The Ol' Snip-Snip

By Rebeldad Brian Reid

Biology is inherently unfair. No matter how seriously you take gender equity, men can't bear children. No pregnancy. No childbirth. No way around that. For my wife, pregnancy and childbirth were not particularly fun. And despite the occasional 1 a.m. runs to the Quickie-Mart to feed the crave du jour, there wasn't much I could do.

So when the time came to discuss ... ahem ... permanently capping our family size, I willingly volunteered to have a vasectomy. Heck -- it was the least I could do. My wife, in good humor, agreed that a little shared sacrifice wouldn't be a bad thing. I went under the knife last month.

I must report back, however, that there is no way that my procedure comes anywhere close to balancing out the physical-effects-of-pregnancy-and-childbirth ledger. Yes, it's a long 30 minutes in the operating room, but I was shuffling about immediately after the procedure and didn't pop anything stronger than a Tylenol. I would like to think this is due in large measure to the skills of my surgeon, but let's be clear: This was not a major encounter with the health care system. Not even close. Watching childbirth was a good deal more stressful than the old snip-snip.

Still, vasectomy is one of those procedures that generates a great deal of discussion. When I mentioned my plans to other guys who had had the surgery, I received all kinds of positive reports, urologist recommendations and testimonials (including some from the wives). I didn't hear much in the way of regret from those who had followed through.

I was surprised to find that I wasn't that philosophical, either before or after the procedure. I have two wonderful daughters but not a lot of longing for another one. Like our initial decision to start having children, it's hard to pinpoint the exact moment when my wife and I realized we were done, but I've never looked back. As usual, I'm curious whether my experience matches that of the masses -- anyone have second thoughts about permanent birth control?

Brian Reid writes about parenting and work-family balance. You can read his blog at rebeldad.com.

By Brian Reid |  May 3, 2007; 7:15 AM ET  | Category:  Dads
Previous: Start-Ups and Balance | Next: I Am Woman, Hair Me Roar


Add On Balance to Your Site
Keep up with the latest installments of On Balance with an easy-to-use widget. It's simple to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry to On Balance.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



My husband and I have had absolutely ZERO second thoughts about his being fixed. It was the best 30 minutes he feels he ever spent. I'm glad to not worry. Good good good...after 12 years good.

Posted by: dotted | May 3, 2007 7:25 AM

I just dont like the idea of surgery, I dont like doctors, hospitals, clinics... why cant I just be responsible, use protection and avoid the knife?

Posted by: anon | May 3, 2007 7:34 AM

17 years and no regrets.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 7:43 AM

Vesectomy, NO WAY!!!

My wife loves my deep, husky, masculin voice. Other chicks dig it too.

However, if you prefer to sing soprano for the choir, go ahead dudes, that's your choice.

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 3, 2007 7:47 AM

My husband had no problem doing it. We figured that it was either have him undergo a simple procedure or have me go on birth control, and I really didn't want to mess so much with my hormones for the rest of my child-bearing years. We have considered adding another child to our family through adoption, but that's another blog.

I do know women whose husbands refuse to do it. They are usually the kind of men who refer to their genitals as "the family jewels".

Posted by: WorkingMomX | May 3, 2007 7:48 AM

My husband would be willing to do it. I'm the one who's just not ready to slam shut the door to future children. Don't get me wrong, I've got two, one of each, don't want more at all, but I'm just not ready to do anything that permanent. Its a weird thing. I don't get men who are unwilling to do it and would rather their wives take hormones or use devices doesn't make sense to me. To each his own I suppose.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 7:51 AM

This blog could go wrong in so many ways today ......

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 7:55 AM

In today's post, another option....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702625.html?hpid=smartliving

Posted by: coincidence | May 3, 2007 7:58 AM

I'm reposting my post from last night.

I'm at work (rather late for me) and a friend emailed me this web link. I've been surfing through Mom Confessions for 15 minutes now. It's like a train wreck. I can't look away!! Leslie, somehow this might be worthy of a blog. The secret lives of moms or something . . .

http://www.truemomconfessions.com/

Posted by: WorkingMomX | May 2, 2007 08:51 PM

Posted by: WorkingMomX | May 3, 2007 8:03 AM

A friend of mine just recently underwent the surgery. He was nauseated for two weeks afterwards due to intense pain in that area. As with any surgery, there are risks. I don't know if I could go through with it. (And mine aren't the 'family jewels')

Posted by: Working Dad | May 3, 2007 8:04 AM

After I got a vasectomy, (at 40 years old with two kids) it was interesting to realize how many of my friends have made the same decision. I don't know if rates are increasing, but anecdotally, it seems so. It's nice not to worry about birth control any more.

Posted by: Robert in Austin | May 3, 2007 8:06 AM

Many of my friends' husbands have had the big V. I think it is great since for many of the women I know, the birth control issue has always been incumbent on them (whether the pill or whatever).

None of my friends' husbands have regretted the decision. The reason I know this is my husband has talked with many of them and, of course, I hear from my friends. Though there are outliers with any procedure, none of these guys experienced anything other than what Brian describes.

I also believe that those men who are resistant to the idea are usually-not always- those who associate the procedure with being emasculated. Bunk, imo.

Posted by: JS | May 3, 2007 8:14 AM

on poinWorkingMomX

http://www.truemomconfessions.com/

Woow! You are soo right! This site is a real eye opener that I can really relate to.
Alas, I can't post to it from my work PC.

Posted by: Bullwinkle | May 3, 2007 8:15 AM

To Father of 4: A vasectomy doesn't remove your toys and therefore doesn't affect hormone levels, so your "deep, husky, masculin [sic] voice" would remain intact. Please don't spread misinformation.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 8:17 AM

Could you all be living in a different universe?? Give me directions, I want to join your world! My husband would never even consider it, none of my friends' husbands would, and I have heard the topic discussed lots of times on the playground, with all the women complaining that their husbands won't consider a V.

My sample must be off, somehow, I realize. I wonder if I live in the wrong area??

Posted by: Ajax | May 3, 2007 8:17 AM

What are your husband's concerns?

Posted by: To Ajax | May 3, 2007 8:19 AM

Nothing truly "concrete". Vague notions of "losing masculinity", reluctance to be "inconvenienced" and, I think (guess) the fact that nobody in his social circle has ever done/considered it. They're a pretty conservative bunch and, while pc and enlightened enough not to actually say it, they (I'm sure) believe that, somehow, this is "women's business" that women need to take care of.

Posted by: Ajax | May 3, 2007 8:22 AM

December 13, 2005 - easy procedure. I was awake during it and was chatting with the doctor and nurses.

