If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Circe" ) writes:
"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message ... "Circe" ) writes: "Amy" wrote in message oups.com... ...but I should "suck it up" and continue to take the pill, or get an IUD, or get sterilized myself, or ....? In a word, yes. No, I'm sorry, we both have sex, we both have responsiblities, and when the time comes to make the decision that we're done reproducing, the responsiblity is going to be his, because up until then the responsiblity is mine. That's just biology. It's not fair, and I don't have to like it, and neither does he. Sorry, but biology says that his body is not your body. The law says you don't own his body. I don't get it. Sure, she doesn't own his body; but aren't you talking above as if you own her body? What gives you the right to say she should just suck it up? Um, no. I'm saying that a mutual decision has to be made on contraception and that one or the other of them is going to have to be the one to "do the deed". Whether it's Amy or her husband, I can't say. But it's up to the two of THEM to decide between THEM what to do. It's not for Amy to say to her husband "Suck it up and get a vasectomy whether you want one or not" any more than it's up to her husband to say "Suck it up and keep taking care of this yourself". Neither one is a respectful attitude to have towards one's spouse. Really, Catherine, I'm stunned. You're usually so good at recognizing when people are being disrespectful to one another that I'm shocked you don't see the problem here. -- Be well, Barbara There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. I think you wrote "In a word, yes" and that in context, that "yes" seemed to mean that Amy should just "suck it up". Then later, you wrote "Um, no," which seemed to mean that that wasn't what the "yes" meant, after all. Maybe you could try again answering Amy's question at the top of this post? I think the idea of Amy saying "suck it up" to her husband is a straw man. That's a phrase she posted anonymously on a newsgroup -- not, as far as I know, a quote of anything she had said, or was intending to say, to her husband. I think the use of "suck it up" was an expression of anger, and I think anger is natural and perhaps even productive when one realizes one has been carrying more than a fair share of a burden in a relationship and one begins thinking about how to go about arranging to change that. Expressing the anger directly as anger towards the person one is angry at may be counterproductive, but expressing it privately can be a first step towards realizing how much one wants a change to happen, and generating the sort of energy that can lead to setting aside resources (such as time to think it over methodically) that can eventually have positive results. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Circe" ) writes:
What have you heard? IUDs got a really bad reputation back in the 1970s due to a bad product called the Dalkon shield. There is a small risk of infection immediately following insertion, but that seems to be quite rare. Other than that, I think that IUDs generally cause fewer health problems for women than BC pills. My understanding is that all IUD's involve something that can be called infection. The uterus is normally free of bacteria, but there is a zone around an IUD which contains bacteria. The zone can vary in size and shape and type of tissue penetrated. The question may be better phrased, not "is there an infection or not," but "how extensive is the bacterial zone?" |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Cathy Weeks" ) writes:
and NFP is actualy MUCH higher if you go to the effort to do it right. That's my understanding, too. Now, I've heard people point to the IUD and say "I know such and such, and she got pregnant on the IUD". And they use that as a reason the IUD is bad. I'm not sure why, but I so rarely hear people talk about vasectomy babies. Well, maybe getting pregnant on the IUD is much scarier than getting pregant with a vasectomy. The complications for the baby can be rather horrible. Might be a reason it would be talked about more. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Circe" ) writes:
Really, what I'm having trouble with isn't her position, it's her attitude. There's a "I did this being pregnant, having babies, taking birth control I don't like for YOU and now you have to do THIS for ME" thing in there that I find troubling. First of all, it implies that she didn't want to have babies and is doing it purely for her husband's benefit, which is surely not true (but if it isn't, there's another problem here!). Second, it implies that she's taking contraceptive for HIS benefit, too (i.e., SHE gets no benefit from not getting pregnant when she doesn't want to). I just think starting from this position, which is both dogmatic and hostile. when discussing something your spouse is uncomfortable with from the get-go is a good way to go right up his nose and solidify his rejection of the whole idea. I don't think those things are necessarily implied. If I'm playing a card game and I say, "Well, you dealt the cards last hand, so now it's my turn to deal the cards," that doesn't imply that I'm not enjoying the game or that I didn't want to play in the first place. