Poll: Birth Control

"Circe" ) writes:
I think
you should at least try an IUD before you decide that surgically altering
your husband against his wishes is your preferred method of birth control.

I disagree. I don't think she's under any more obligation
to modify her body (with IUD, pills, or whatever) than is
her husband. And she has a right to have a preference, whether
or not he agrees or chooses it.

"Circe" ) writes:
I'm not opposed to vasectomies; I'm just opposed to forcing anybody to
undergo a surgical procedure (or have an IUD or take BCPs or anything else)
against their will. There are nearly always other alternatives.

Nobody's being forced into anything. There's always abstinence.

"Circe" ) writes:
I agree. But the decision DOES have to be mutual, which is all I've been
trying to say. If her husband can't get over being bothered by having his
testicles surgically altered but she somehow manages to bully him into doing
it, it wasn't a mutual decision.

And if she gets bullied into taking pills or getting a tubal,
it wasn't a mutual decision either and not good for the marriage either.

"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?

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
"Circe" ) writes:
I'm not opposed to vasectomies; I'm just opposed to forcing anybody to
undergo a surgical procedure (or have an IUD or take BCPs or anything else)
against their will. There are nearly always other alternatives.

Nobody's being forced into anything. There's always abstinence.

....which is probably a thousand times worse for a marriage than being
coerced (because I'm not actually planning on getting him drunk and
taking him to the clinic to get a V against his will, in spite of how
I, apparently, sound) into having a V.

Amy

Sue writes:
: "Jess" wrote in message
:Understandable, but please understand that it's a major squick for a guy to
:contemplate letting someone near his balls with something sharp

: I don't think that's good enough reason. Amy has to alter her hormones, so
: why is that any better? I think it's perfectly reasonable for the man to
: take on the responsibility of BC as long as the decision is mutual.

And the part of this post that bothers me is the unstated implication
that declining to go along with the program is somehow "unresponsible"
and "unreasonable." Somehow, often the mutual part gets lost in the wash.

Larry

In [email protected],
Jess wrote:

*
*"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
roups.com...
* 8. I'd be OK with another Mirena or perhaps a copper T, but I think my
* system is such that it's not so great for my partner. Either the
* strings were too long, and poked *me* (just inside my labia) or they
* are too short, and poke him occasionally.
*
*You can get the strings trimmed even shorter-mine are cut all the way up.

That's how mine was - the tip of the string was flush with the cervical
os. You couldn't trim it any shorter - he TRIED, but it just wasn't
possible. My poor husband said it felt like a razor poking him. It's much
better now with the length about 2 cm past the os. Neither of us is
bothered by it at all.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

wrote:
Sue writes:
: "Jess" wrote in message
:Understandable, but please understand that it's a major squick for a guy to
:contemplate letting someone near his balls with something sharp

: I don't think that's good enough reason. Amy has to alter her hormones, so
: why is that any better? I think it's perfectly reasonable for the man to
: take on the responsibility of BC as long as the decision is mutual.

And the part of this post that bothers me is the unstated implication
that declining to go along with the program is somehow "unresponsible"
and "unreasonable." Somehow, often the mutual part gets lost in the wash.

Explain to me how "Amy continues taking the pill," is mutual.

Amy

Amy wrote:
wrote:
Sue writes:
: "Jess" wrote in message
:Understandable, but please understand that it's a major squick for a guy to
:contemplate letting someone near his balls with something sharp

: I don't think that's good enough reason. Amy has to alter her hormones, so
: why is that any better? I think it's perfectly reasonable for the man to
: take on the responsibility of BC as long as the decision is mutual.

And the part of this post that bothers me is the unstated implication
that declining to go along with the program is somehow "unresponsible"
and "unreasonable." Somehow, often the mutual part gets lost in the wash.

Explain to me how "Amy continues taking the pill," is mutual.

Amy,
It really, really seems like you are wearing blinders here. No one has
said that you must continue taking the pill. No one thinks that forcing
you to take the pill is fair. And it is not.

What we are all trying to tell you is that it seems like you are
forcing him to get a vasectomy. And no matter how long the woman has
been handling things, no matter how many babies she's had - that does
not erase the unfairness of saying "honey, it's your turn. Here is when
you are having your surgery." "Oh, you don't like it? Well tough."

And maybe that's not how you've been handling it. But that's how you
are portraying it. And all of us feel that one partner requiring a
certain action - regardless of the other partners feelings to the
contrary - out of the other is unfair.

Cathy Weeks

Amy wrote:

It IS reversible, you know. Reversal is even covered by some
insurance.

FWIW it's *generally* only reversable for a relatively short period of
time. Eventually the man's body makes antibodies against the sperm and
kills it, and when the antibody production starts it doesn't stop, and
even if it's reversed, his own body still produces the antibodies, and
kills off the sperm before it can leave his body.

Cathy Weeks