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

That's certainly how I interpreted it (or I wouldn't have responded as such?),but if that's not what you meant, I apologise.

What do you mean, re your second post? DH did...?

My DH had his vascectomy on Friday 26 June, i.e. just over two weeks ago (it's Saturday here), so it's not some dim and distant memory, where I'm trying to dredge up the details.

I was ready to take a half day to take him to it, but he waved me away insisting there was no need. He arrived home having driven. He was literally in and out, and good to go afterwards.

We may not have (sorry, TMI) had sex the very next day, but it was certainly within 48 hours. He was at a rugby match foolishly climbing a six-foot fence the following day, I do recall that.

My own father told me once some years ago that he had a vascectomy after he and DM decided they'd done their dash. DM had had two Caesarean sections, and had pre-eclampsia with both. DF's voiced opinion was that a vascectomy was the responsible thing to do, so possibly my opinions on this subject have been 'clouded' by that.

But if DH had had the snip I might have missed out on the life-changingly brilliant Mirena that has meant no periods for the last 8 years. I know it doesn't suit everyone though.

My DH drove home too. I was there to do the honours but he insisted he was fine. And he was. Balls were gruesome for a couple of weeks but he claims there was no real pain and went straight back to work.
I realise this is not the case for many but it is what happened in our case.

Why does he get to have 'expectations' and she doesn't. He doesn't.

" For most men, the risk, while there, is minimal."

I wouldn't put it quite like that.

Yes, most men are absolutely fine, either throughout or within 2-3 weeks.

But, according to NHS, 10% aren't. They have the painful, serious consequences. And some of these are untreatable.

There is no way of knowing before the procedure which group a man would fall in to, because it's not connected to medical history. So I don't see it as a minimal risk for some, but high risk for others. It's 1:10 across the board.

Sure, yes, but the same applies for women, in terms of sterilisation, and I'm sure the risks associated with childbirth and/or complications afterwards, are far, far higher than 10%.

The lot of women is to put up with shit. Throughout life; not just one day procedure. I'm sorry, but a 10% chance of complication associated with vasectomies just does not change my position on this.

The risks of childbirth are not directly comparable, though.

I think that's the basic difference on this thread.

Sterilisation is a separate procedure, which neither person has had before. It's not related to previous contraceptive choices, or childbirth experiences; or rather not beyond the way that every experience might lead you to decide that your family is complete and that permanently removing the possibility of having more children should now be considered.

So it's new ground, not 'taking turns'.

Now, yes of course it is better that the decision comes after proper communication between the couple. But, as you can see from many responses on this thread, anything that suggests it's the man's turn can be interpreted in itself as undue pressure.

It's his body, his choice. Even if that choice is not what someone else would have hoped for.

And not wanting to have an operation with a 10% serious complication rate should be reason enough. The risks just weren't talked about pre-Internet, and it's a good thing that they are less likely now to be minimised.

(By the way, DH has had a vasectomy and was fine. I've posted quite a lot in the contraception topic about it, which is where I read accounts, including first-hand, of what vasectomy complications really mean).

So a fresh start every time, irrespective of any experiences or ongoing problems either party might have.

In this case the OP's partner has looked at her with her 2 pregnancies and CS under her belt, and said "I don't want to do this, the risk is too high, you should do it" and everyone is rallying in support of him.

You see, we would talk about it, and the risks that I took to grow and birth our children, and all the massive problems that I had for years because of that, and even the fact that I have had a large number of surgical procedures which are unrelated would be taken into consideration, I'm sure. Whether it would be "you've done loads it's my turn" or whether it would be "well you've already had loads of shit what's a little bit more" I don't know and that would be between us as a couple.

The idea it must always be the woman because she's the one who gets pregnant and anyway they have loads of damage and pain with pregnancy and birth anyway is just antiquated, and, yes, biblical. The idea females should be grateful if a male wears a condom! Just mind boggling, to me.

"So a fresh start every time"

There's only once, for surgical sterilisation.

I think the principle of "my body my choice" is important.

And that it is very wrong to demand/expect/think only fair (continuum of same concept really?) that one person should have an operation based on someone else's situation.

I disagree about pregnancies having nothing to do with sterilisation. It has everything to do with it. It is all part and parcel of your fertility and building a family. If both partners decide they want no more children, then someone needs to take a risk - contraception has its risks as does the snip. Pregnancy has risks. And yes of course the woman has taken the biological hit for the family. These are decisions you take for the good of your family, not just yourself. One person in the op's family has already taken risks and continues to do so. The other may refuse to take any.

I think that any man who has witnessed childbirth, hormonal peaks and troughs, the hit their partner takes during and after pregnancy and knows the risks thereof and still decides their tackle to be of paramount importance, is a twat.

