Who gets the snip?

[feministwithtitsin]

Hi ladies (and gents)

Me and my DH have just had our 2 DC. We are both still relatively young (I am 30, DH is 29). We have both decided that 2 children is enough for us, our family is complete. I want to retrain and focus on my career in a year or so, and, although my DH probably would like more children, we have decided that 2 is enough as we would be better financially, and I would keep my sanity!

I have had 2 caesareans, the first was a nightmare as I had an infection and the recovery time was a nightmare (5 days in hospital, alot of pain etc) the second was textbook.

As we are both young, neither of us would be looking to get the snip for at least another 5 years, just to be 100% sure, as by that time out fertility would have dropped and I think it would be too disruptive to my career, and life in general, to be having a newborn after that.

So for the next 5 years, I will be on some kind of hormone contraceptive, as condoms are too much of a pain.

The question is who should get the snip? I think my DH should as I have had 2 caseareans already and the op itself is easier, he thinks I should because the risks of vascetomies scare him (long term ball pain etc)

So, mumsnet jury! What is your verdict

I understand why a male pill is more difficult, though I believe there has been progress toward it. I do wonder whether it could have been quicker with more budget.

Injections and implants are also available for women which bypass any stomach issues; I would group research into these for men as important too.

Article about an injection that blocks sperm

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11646385/Contraception-Male-Pill-is-coming-and-its-going-to-change-everything.html

(Ironically in the women's health section!)

If I was a man I'd be furious that there was no way for me to take care of my own fertility other than irreversible vasectomy or potentially ineffectual condoms.

I like the clean sheets pill. Duloxetine does that too but stops orgasm as well.

The only way to suppress ovulation is to take drugs which increase your risks of cancer/bone loss/heart disease in addition to the increased risks you suffer in the long term form childbirth. These drugs also kill your libido.

It's not about men who don't want vasectomy whining. It's about people who feel men should never have to entertain a risk to themselves (because women have all the risks due to bearing the children) whining about that.

It's all just very simply about contraception always involving a risk to someone and how inequitable it is to refuse to contemplate a risk to a man just because he is a man and men do not even have to think about doing anything risky because that is the woman's place.

I just haven't come across that attitude at all. If anything, post children, it is expected of men to have a vasectomy.

I expected my DH to have a vasectomy post children.

I didn't want long term hormonal contraception. Not interested in NFP when we definitely didn't want another pregnancy.

We are very happily married, we don't expect him to father any more children. Even if our marriage failed I am not sure that he would want to start again with babies at his age, but as I said up thread, that isn't something I would factor into our decision.

We considered the risks of a vasectomy less than those associated with female sterilisation. In a normal healthy loving marriage when the woman has given birth, maybe with illness and surgery associated with it, wouldn't you both opt for the procedure with less risk to the people in the marriage/partnership.

Less risk, less recovery time, not risk free but as most of us have said before, nothing is.

I just haven't come across that attitude at all. If anything, post children, it is expected of men to have a vasectomy.

Except that attitude has been on this thread.

what's I think the reason it is expected is because after the dc's are carried for 9 months at a time, pushed through a very small hole, whilst you are in excruciating pain or cut from you-which takes weeks to recover from- it seems the least you can do.

Rightly or wrongly.

I admit I feel this way. I had a terrible time with my last 2 pregnancies. I'm only 40 and I have bad hips and back. I can't stand for long periods of time, I can't sit in a hard chair for long periods of time and if I do, the next day I am in agony. I end up eating codeine.

Everything has risks, side effects etc. Unfortunately it is a Russian roulette situation- no one knows who will be the 1% or 10 % etc.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with a man having some expectation on him in one area of the whole pregnant/contraception area.

That's not to say any one should be forced.

I'd be surprised if many women actually expected a man to just do it. I think it's more likely many women expect the man to take the full picture into consideration and not just dismiss considering it out of hand because it has risks to them.

Clearly the op has risks to men, but while men should weigh those risks up seriously, they might consider that every time they look around a room of women, a good proportion of them will have invisible issues to do with pregnancy/childbirth. Incontinence, pain from tears, etc. Their partner is probably not the same now as they were before childbirth.