"Worst" part was the cauterization of the vas deferens. Nobody should see smoke coming from that area of the body - EVER.

No pain, no discomfort. Easy decision.

Posted by: Father of 2 | May 3, 2007 8:22 AM

My husband and I don't want kids. So we've discussed this idea a few times. I don't think we want to completely close the door on the kid option, so for now niether of us will get a permanent fix. But in the future, when we're positive about our decision, he will be the one under the knife. His procedure would be much less invasive than mine and less expensive.

It would be nice to never worry about birth control, but I would probably still take the pill for various other resons (seasonale is a godsend!). Is any other couple like that?

Posted by: Meesh | May 3, 2007 8:27 AM

Gotta agree with F02 at 8:22.
Actually, I had to talk my wife into it.

No loss of testoerone, or sex drive.
Probably even improved, since we could be more spontaneous with the possibility of pregnancy removed.

Still plenty of hair on chest (if not top of head), and still have a deep voice.

Tell him you will us a new oral contraceptive, "No".

Ask how he plans to support additional children, and their life events (marriage, college).

Posted by: To Ajax | May 3, 2007 8:27 AM

Father of 2

"Worst" part was the cauterization of the vas deferens. Nobody should see smoke coming from that area of the body - EVER."

Agree. But did you light up a nice cig when it was all over? mmmmmmm

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 8:30 AM

"Agree. But did you light up a nice cig when it was all over? mmmmmmm"

Would have if I still smoked. :)

Posted by: Father of 2 | May 3, 2007 8:33 AM

Father of 4: So, are the scars from your knuckles dragging on the ground as "attractive" as your "husky" voice?

One of the only things my STBX ever did right was have a vasectomy. Granted, it was after I nearly died giving birth to my second child in 16 months, and only because I swore there would be no more nookie until I was pretty much guaranteed that I would not be back in the maternity ward any time soon. The old dosage pill from before child #1 was no longer effective, and he did want to use other protection (comfort level -- his, of course) while we waited for the doctor to see me and give me a prescription for the correct dosage. And by almost died, I mean I spent 48 hours in the ICU, from complications I don't really want to go into.

In all seriousness, I think it really does help balance the fairness ledger, and it demonstrates a certain level of maturity to not be too in love with your own "boys."

As for being responsible and using other birth control: the hormonal methods that are more effective all are for women. They can fail (second son is evidence of that) and they may cause long-term complications in the meantime. All the barrier methods (condom, diaphragm, sponge) have somewhat higher failure rates. Surgical sterilization is the most effective, and unless your wife has an obstetrician who will do a tubal ligation as part of a C-section (I asked, and mine said I was too young to make that decision!), it's easiest to go in for the old snip-snip.

Posted by: educmom | May 3, 2007 8:34 AM

Father of 2

"Agree. But did you light up a nice cig when it was all over? mmmmmmm"

Would have if I still smoked. :)


It's funny how that craving never quite goes away during times of stress, no matter how long you've been smoke-free.

Wonder if it is the same for other types of drug addiction.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 8:37 AM

"it's hard to pinpoint the exact moment when my wife and I realized we were done"

Not us! That moment was immediately after no. 2 arrived (well, for me, it was pretty much during delivery!). As soon as the boy made his appearance, my husband told the doc to schedule him to be snipped. She said they couldn't do that. My husband thought she was worried that the decision was too quick, so he said "no, really, I'm serious, we decided this even before he was born, I want to be snipped." And the doc said, "no, really, I'm serious: this is a Catholic hospital, and we don't do that here. But there's a specialist right across the street."

Of course, it's now 18 months later, and we haven't gotten around to doing anything about it yet. . . .

Posted by: Laura | May 3, 2007 8:38 AM

My doctor did the surgery in his office, and we listened to my Preservation Hall Jazz Band CD during the brief procedure.

1 day in bed with an ice pack, and I was recovered.

Two months later, one last test to make sure my little swimmers were gone for good (we had fun evicting them).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 8:39 AM

"It's funny how that craving never quite goes away during times of stress, no matter how long you've been smoke-free.

Wonder if it is the same for other types of drug addiction."

Had nothing to do with stress. It was a stressless procedure. There are still times when I used to smoke (like after a nice dinner while drinking coffee) when I find myself holding things (like the sugar wrapper) like a cig.

Posted by: Father of 2 | May 3, 2007 8:40 AM

Who is that idiot?? It is not castration!!

The cauterization is a trip, though. The smell of burning flesh is one thing, to recognize it's YOUR burning flesh is another!

I have never had children. Never wanted children. Tried to get one at 35 when I was single and the doctor wouldn't perform the operation. When I got married at 54 I had the procedure. (My wife is 13 years younger so conception remained a possibility.)

Minimal discomfort, no change in libido.

Any man who thinks having his wife's tubes tied is a preferable alternative for birth control is a selfish thoughtless pig.

Posted by: Sing soprano? | May 3, 2007 8:41 AM

Men may want to think twice about having a vasectomy.

A Northwestern University researcher announced yesterday there is a possible link between the procedure and two unusual forms of dementia that cause men
to lose their ability to understand words and exhibit bizarre behaviors -- including compulsive gambling and shoplifting.

Symptoms of the two neurological diseases are distressing. Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) causes people to have trouble understanding speech and expressing
themselves while frontotemporal dementia (FTD) prompts personality changes, lack of judgment and irrational actions.

One sufferer in the study, for example, was found by his sons on the floor of a restaurant men's room doing push-ups.

Evidence linking vasectomies with PPA and FTD began on a small scale, but grew in scope.

Sandra Weintraub, principal investigator and a professor of psychology at Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine, took note when a patient said he began
having problems with words and language right after his vasectomy at age 43.

It prompted her to investigate a possible correlation. During a review of nine men suffering from PPA, Ms. Weintraub discovered that eight of them had had
vasectomies. A larger study of almost 50 men with PPA revealed that 40 percent had had vasectomies.

"It doesn't mean having a vasectomy will give you this disease, but it may be a risk factor to increase your chance of getting it," Ms. Weintraub said.

While she describes the findings as "preliminary," a smaller study of 30 men with FTD found that 37 percent of them had undergone a vasectomy.

Ms. Weintraub theorizes a vasectomy may raise the risk of developing the conditions because the surgical procedure itself breaks down a protective barrier
between the bloodstream and the testes; sperm continue to be produced but are disposed of in the body.

In 60 to 70 percent of men with vasectomies, the immune system mistakes sperm for foreign proteins and produces antibodies to counter these "invaders" once
the barrier is gone. The antibodies, Ms. Weintraub says, may eventually enter and damage the brain.