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Catherine Woodgold wrote: "Circe" ) writes: Well, there's "force" and there's "force". Telling your spouse you're not going to have sex with him/her any more until he/she does X is a form of coercion, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling herself. So -- how does this work the other way around? If she mentions the idea of a vasectomy and he says he's not willing to do that -- isn't he coercing her just as much? No, he is not coercing her just as much. Saying "*I* will not doing something" is not nearly as coercive as saying "*you* will do something." I think there's an important subtle difference between "I'm not going to have sex until you have a V" and "I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to take pills (or etc.) any more and I don't want more children, either." I agree... and it seems to contradict your statement above. Cathy Weeks |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Catherine Woodgold wrote: I think the idea of Amy saying "suck it up" to her husband is a straw man. That's a phrase she posted anonymously on a newsgroup -- not, as far as I know, a quote of anything she had said, or was intending to say, to her husband. I have thought this all along - that likely she and her husband do NOT communicate as she was describing (and it *was* a hypothetical situation, as they aren't ready to stop having kids yet) - I have a hard time imagining any partnership surviving for long if that *is* how they interracted. Cathy Weeks |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Cathy Weeks writes:
Catherine Woodgold wrote: "Circe" ) writes: Well, there's "force" and there's "force". Telling your spouse you're not going to have sex with him/her any more until he/she does X is a form of coercion, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling herself. So -- how does this work the other way around? If she mentions the idea of a vasectomy and he says he's not willing to do that -- isn't he coercing her just as much? No, he is not coercing her just as much. Saying "*I* will not doing something" is not nearly as coercive as saying "*you* will do something." Right - and an example is that saying "I will not be having vaginal sex with you unless we're protected by a form of contraception managed by you, not me" is *not* coercion to get a vasectomy, and anyone who thinks it is is fooling herself, IMNSHO. I'm shocked to find people here who think it's impossible to have a happy relationship without vaginal sex, to such an extent that they apparently think it's perfectly OK to pressure a woman (never a man, note) to modify her body by hardware or drugs in order to avoid that terrible fate, absence of vaginal sex. Get a grip. If it's so important to *this particular* couple, then presumably having worked out that starting from the basis of their own initial feelings it's the only possible solution, they may do some soul-searching about those initial feeling and maybe modify them. OK. But to rule it out as an option for consideration, without knowing anything about this particular couple's relationship - honestly, how absurd can you get?! The underlying theme that I'm hearing here and that's making me angry is the old, old assumption that it's not OK for a woman to own her body and say what she will and won't do with it. Sex is, or should be, a gift freely given on both sides. If a couple isn't in a position to give that gift to one another at some stage of their lives, let them give other gifts, but don't tell the woman that sex has to happen and she has to do whatever it takes to make it possible. Sidheag DS Colin Oct 27 2003 |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Catherine Woodgold writes:
: "Circe" ) writes: : Well, there's "force" and there's "force". Telling your spouse you're not : going to have sex with him/her any more until he/she does X is a form of : coercion, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling herself. : So -- how does this work the other way around? If she mentions : the idea of a vasectomy and he says he's not willing to do that -- : isn't he coercing her just as much? OK. So I will post one of my rare posts on this thread... Yes and no. If he only says he is not willing to get a V, then it doesn't qualify as coercion. ... yet. But if he says I am not willing to take any responsibility for the birth control, I expect you to do it, and I expect to keep having sex, then it does. It depends on how far he takes his statement and what compromises he is (not) willing to make. Larry Back to lurkdom, where it is more fun anyway! |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Cathy Weeks wrote: wrote: Amy wrote: Hell, if reversals were easier, I'd have him get one now, and we could reverse it when it's time for the spare. I kind of wish they could install a little faucet on 'em, so if we want the swimmers on, they're on, and if we want 'em off, they're off. Hot and cold running sperm. Hahhaa... You mean they should install a stopcock? ;-) Helen, You just made my whole evening. That was HILARIOUS! I even read it to my husband and he thought it was pretty funny too. Thanks! I have to admit, while I did originate that pun as far as I know, the first time I made it was over twenty years ago, during a similar conversation back in college ;-) --Helen |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Feeling a big anxious about induction vs. c-section | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 66 | September 29th 05 04:07 PM |
Medical Illustrators to the rescue! (I hope) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | April 21st 04 05:54 PM |
Why my baby? Attorneys trolling bad births - GOOD...UBPN silence - BAD... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | March 14th 04 11:13 PM |
Arnold! (also: Channeling Gastaldo) (also: chiros/SACA/WFC) (also: Warning about usenet MDs) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | October 9th 03 09:21 PM |
Birth spikes (Do Jamaican women birth on their butts/backs?) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 23rd 03 06:59 PM |