No one should be forced to do have an op. But women with one or more children will have already faced serious risks just to create the family that is now hopefully complete.

I know that my body will never be the same again and my pregnancies were mostly straightforward. My husband has not been so affected.

"they might consider that every time they look around a room of women, a good proportion of them will have invisible issues to do with pregnancy/childbirth. Incontinence, pain from tears, etc. Their partner is probably not the same now as they were before childbirth."

Yy to this. 1 in 3 women with continence issues at some point post childbirth, I think (but don't quote me!)

I am not comparing the risk of a vasectomy to female sterilisation/hormonal contraception etc. I simply consider the risks too much for what is elective surgery. Comparing it to the risks in pregnancy is a strawman argument - they are inevitable if you want to have children.

There seems to be an assumption in some comments that because there are 'risks' involved whatever you do then all options are somehow equal (and because women give birth the man then 'owes' her one). But there is no quantification of the risks for the different options. I genuinely didn't realise quite how risky a vasectomy was and I don't think it is well known at all. If the risk was lower, then I would consider it.

But a man not having a vasectomy is putting his partner at risk of pregnancy or at risk of the side effects of hormonal contraception,

That has to be acknowledged, there's no zero sum game.

I certainly didn't think that my husband 'owed me one'.

We are a partnership, the risk to the partnership was lessened by him opting for what is a minor walk in medical procedure rather than having me undergo a GA/female sterilisation.

If my partner wasn't happy with any other methods we would not have PIV sex. Yes of course there are side affects, risks, that need to be thought about. But I wouldn't expect my wife to even consider something with the level of risk associated with vasectomies.

I don't know whether to laugh or be flabbergasted with your argument what

Firstly trying to argue that the risks in pregnancy can't be compared because women have no choice, but men do!? Wtaf

And then saying they can't be compared because it's not quantifiable?

Erm, we could compare death rates for starters, then we could list out all of the various complications side by side which occur in all circumstances.

I'm pretty sure even the best debating logical person in the land would have a hard job trying to convince even the lowest iq's that having a vasectomy is comparable in risk to having a child.

I get that there are risks. I get that the risk of being in pain or losing the ability to have sex is a scary risk that you might be ureluctant to take, but you need to get that women's odds in pregnancy and childbirth and even sterilisation are a higher risk and millions of us do it everyday.

If after 3 pregnancies- including twins with internal bleeding on the first scan, gestational diabetes, SPD, and 2 emergency c-sections with one stint in recovery due to loss of blood- my dp had said the risks of a vasectomy were just too high, he would have got this look.

There seems to be an assumption in some comments that because there are 'risks' involved whatever you do then all options are somehow equal (and because women give birth the man then 'owes' her one).

The vast majority of the comments are that if a man refuses to consider a vasectomy because he feels that he should not, as a part of a partnership, have to consider anything that has risks to himself and feels the risks his partner has exposed herself to during the course of the relationship are entirely irrelevant then his partner will likely feel he is a selfish twat.

Also that talking about or asking a man to consider a vasectomy is not pressure/unreasonable/unfair.

offred you are making me look bad.

You said everything I ramblingly said in one succinct paragraph.

But I wouldn't expect my wife to even consider something with the level of risk associated with vasectomies.

Oh, come on!

If you want to have children with her, then yes, you do.

I like your angry post!

Nevermind having children that's basically an argument for never expecting your wife to have sex with you!

I mean why would you expect that she even give that consideration given the risks to her?!?

So I guess the solution is that in heterosexual couples the man should never expect the woman to consider PIV unless she wants a baby, whether the man wants a baby or not is irrelevant because all the risks fall to the woman and the man should not be allowed to even mention it as a topic for discussion - yes?

If a man mentions PIV or pregnancy as a topic for consideration then he is applying unreasonable pressure to his partner because no-one should have to consider taking on a risk that has no personal benefit to themselves and everyone is perfectly entitled to think entirely and only of themselves at all times.