In the United States, about a half million men annually undergo vasectomies, according to the National Institutes of Health -- normally a 30-minute out-patient
procedure. Several studies indicate that about 90 percent are satisfied with the results and free of pain, infection or psychological problems.

Still, between 6 percent and 11 percent later regret their decision after they remarry or their financial fortunes change, according to statistics from
the Mayo Clinic. More than half of the men seeking fertility treatments were seeking a vasectomy reversal.

Ms. Weintraub is preparing to apply her theory in a national study.

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 3, 2007 8:42 AM

The generous wife I was........ I had the tubal which is much more involved than the "big V".. my reasoning being if something happened to me (aka, death), at least my husband could have more children.. well, something happened to me.. he divorced me and married a younger gal and is having more children............. Told me he wished he'd listened to "my compromise" when I told him I would have more children if he'd get a job where I could stay home from work to raise them......... Darn - why was I so nice to him after I'd done 17 years of birth control pills and bore his two sons for him? And why didn't he speak up BEFORE the tubal about how strongly he wanted more kids - especially by taking action and making arrangements so I could stay home? And why didn't he spend more time with the kids we already had to show me he truly was interested in more kids. Lots of questions. Marriage is compromise - make sure both people are in cohoots on the children thing.

Posted by: C.W. | May 3, 2007 8:42 AM

"That moment was immediately after no. 2 arrived (well, for me, it was pretty much during delivery!). As soon as the boy made his appearance, my husband told the doc to schedule him to be snipped"

When we were in the hospital for #2, we told the OB that if he had to do a cesearian that he should tie her tubes while he was in there. Fortunately, wife delivered vaginally.

My urologist won't snip a guy if his youngest is less than 3 months old. He said with a chance of SIDS higher in first 3 months, he did want to do something permanent that might be changed later.

Posted by: Father of 2 | May 3, 2007 8:43 AM

To all: The cauterization is indeed disconcerting. But a small price to pay ...

Posted by: Brian Reid | May 3, 2007 8:44 AM

A guy in my office had the big V and later got the TWO biggest surprises of his life: 1) it re-healed, and 2) ...
I'm afraid there is only ONE 100% method = the big A(bstinence).
Oh, I don't recommend an other = Green Light Laser treatment for a prostate problem. Absolutely everything works as it should in every way, except, the flow is reversed and there is no chance of fertilization. Just a by-product of the proceedure.

Posted by: Surprise | May 3, 2007 8:45 AM

"To all: The cauterization is indeed disconcerting. But a small price to pay ..."

How about the spraying of the iodine solution? My doc says they have to keep it in the fridge to prevent bacteria from growing and that stuff is COLD!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 8:46 AM

Yeah . . I had second thoughts. They confirmed the first thoughts and the snip-snip were right. Third thoughts too, after 40 years, remain the same.

Posted by: Peter Brewster | May 3, 2007 8:48 AM

"So when the time came to discuss ... ahem ... permanently capping our family size, I willingly volunteered to have a vasectomy. Heck -- it was the least I could do."

You sir, are a traitor to all of man-kind, and your massochistic exhuberance for self-mutilation is appalling. However, I must commend you for your positive attitude... though perhaps you hear nothing negative because of a "sour grapes" mentality (pun intended, of course, as always). You certainly can not espouse the regret of something so final without becomming bitter, so you embrace it as something positive... though if you do change your mind, there are reversal surgeries... but fat chance of that being allowed as you already let the cat out of the "sack." I suppose if the ball(s) were in the other court, I might have a different opinion. ;-P

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 8:50 AM

A vasectomy isn't a 100% guarantee to birth control, though; the procedure can be incomplete and men have fathered children after getting one.

Also, the reconstruction rate is not good; less than half of vasectomies can be successfully reversed if the man finds himself in a situation where his partner wants children (remarriage, widowed, etc.).

Back when both of us did not want children, I offered to get the procedure. Now I'm glad we didn't get it done!

Posted by: John L | May 3, 2007 8:51 AM

The most difficult part was getting my wife to understand that everything would still be all ooey gooey.

Posted by: Shooting Blanks | May 3, 2007 8:53 AM

Also, to all men who might consider this, at no time during the procedure should you laugh.

Posted by: Shooting Blanks | May 3, 2007 8:54 AM

The most difficult part was getting my wife to understand that everything would still be all ooey gooey.

Posted by: Shooting Blanks | May 3, 2007 08:53 AM

Sure would be nice if someone could figure out a way to tidy it up! That's worth paying for!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 8:56 AM

It is sadly funny that I can post nearly ANYTHING here, but if it is in a column about the Iraq war I can not say anything positive about what some of the troops have managed to accomplish, nor can I offer a logical dissenting opinion about what Congress attempts. The filters are so tight that unless I blindly agree with what was originally posted my comments are rejected- and I am not even attempting to use profanity or say anything inflamatory! However, others seem to have no problem attacking the president. Odd, that.

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 8:58 AM

To Father of 4: The Northwestern research was a small, unreplicated case-control study (hardly the gold standard for assessing risk) and doesn't give me much pause. I couldn't even figure how many people nationwide are affected with PPA. A Northwestern blog from 2003 notes that "several hundred individual" have been identified with the condition ... hardly a huge number. If I have the time, I'll whip out the calculator and figure out what the absolute risk is of vasectomy-related PPA is, even taking the Northwestern results at face value. It's a staggeringly small number, I would suspect, and almost certainly way smaller than the risk of anaphylaxis from a latex allergy.

(Maybe the discussion today will evolve into a science debate. That'd be cool.)

Posted by: Brian Reid | May 3, 2007 8:59 AM

Brian Reid

"To all: The cauterization is indeed disconcerting. But a small price to pay ..."

Hold the fort! No one told me about cauterization!! I would need a lot of valium to deal with that!


Posted by: Rocky | May 3, 2007 8:59 AM

What have we read so often on this "On Balance" blog? "Don't let your earning power be lost. Your husband may die, or divorce you, and then you will have to be able to earn enough to support yourself and your children." In other words, "Play it safe, because you don't know what might happen in the future."

How about this: "Don't get your tubes tied unless you know that future pregnancy would risk serious or fatal health consequences. Your husband may die, or divorce you, and then you may want to have children with a second husband. Or (far worse) disease or an auto accident or a war may (R"L) kill some of your existing children, and you may want more." Again, "Play it safe."

The same goes for a husband. You don't know what the future has in store for you, your wife, and your children. Don't destroy your ability to reproduce. "Play it safe."

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | May 3, 2007 9:01 AM

Actually, the most difficult part is the shaving.