So if a woman has had traumatic births, extensive damage to her nether regions, ongoing pain in scars, discomfort, and multiple gynaecological procedures that have resulted in scarring internally, and the man says "you do it I don't want to take those risks" then he is being perfectly reasonable.

And part of the reason for that is that it is a woman's biological role to be pregnant, give birth, take the associated risks, and the associated damage, while for men reproducing does not mean physical risk/pain, so as the risk is to her she should take the risks of stopping this risk. As you said upthread. And be grateful if a man takes a contraceptive route that mitigates these risks for her.

Lots of men aren't total cunts though so, you know, have an open conversatoin about it with their partners. Rather than saying "nah don't fancy that you do it" to someone who has already undergone multiple medical procedures, pain, risk and all the rest of it to bear their children.

The opposing view seems to be that pregnancy, birth, contraception all lie with the woman so are the childen "hers" too? No of course they aren't . Jesus. So men get all the benefits of family life and none of the responsibilities / difficulties / risks, is it? Nothing new there through history I guess and it's an attitude that still prevails in some parts of the world (women are for breeding and pain should be a key part of their lives aka the biblical approach, they and the children are chattels of the man).

I suppose the biblical idea that women are supposed to suffer when it comes to reproductive matters is pretty entrenched in our society (see - shit care during delivery - people being refused pain relief - the idea that pain relief is "cheating" in some groups) so it shouldn't be so surprising to see it espoused on here!

No, it shouldn't be, I suppose.

I find it mind-boggling though, and am just glad I don't know any of these men - nor their handmaidens - in real life.

After 3 kids my exh volunteered to have the snip at 27.

He was fine.

I got sterilised rather than my DH because it was easier to schedule and I didn't mind. Also, I have no problems with general anaesthetics whereas my DH tends to vomit a lot

I found it to be very straightforward. It takes 7 mins apparently. I did have a light general but I felt fine as soon as I woke up. I didn't need any additional painkillers other than whatever they used during the op. It was like period pain. I was careful for a few days but that was it. Recovery was helped by the fact my DH was being very grateful

Everyone's experience is different but for me getting sterilised was a very simple and minor op.

Not having to use other contraception is fantastic. We loved the fact it works instantly too.

"understand his concerns, but someone has to take risks. Why is it me by default if we both decide we 100% don't want anymore children?"

Well, quite.

(In five years time the male pill might be on the market, OP, though it's taking a long time coming. Or you could both achieve orgasm other ways?)

I am interested in this thread. We are in similar situation! A little older, but still a few years of baby making ahead if we wanted them! I may give hormonal contraception a try again, I have previously found it absolute shite but this was back in the 90s, time I tried again! Have pondered about sterilisation, would like it if hubby would get it done but I think he would like more kids! However, I really don't want to get pregnant again, as much as I love babies the end of my pregnancies are miserable with high blood pressure and hospitalisation both times, and I did not enjoy the last birth with no epidural!

I think it has to be whoever is definitely done with the babies. In 5 years you will know where you stand I think. A lot will depend where you are work wise and emotionally.

TheDowagerCuntess So those who were sterilized instead of their dh's are handmaidens?

Hmmm

I think she means situations where it's automatically the woman who gets sterilised because of beliefs around who is responsible for taking on the risks / pain associated with reproduction.

She may have meant something else! That was how I read it in conjunction with my post.

FWIW if either of us were going to be done it would be me, I've not got a particular axe to grind apart from not understanding those who say OP would be out of line to even raise it, that it's her job because all this shit is the woman's job and so forth. While simultaneously ignoring the fact that she has said she'd prefer it to be her partner and he has said he'd prefer it to be her!!!

Yes biology means that men can't bear the children but I don't think that means the woman's contribution. In this area should be un acknowledged especially if there has already been a health impact (surgical intervention etc)

If the man had had a couple of operations in the last few years and the couple had decided to be childless, would it be so unreasonable for the couple to consider his previous health issues as a factor in the decision?

My DH is having a vasectomy in the next year or so. I'm being induced on Monday and if I have to for any reason (am high risk pregnancy) have a section then I will ask if they can do me instead whilst I'm open. If that makes sense and is do able.

I simply do not agree that my bearing children and having caesareans has nothing to do with a converstion about vascetomies.

PP have stated that they chose to be sterilised as their partner had had a bad time medically etc.

How can surgery which has nothing to do with creating a family be a factor, but having a bad time due to surgery that did create a family not have any impact at all?

If me and DH didn't have children, but we had decided we didn't want any, and I had had bad surgery experiences before, so i said that i would like him to have the procedure, would that be valid? Are bad experiences related to childbirth just written off as a biological necessity, and therefore not valid as a past experience?

scaevola said previously that a man having a vascetomy is wholly alturistic! Does this mean that he has no reaponsibility for reprpduction and having a vascetomy is doing me favour?

Bizarre.