.

Anyone who thinks like this has no business having a child.

i think you are not clear what informed consent is. I think you also don’t understand risk either. Risks are absolutely not all equal. Risk is far more nuanced.

In the scenario you outlined the woman is absolutely informed about the lack of contraception that her partner is willing to use. She might not agree with his actions (or lack thereof) but she does know that he is not going to use condoms and has not had a vasectomy. She can then decide whether or not to have sex with him on the basis of that knowledge. If she still chooses to have sex with him, she has consented to sex within those terms- it is, therefore, informed consent. Obviously, coercion within an abusive relationship is a different thing- but then the issue is not deceit by her partner preventing her from making an informed decision, is it? the problem in that scenario is that the victim is not actually making the choice to have sex of her own free will. The issue is actually consent in and of itself.

In answer to your question, outside of rape and abusive/coercive relationships, if a woman’s partner will not use condoms or agree to a vasectomy- and assuming she does not want to be pregnant- she has a number of options, however unpalatable they might be. She can refuse to have any form of sexual contact with him if will not use a condom or has not had a vasectomy; she can refuse to have penetrative intercourse; or, she can end the relationship. If she does want to get pregnant and it is her partner who does not want to conceive, but he still refuses to use any form of contraception, then she still has choices. She can end the relationship; she can still refuse to have intercourse as he is being unreasonable; she can make him aware she is not going to be using contraception and if he wants to prevent a pregnancy it’s up to him to take appropriate action. If he fails to do that, it’s on him.

None of those things bear relation to a woman actively and deliberately choosing to tell her partner she is taking contraception when she is not. it’s a false conflation of two related but different issues.

With regards to your “risk is risk” statement, you are factually incorrect. It’s why Dr’s quote risk when seeking consent from patients prior to surgery or when weighing up treatment options. There are even things like absolute vs relative risks to consider. Risks are not all made equal. I suspect that you know this. People may be comfortable with a treatment with a small risk of serious complication but not with a much higher one. They consent based on understanding the risk they are taking. By your estimate all a dr would have to do is say the both option carry a risk of, say, death. Or loss of sight, or paralysis, or whatever, and not quantity the risk. Or not tell the patient that the effectiveness of one treatment is significantly greater than the other- because there is a risk of failure with both options. After all “risk is risk” right?

A more direct illustration of why relative risk is important and may change choices or behaviour (which is why being misinformed is so wrong) is chances of conception. Statistically, 90% of couples under 40 who are having regular unprotected intercourse will conceive within 12 months. If a woman has the contraceptive implant that drops to 0.02%. If she’s on the pill that would be 8% (allowing for real life effectiveness as the 98% technical effectiveness is reduced by imperfect use to around 92%). I can easily understand why a couple not wanting to conceive would be satisfied with the protection offered by LARC, or even the pill. Both parties would still have to accept that the possibility is not zero, but a 0.02% risk is tiny when compared to 90% if nothing is used. If you thought you were taking a 0.02% risk of an adverse event and later found you had been tricked into running a 90% risk of that adverse event (which happened), I think we’d all agree you would be right to feel aggrieved/betrayed/violated. If you can’t see that distinction, and the importance it plays in informed consent, you are either quite dense or deliberately obtuse.

But that would still not make it right for her to say she is using a contraceptive if she is not. Two wrongs never make a right. Lying to your partner about a contraceptive you had agreed to take because you have now decided you want a baby (knowing they don’t) is indefensible because it is removing the opportunity for informed consent. It’s is never ok- however much you are unhappy about a certain aspect of your relationship.

If you as a couple agree a form of contraception, whoever is ultimately responsible for using it, then it’s up to both parties to uphold their agreement. If one of them wishes to change that agreement, then they should inform their partner about it. That does not mean that a woman has to get her partners permission to stop the pill or remove an IUD etc. She absolutely does not, all she needs to do can inform her partner she is no longer will to continue to use the contraceptive they had agreed on and so he is responsible for using a condom if he wants to prevent pregnancy. Once she has done that, it’s his responsibility to take appropriate action, and if he doesn’t then he only has himself to blame.

I've never met a man who informs a woman of his fertility before sex? Should a man ensure he says he is fertile before having sex or not?

What about if a man successfully reversed a vasectomy without informing his partner?

Let's pretend that she's 'messed him about for years', so he's 'taking control of his own fertility'.

Is that OK? If not, why not?

Because men and women have completely different experiences in relation to reproduction so reversing things isn’t even remotely comparable.
In one case the man is taking action that has profound consequences for a woman’s body: in the other case the woman is asking that she be allowed to do something with her own body,.

This thread has taken another turn, but in reply to your reply, yes I do and still think that couples even in committed relationships should make decisions about contraception knowing and accepting ALL the risks. If they absolutely categorically do NOT want to conceive then they should either abstain (unrealistic, of course) or take extra additional precautions. If they don't, and many don't I agree, then they take a risk and across a population, many babies will ensue.
It flabbergasts me how some couples think pulling out works, or ovulation tracking, or just the pill or condoms alone. So many variables, including human error.
I accept that it's a risk most couples take but my issue is jumping to a "the woman is a sneaky bitch" as an automatic assumption is plain wrong and unfair to the majority of women.

is indefensible because it is removing the opportunity for informed consent

But what if the woman has only been in a relationship with this man- only having sex with him for years- because he promised to have a baby sometime soon? If he had only been honest about his intentions - that he was just going to delay and delay until it was too late- she would have left years ago. What about that agreement? What about that consent?
Why doesn’t that count for the same?

All the woman is really doing in that scenario is taking control of her own body and fertility and claiming the thing she was promised as part of the agreement they both consented to 💁🏼‍♀️

in the other case the woman is asking that she be allowed to do something with her own body,.

Which she can only do with assistance from him. He must consent to giving that assistance. Acting like she can do all of this unilaterally and therefore his role is so negligible that consent is irrelevant is totally disingenuous.

This logic is absolutely abhorrent. I can’t believe there are people who genuinely think like this.

His role is fairly negligible tbf.

Why? Because it stops men being able to screw women over and ruin their chances of having a baby? It demands that men fulfil their promises? It advocates for women to use their power despite the structural disadvantages they face?

As I’ve said, the women in that situation need to leave. What you’re suggesting is that a man who says that he wants a baby at some point in the future immediately enters into an enforceable contract by which that baby must be provided, and if not then she can force him to deliver on that by creating a baby against his will.

And you seem to think that this is some sort of feminist act, because women are entitled to have babies and the contribution made by men means fuck all, so consent is irrelevant.

I think it’s a disgusting way to create new life. I think that children have the right to be wanted by both parents. I think that what you’re advocating for is absolutely abhorrent and I don’t care if that means I’m accused of being a man or a misogynist.

I think this thread validates a lot of the extreme views held by the Men's Rights acolytes.

When so many women are willing to ignore the need for informed consent, ridicule men for trusting their partners and present this as 'just desserts', it just makes me think they actually have a lot in common.