Posted by: Shooting Blanks | May 3, 2007 9:02 AM

i got snipped when my youngest was 5 months old (he'll be 10 next week) ... drove myself there and back on a friday am ... listened to santana live on my cd walkman during the procedure ... the cauterization didnt bother me at all ... but at one point, i SWORE that he had reached up to about my THROAT to find the 2nd vas ... spent the rest of the day in bed ... played a softball (no pun intended) double-header (no pun intended) sunday night ... i asked the urologist "how quickly can i come back for the "shootin' blanks" test without seeming like a freak ?" ... i was "good to go" by the next friday ... only long term item was a few rounds of 'sperm granuloma' that are pretty uncomfortable (and scairy the first time) - they clear up on their own in a week or two ... consistency and volume of 'output' seem different too (less and runnier) ...

no regrets

Posted by: 21042 dad o' 2 | May 3, 2007 9:03 AM

You definitiely want the cauterization.

As my surgeon explained, first he removed a diagonally cut slice of the vas to repent re-attachment of the vas.

Then he sutured shut each end of the vas, also to prevent re-attachment.

Then he cauterized the sutured ends of the vas, again to prevent reattachment.

No nerve endings in the vas so no big deal.

Now the anesthetic before opening the scrotum was another story....

Posted by: To Rocky: | May 3, 2007 9:04 AM

In the last few years, I have met several men who are opposed to the idea of vasectomies in the general sense, and my first reaction is admittedly like that of sing soprano? above - i.e. that men who think a tubal litigation is a preferred alternative are thoughtless and selfish ... okay, okay, and also kindof cowardly, being that I have a biased perspective - my dad is one of those champs that had TWO ... and my youngest brother is the infamous vasectomy baby of the family (and my poor dad also has to endure that everyone in the world hears this story because we all find it so amazing)
moral of the story: ALWAYS go to that follow-up appointment :)

Posted by: TakomaMom | May 3, 2007 9:05 AM

There was one weird and unsettling psychological side effect of the procedure. For a few months there I had far more fantasies of infidelity. It is as if without the fear of inducing an unwanted pregancy the scenarios somehow became more plausible.

Posted by: Shooting Blanks | May 3, 2007 9:06 AM

I delivered both of my children by C-section, and had tubal ligation at the end of the second procedure. What an easy way to go! Five extra minutes on the OR table and it was all done. Our decision was clear and I have zero regrets - I'm an older mom, two is just right for us. I'm thankful I don't have to take OCPs now, and it saves my husband from a procedure (albeit minor). I did make sure, in the interest of fairness, that he would agree to a vasectomy if this were not an option - he could have been placating me with his answer ("yes") but I think not. Anyway, just a plug for this option if life works out to offer it.

Interestingly, my OBGYN (who also had her children late in her childbearing years) said that she herself was planning tubal ligation as part of her C-section, but chickened out 5 minutes before surgery because she was afraid that if something happened to the baby, she would want to try once more to have a child. She regrets her decision to cancel the tubal. So, I definitely needed to separate the desire to have another child from the fallacy of replacing one. Once I realized these are not truly linked, I was at peace with whatever life intended for each of my children and still did not want to risk a future pregnancy.

Posted by: anon for now | May 3, 2007 9:09 AM

To Shooting Blanks: I've already blocked that out.

To Matt in Aberdeen: I actually did a quick mental calculation there. In order to change my mind: my wife/children would have to leave the picture by some tragedy, I'd have to meet someone else, fall in love, change my mind about raising addition children AND be confident that there would be no way to reverse the procedure (or, as my urologist put it "just go in there an get them.") Those are some pretty long odds.

Posted by: Brian Reid | May 3, 2007 9:10 AM

Wow, timely topic for me. I had it done a month and a half ago. My experience is pretty similar to Brian's -- I didn't want my wife to jepordize her health anymore, we have 3 great kids, the surgery was painless, and the recovery was qucik. I also think I had a really great doctor.

The difference in our experiences is this: I was was actually sort of sad to be "done." I think it was harder for me to process the fact that the whole baby stage, the opportunity, the possibility of change in the family was over. I really love adding to the family, and I know this is spoken like a person who never carried a baby or had morning sickness or was so happy to get a needle in his back or delivered a baby. So I did what my head (and wife) told me to do and left my heart out of it.

On a lighter note, should we wait until after noon to discuss the unusual experience of "prepping the area"?

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 9:12 AM

This must be the good hubbies/dads forum...almost all the men posting are willing to shoot blanks -- and even most of the ones who aren't have logical reasons for hesitating.

Maybe Chris and Fo4 can slouch over to the caveman blog with all the other men who "think" like them.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:13 AM

If I had a procedure during my first marriage (2 children) I would never get my wonderful son in the second marriage. And believe me, during my first marriage I was ambivalent even abouut those 2 children, let alone was planning for more.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:16 AM

Matt in Aberdeen

"Don't destroy your ability to reproduce. "Play it safe." "

No sale here on your Nazi style propaganda. I am not a baby machine. You wouldn't be one either if you ever gave birth to a child.

Posted by: Born Free | May 3, 2007 9:17 AM

women, if it's "good, good, good..." -- go and fix yourself. My buddy doesn't even fix his male dogs.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:19 AM

"My urologist won't snip a guy if his youngest is less than 3 months old. He said with a chance of SIDS higher in first 3 months, he did want to do something permanent that might be changed later."

I've heard that, too -- that's what my husband thought the doc was saying. But for us, we decided even before we got pregnant with no. 2 that if it didn't work, that was our last shot at it, period. Between age, miscarriages, medical complications, etc., even trying for no. 2 pushed me to my limit emotionally and physically -- if something happened, we were prepared to live happily with the one we have. On the other hand, having three scared the bejeebers out of us both. Wasn't it Mr. Macho himself, Clint Eastwood, who said, "A man's got to know his limitations"? That's where we were -- and 3 mos. wasn't going to change it one way or the other.

Also, I am laughing at this:

"'Agree. But did you light up a nice cig when it was all over? mmmmmmm'"

Would have if I still smoked. :)"

I thought the point was that you WERE smoking -- just not in a good way. :-)

Posted by: Laura | May 3, 2007 9:21 AM

My husband is so freaked out about the thought of a V that I can't even say the word "snip" in context without him shuddering.

We personally know two couples, both good friends of ours, who got pregnant after the husband had a V (and several tests make sure it had worked). So I'm not pushing it that much, since we really like the IUD.

Posted by: Neighbor | May 3, 2007 9:25 AM

but I'm just not ready to do anything that permanent. Its a weird thing. I don't get men who are unwilling to do it

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 07:51 AM

Maybe they feel the same way you do?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:27 AM

"women, if it's "good, good, good..." -- go and fix yourself. My buddy doesn't even fix his male dogs."

Wow, so a woman's health is now down below even male dogs on the importance scale? Dang.

Believe me, if it were anywhere near as easy for me as for my husband, I'd have had it done already. Luckily, my husband is man enough to want to protect me from the much higher risks associated with a tubal ligation. He's seen me go through enough.

Posted by: Laura | May 3, 2007 9:28 AM

Neighbor - which IUD do you have? I'm getting the Mirena soon - thoughts, expericences appreciated.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:29 AM

After we had two healthy children it was time to consider the snip-snip. I put it off for about a year after the issue first came up, and then did it.

I am sorry I waited. Many women on the Pill find that their desire is lessened. They also avoid the fertile period of their cycles. Guys, a fertile woman with full desire is a great playmate!

Shaving the "boys" was tough. The post operative pain lasted several days. The toughest part was growing the hair back. It itched and prickled. I suggest making a "jewel sack" out of the toe of a child's sock, and wearing it until the hair is long enough not to cause irritation.

Posted by: Matt M | May 3, 2007 9:30 AM

I suggest making a "jewel sack" out of the toe of a child's sock, and wearing it until the hair is long enough not to cause irritation.

Oh my God, they are that little?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:32 AM

First child at age 31. Discussed having a second child at age 34 1/2 - I wasn't willing to be pregnant and have a child beyond age 35 now matter how many other women do. Having more than 2 children was not in the picture due to age and the fact that we would both be working full time and thought a third child would take too much from the first two. So, permanent birth control discussions took place while pregnant with no 2.

DH said no way for the big V. He had major surgery in his past and would not ever undergo elective surgery for anything. He would take responsibility for other methods of BC - it wasn't a matter of him thinking it was my responsibility. I was the one who didn't want barrier methods. I knew that I would be the one carrying the unwanted pregnancy, so I had no problem with being the one to get fixed.

Baby No 2 turned out to be born via C-section, so snip-snip was right at the time of her birth.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:32 AM

I suggest making a "jewel sack" out of the toe of a child's sock, and wearing it until the hair is long enough not to cause irritation.

Oh my God, they are that little?

He said child, not toddler.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:34 AM

Matt -- you could be the Martha Stewart of vasectomys. The "jewel sack" sounds genius. I wish I had known that, because the stubble "down there" bothered me more and lasted much longer than the actual work the doctor did.

While we are on the topic, there are a few times in a man's life when he deserves total privacy. I believe that shaving your privates is such a time -- it was not pretty when my wife poked her head in the bathroom and asked "how's the balls shaving going?" I could have really hurt myself when she startled me.

Posted by: Arington Dad | May 3, 2007 9:35 AM

"While we are on the topic, there are a few times in a man's life when he deserves total privacy. I believe that shaving your privates is such a time -- it was not pretty when my wife poked her head in the bathroom and asked "how's the balls shaving going?" I could have really hurt myself when she startled me."

HMO? At my doctor's office, the nurse di the shaving. Ah, the "lap" of luxury.

Posted by: Father of 2 | May 3, 2007 9:36 AM

Arington Dad |

Why do the balls need to get shaved?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:37 AM

"Sure would be nice if someone could figure out a way to tidy it up! That's worth paying for!"

Swallowing has a way of taking care of that. I love how my hubby tastes...

And my hubby had his before we got married when he was 25. He offered to get it done, and I was fine with that! He later admitted that first and foremost, he did it for himself. I'm simply reaping the benefits. It's quite a sexy quality in a men who is willing to take responsibility for birth control. It was time in our relationship to do that anyhow. Since he has a latex allergy, it was the best choice for us overall.

And, to clear up misconceptions: No, you are not castrated. You still have testicles. You are still a man. You still produce sperm, it's just reabsorbed into the body. You still have a libido. The only difference is, that the bridge is out, so to speak. The troops can't get through!

Oh, and reversals are typically NOT covered by insurance, so they are expensive. Rightfully so. This is considered a permanent procedure. Also, the success rate of a man being able to father a child after a reversal is pretty low. If you think you want kids, or more kids, don't get it done.

Posted by: JRS | May 3, 2007 9:37 AM

I suggest making a "jewel sack" out of the toe of a child's sock, and wearing it until the hair is long enough not to cause irritation.

Oh my God, they are that little?

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 09:32 AM

Child, not infant. My child's socks are big enough for a horses jewels.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:37 AM

One of the only things my STBX ever did right was have a vasectomy.

Posted by: educmom | May 3, 2007 08:34 AM

I hope he never wants to have kids with someone else after you forced him to sterilize himself.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:38 AM

"Why do the balls need to get shaved? "

So the hairs don't get into the incision.

Posted by: Father of 2 | May 3, 2007 9:40 AM

The surgery is on the testicles, so the "balls" need to be shaved, so the doctor has a clean area to work on.

Also, this is a good example of why it's easier for a man to get sterilized -- the genitals are hanging there on the outside. To do a similar proceduce on a woman, a doctor has to go deep inside her body -- more cutting.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 9:41 AM

What would you do if your husband was one of the very, very few that end up impotent after the big V?

The risk is small, but still very real for those it happens to.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:41 AM

I have the Mirena. I had never really heard of it (though I consider myself fairly well-informed about such things) but my sister-in-law raved about it, so I looked into it.

I hated it for the first 2 weeks or so-- had cramping and bleeding. Now I love it. It's maintenance-free and my periods are so light they're barely noticable. And it lasts 5 years. My insurance covered it with a $10 copay, same as it charges for *one month* of the pill. We get 60 months' coverage for the same price as one month's coverage. So it's been a huge cost savings for us (though YMMV).

I like the fact that it's reversible if we change our minds. And it is the most reliable form of birth control out there.

Posted by: Neighbor | May 3, 2007 9:45 AM

"What would you do if your husband was one of the very, very few that end up impotent after the big V?

The risk is small, but still very real for those it happens to."

Those men went to a discount doctor. Sometimes, it's worth paying top dollar.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:45 AM

Brian, did you know this little blurb was running elsewhere in the Post today?

"One for the Guys: Men, too, have an option for a faster, less painful procedure than vasectomy to tie the vas deferens -- the tubes that carry sperm from the testicles to the penis. In the increasingly popular "no-scalpel vasectomy," a doctor uses an instrument called a dissecting forceps to poke a very small hole in the skin of the testicles to reach the vas deferens. There is very little bleeding, and no stitches are needed to close the tiny openings (one on each side). The procedure is very effective (there is less than a 1 percent chance the man's partner will get pregnant) and takes about 10 minutes to perform in the doctor's office."

Posted by: TakomaMom | May 3, 2007 9:47 AM

but I'm just not ready to do anything that permanent. Its a weird thing. I don't get men who are unwilling to do it

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 07:51 AM

Maybe they feel the same way you do?

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 09:27 AM

What I meant was for couples who really don't want more and want something permanent, why won't the guys do it. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 9:48 AM

"What would you do if your husband was one of the very, very few that end up impotent after the big V?"

My husband is already impotent without the big V. Impotentcy is a side effect of a medication he cannot live without.

We don't have have a lot of choice about it and we have found ways to deal with it, mostly toys.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:51 AM

Takoma Mom: I talked to my urologist briefly about the no-scapel variety ... he gave me the impression that the traditional variety wasn't much more involved, and why try something fancy when the old-fashioned way already works so well.

Posted by: Brian Reid | May 3, 2007 9:52 AM

I was curious about the effectiveness rate of V. It's funny, but I feel as though I would still want to use BC even if DH had one. I realize that the effectiveness rate of V is higher than that of hormonal BC. I suppose it's that the anecdotes of couples conceiving post-V is somewhat dramatic.

I guess I have a few questions for the gyn to weigh any possible advantages of DH having a V for the purpose of me discontinuing hormonal BC. I've tolerated it well, and I've not yet had a gyn who expressed any hesitatation about hormonal BC as far as long-term health effects as I'm healthy and don't smoke.

Are there any other women out there who would have qualms about stopping BC post-V? To the men who have had the procedure, did your wives feel any hesitation about stopping hormonal BC?

From the Mayo Clinic website:
"Effectiveness rate. The effectiveness rate of a vasectomy is greater than 99 percent. Fewer than two men out of 1,000 who have this procedure will father a child. However, the procedure doesn't provide immediate protection against pregnancy, as a man's sperm count decreases gradually after the procedure rather than all at once. It takes about three months before sperm are no longer present in the semen post-vasectomy. A semen specimen must be examined and found to be completely free of sperm before you can rely on a vasectomy for birth control."

Posted by: Marian | May 3, 2007 9:54 AM

Those men went to a discount doctor. Sometimes, it's worth paying top dollar.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 09:45 AM

You are kidding right. Error is always a possibility.

You didn't answer the question.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 9:57 AM

Even after more than a decade after the vasectomy, we use condoms. To keep things neat, and to add another methods of protection.

Posted by: To Marian: | May 3, 2007 9:58 AM

We don't have have a lot of choice about it and we have found ways to deal with it, mostly toys.

What about your husband? Not being snarky, but that would suck.

Posted by: anon | May 3, 2007 9:58 AM

We new right after my wife got pregnant with an unexpected no. 3. Since we knew she was getting a c-section she volunteered for the tubal ligation. She was pretty insistent that I not get the V since I'm five years younger than her. Of course, after she got pregnant a year after the ligation, she changed her mind pretty quickly.

Posted by: The better Chris | May 3, 2007 9:58 AM

I don't have any children and I did it. No regrets. Basically the same experience as far as any discomfort. I was given a prescription for a pain killer, but never used it. A couple of advil was all I needed.

The only thing I object to slightly is the third degree I got from the urologist and the fact that some men have been denied the procedure by some urologist. I can understand wanting to make sure the patient thinks of it as permanent, but to completely deny someone makes no sense at all. There are many incompetent parents out there bearing more children and making those children's lives hell being a burden on society. No one stands in their way when they keep popping out kids. But when someone wants to be responsible obstacles are thrown in their way. Well that's my little rant.

Posted by: PersonL | May 3, 2007 9:58 AM

WorkingMomX, that site is great! I'm already addicted.

Posted by: Meesh | May 3, 2007 9:59 AM

Me too! That site is funny and sad.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 10:00 AM

"Are there any other women out there who would have qualms about stopping BC post-V? To the men who have had the procedure, did your wives feel any hesitation about stopping hormonal BC?"

Wife stopped hormonal BC before we had our first. Never went back on. Once I got the all-clear from the doc, we stopped the barrier method.

Posted by: Father of 2 | May 3, 2007 10:04 AM

"I got from the urologist and the fact that some men have been denied the procedure by some urologist."

My urologist didn't ask me any questions about marital status, number of kids, ages, etc. Which I thought was strange, but I was happy that I didn't have to explain my decision.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 10:04 AM

Men should consider this option with great care. While we all want to live happily ever after, fully half of marriages end and it is not improbable that a man might wish to have a child with a future spouse. I dated a guy who had a vasectomy after 3 daughters with a wife who later left him - the fact that he can't have any more children most likely makes him less "marketable" to the younger women he wanted to date.

Posted by: just one opinion | May 3, 2007 10:05 AM

They made a recent movie called V. The guy dies in the end. That's about all the reason I need to avoid anything called V. ;-)

The only creative juices I want to hear about on this blog have to do with thought processes, thank you very much!

Speaking of which...

There once was a man from Nantucket
Who had the doctor nip-tuck it
The woman remaining
Started complaining
Of daycare, stupid men and the stupid double standards in this world that keep her from beeing treated like a human being who is fully capable of opening her own GD door on her own and can do anything a man can do a thousand times better, and when opening the toilet lid can remember to shut it.

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 10:07 AM

WorkingMomX, that site is great! I'm already addicted.

Posted by: Meesh | May 3, 2007 09:59 AM

Me too! That site is funny and sad.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 10:00 AM "

And refreshingly honest!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:07 AM

"Also, the reconstruction rate is not good; less than half of vasectomies can be successfully reversed if the man finds himself in a situation where his partner wants children (remarriage, widowed, etc.)."

We were very lucky in this regard. My husband was married before he met me, and he and his wife decided they didn't want kids and so he had a vasectomy.

By the time we started talking about the idea of having it reversed so we could try to have kids, it had been around 10 years, and apparently the success rate of reversals is strongly tied to how long its been since the original procedure.

The first doctor we went to suggested doing a biopsy, which would be covered by our insurance, to determine whether he still had active production. Stupidly, we did not get a second opinion as this doc had been highly recommended by my hubby's physician, so we did the biopsy. It was a much more major surgery than the reversal turned out to be - general anasthesia, a lot of recovery time. The doctor looked at the slides and misdiagnosed some problem. THEN we got a second opinion. The second dr said the slide was showing something different (won't go into detalis on this), and there was simple blood test that will show whether there's still active sperm production - we did that and it came back positive.

My husband got the reversal done, and four months later I was pregnant.

Amazingly, now that we're done with kids, he's offered to go under the knife AGAIN for another vasectomy.

I think he's one of the few men who has gone through nearly as much physical discomfort and as much effort in becoming a father as I did becoming a mother - he's amazing. I've been waiting on having him do it again though - like moxiemom, I'm just not ready to close that door again. But I'm getting there...

Posted by: anonymous for this | May 3, 2007 10:09 AM

"the fact that he can't have any more children most likely makes him less "marketable" to the younger women he wanted to date."

He just needs to keep searching for the right woman then. What some view as less marketable, others will find that quality to be just right.

Besides, why would someone who has decided not to have more kids date someone who wants them anyway? That spells disaster before it even takes off.

Posted by: JRS | May 3, 2007 10:11 AM

Neighbor, I appreciate the info on Mirena. My husband is totally willing to do the ol' snip snip, but (as much as my second pregnancy was a pain in the a**--and everywhere else) I'm still fairly young and not yet ready for something so potentially permanent.

My OBGYN raves about the Mirena, but he's a dude and so I can't really get a read from him on how painful the initial insertion is. Can you give me an idea on the 1-10 scale on how painful the insertion was, and how much the cramping afterward hurt? Thank you!!!

Posted by: APL | May 3, 2007 10:12 AM

I certainly think men should take the decision responsibly. There are reversal procedures, but I agree with my urologist that it should be considered a permanent procedure. If there is any chance you might change your mind, other birth control methods are probably better. However, if an man knows he doesn't want any more children or any children at all it is a great option.

I want nothing to do with a woman who wants me for my sperm. If that's her main goal, the conversation ends real quick. If she's one of those "oops" women, she'll be waisting her time.

Posted by: PersonL | May 3, 2007 10:14 AM

I never understood why men expected their wives to willingly and happily go through the pain of pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood, and then be unwilling to undergo a 30-minute procedure that causes no pain and involves very little recovery time.

Vasectomy =/= castration. You are not less of a man for not having had one; in my opinion you are more of one.

This is something I will have to discuss with my future husband, should I ever decide to get married.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 10:16 AM

"Besides, why would someone who has decided not to have more kids date someone who wants them anyway? That spells disaster before it even takes off."

Posted by: JRS

Cause the gross old guy is looking for a young hot trophy wife. The trophy wife wants at least one kid with the old guy to jack up the divorce settlement and to insure child support.

It's all about the money!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:16 AM

My husband had the surgery scheduled after our twins were born - his father had done it and he felt it was a male responsibility. I asked him to cancel - just too final. An IUD has worked great for us for about 14 years now.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:21 AM

"Can you give me an idea on the 1-10 scale on how painful the insertion was, and how much the cramping afterward hurt? Thank you!!!"

APL, I have the IUD that has copper (can't remember right now if that's the Mirena or the Paragaurd). The insertion was definitely uncomfortable - nowhere near childbirth uncomfortable, but definitely some weird twinges and cramping. I can't really rate it though because I don't remember that well - but I know that some Advil took care of it, and it was the day of my son's first b-day party and I was fine.

However, my periods are MUCH more uncomfortable, still, over a year and half later. For about a day and half in the middle of my period I have terrible cramping. Enough that I'm starting to think more serious about saying yes to my husband getting another V so I can get rid of this thing. I know I'm in the minority, though.

Posted by: anonymous for this (again) | May 3, 2007 10:22 AM

"Are there any other women out there who would have qualms about stopping BC post-V?"

Yep. I see it as an added layer of protection, not a certainty.

Posted by: Laura | May 3, 2007 10:25 AM

'anon for now' - thanks! I had come to similar conclusions this week; Having #2 in a couple of weeks via c-section and I appreciate you sharing your experience. Husband does not want to get a "V" - which is fine by me (frankly, I think he might still want the option to father future children and he is a surgery 'wimp' really). But I know I don't want more kids by birth. It feels like I'm taking personal control of my fertility. Hormones and pills never agreed with me. Everyone should have the option to a family that is the right size for them financially and emotionally.

Posted by: wash dc | May 3, 2007 10:27 AM

We don't have have a lot of choice about it and we have found ways to deal with it, mostly toys.

What about your husband? Not being snarky, but that would suck.

Posted by: anon | May 3, 2007 09:58 AM

anon, if this was a serious question, you have missed out on the fun of shopping for, and using, sex toys as a couple. My husband - who is far from impotent, LOL - loves when we use them together. Expand your options. Sex toys = do-it-yourself only if you want them that way.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:28 AM

I don't remember the insertion as being painful. It started hurting about 15 minutes later. I used to have really bad cramps when I was a teenager, and it felt like that. Except it kept on going, on and off, for several weeks.

It really is worth it, though. I especially like the extremely light periods. Some folks have them go away, but I'm happy with the way mine are noticeable but not a problem.

Posted by: Neighbor | May 3, 2007 10:29 AM

anon, if this was a serious question, you have missed out on the fun of shopping for, and using, sex toys as a couple. My husband - who is far from impotent, LOL - loves when we use them together. Expand your options. Sex toys = do-it-yourself only if you want them that way.

Yes, but I thought that impotent meant not being able to get an erection, i.e., not being able to get off. Maybe you should read more carefully before you spew your "expand your options garbage." My question had nothing to do with sex toys.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:34 AM

By the way, the Mirena is not the copper one. I used to have bad cramps so I chose the Mirena, since the copper one can cause cramping. The only advantage, I think, of the copper one is that it can stay in for 10 years, while the Mirena only lasts 5.

With my Mirena I haven't noticed any cramping at all once the two-week adjustment period was over.

Posted by: Neighbor | May 3, 2007 10:34 AM

I could not resist the obvious choice for the day... courtesy of Devo

Crack that whip
Give the man a snip
Smoke some crack
Get on your hubby's back
When the children come along
You must snip it
Before the thought sinks in too long
You must snip it
When something's going wrong
You must snip it
now snip it
like a grape
shave it up
cut straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it's now too late
to snip it
snip it good
If he wants to get around
You must snip it
He will never live it down
If you snip it
No one gets their way
Until they snip it
WAIT DON'T snip it!
Snip not good!

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 10:34 AM

"What about your husband? Not being snarky, but that would suck."

Posted by: anon | May 3, 2007 09:58 AM

We've also learned to deal in fun ways with my cancer surgeries. Impotence is far from the end of the world.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:35 AM

Men should consider this option with great care. While we all want to live happily ever after, fully half of marriages end and it is not improbable that a man might wish to have a child with a future spouse. I dated a guy who had a vasectomy after 3 daughters with a wife who later left him - the fact that he can't have any more children most likely makes him less "marketable" to the younger women he wanted to date.

Posted by: just one opinion | May 3, 2007 10:05 AM

ANY decision that's about your health and is permanent should be made with great care.

I suspect he doesn't really want any more children, but YOU think he should be open to reproducing anyway because it might enable him to meet and marry a second hot young thing (such as you believe yourself to be). I'll bet his existing three daughters would be excited about that possibility.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:36 AM

That is the best one yet Chris. I will not be able to get snip it out of my head.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 10:38 AM

"fully half of marriages end and it is not improbable that a man might wish to have a child with a future spouse."

Yea, when you are in your 20s, you get a tattoo with her name to show you are together forever.

In your 30s or 40s, you get a vasectomy to show her she's the only one.

Anyone know what that bold gesture is in your 50s?

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 10:40 AM

10:36 am comment:
That was very rude. I said that I dated the guy. I didn't want to marry him (and didn't even want to date him anymore...for other reasons much more salient to me). What is the "hot young thing (as you believe yourself to be)" comment? That is just really, really stupid, as I am an adult professional woman with 2 kids already. You are just a jerk.

Posted by: Just My Opinion | May 3, 2007 10:42 AM

--I dated a guy who had a vasectomy after 3 daughters with a wife who later left him - the fact that he can't have any more children most likely makes him less "marketable" to the younger women he wanted to date.


Maybe he should market himself to women his own age.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:42 AM

Anyone know what that bold gesture is in your 50s?

Make her the beneficiary in your life insurance and 401k.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:45 AM

my husband would say his bold gesture in your 50s is shaving what remains of his hair off his head and doing the billiard ball thing.

Posted by: dotted | May 3, 2007 10:46 AM

Arlington Dad raises an interesting question... is it to show that they are the only one, or to enable them to mess around without worrying about getting someone else knocked up.

As to the bold gesture of the 50s? reversing the procedure or buying that mid-life crisis mustang or corvette. ;-P

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 10:46 AM

Hey Just My Opinion -- if you take it completely out of context and maybe it's flattering to be called a "hot young thing"!

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 10:46 AM

Did anyone else happen to catch Leslie on Montel on Tues? She looked very pretty, appears tall and younger than in the photo.

Posted by: KLB SS MD | May 3, 2007 10:47 AM

chris -- vasectomy doesn't prevent STDs, so it does not enable you to mess around without consequnces

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 10:48 AM

"Maybe he should market himself to women his own age"

Yuck!! Old people competing for sex.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:48 AM

"It is sadly funny that I can post nearly ANYTHING here, but if it is in a column about the Iraq war I can not say anything positive about what some of the troops have managed to accomplish, nor can I offer a logical dissenting opinion about what Congress attempts."

Chris, stop whining. You and your ilk managed to get Joan Baez banned by Walter Reed. Doesn't that make you feel triumphant? That you've struck a blow for our troops by protecting them from the corrupting influence of a 66-year-old woman with a guitar?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:50 AM

I didn't say it prevented ALL consequences.

On a different note... that site is AWFUL. Talk about some bad confessions. I feel sorry for the women who turn to drinking... but the rest who talk about having affairs or wanting to push their husband in front of a train to make their kid laugh are just sick. Some of them need serious help before they snap.

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 10:53 AM

Yes, but I thought that impotent meant not being able to get an erection, i.e., not being able to get off. Maybe you should read more carefully before you spew your "expand your options garbage." My question had nothing to do with sex toys.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 10:34 AM

Garbage apparantly is in the eye of the beholder considering your original post below, including use of the inelegant term, "suck". I read the following 11 words carefully. If you intended a thoughtful, precise communication, you missed the mark.

What about your husband? Not being snarky, but that would suck.

Posted by: anon | May 3, 2007 09:58 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:53 AM

That was very rude. I said that I dated the guy. I didn't want to marry him (and didn't even want to date him anymore...for other reasons much more salient to me). What is the "hot young thing (as you believe yourself to be)" comment? That is just really, really stupid, as I am an adult professional woman with 2 kids already. You are just a jerk.

Posted by: Just My Opinion | May 3, 2007 10:42 AM

There's a first time for everything. I can't say that I've ever heard a woman defend herself before with, I have a good job so you are stupid to think I might be either hot or young.

Okay, Just My Opinion, have a good cold, old day.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:57 AM

Being a single Father I am glad I never did it. About 2 years ago the ex and I discussed it but I did not feel comfortable with it because I wasn't sure I was done having kids. She, however, has had 3 children...2 of which are mine...and she said she was done. My insurance covered her having her tubes tied 100% but only a portion of me getting clipped. Now that we are divorced I am glad I never felt comfortable because at 37 years old I am still young enough to have other children if I so desire.

Posted by: Sterling Park | May 3, 2007 10:57 AM

"my husband would say his bold gesture in your 50s is shaving what remains of his hair off his head and doing the billiard ball thing.

Posted by: dotted | May 3, 2007 10:46 AM "

Wish my hubby would also do that and lose the pot belly. He's looked like he's 8 months pregnant for decades...


Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:57 AM

the website truemomconfessions.com is pretty funny (and yes, sad in some respects). My favorite so far: "I love my husband and always thought I would throw myself in front of a bus to save him. Now that I have my son, I know I would throw my husband in front of the bus if I knew it would just make my son laugh." Pretty funny.

Posted by: londonmom | May 3, 2007 10:57 AM

You were rude, I was not. The question was serious and I feel bad for the poster.

Now, go get your vibrater and spin away your nastiness.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 10:59 AM

10:50 me and my ilk? Pardon me but, I served this country and AM one of the disabled troops. I'm always speaking out about the corruption in the system that keeps good armor from good troops. Have you even bothered to write your congressmen? I have. I say the system needs cleaned up and better managed and offer real world practical cost effective sollutions to real world problems. The situation in Iraq would not be a total disaster if it was better managed, and as a Senior International Security Specialist I KNOW that leaving a mess over there would just make things worse in the long run, which nobody in the instant gratification crowd on either side cares about. Both political parties are corrupt, and people who would honestly put this country first never have a chance in politics. I had nothing to do with keeping a singer away from troops. I am entirely for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so why are only some granted free speech and not others?

end of rant.

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 11:01 AM

Here's stuff on Leslie's recent appearance on "Montel" - pretty funny, obviously packaged by thr producers to inflame and polarize.

http://www.montelshow.com/show/?showID=5139

Posted by: Born Free | May 3, 2007 11:03 AM

Better site than truemomconfessions (which sounded to me like a lot of bored trophy wives complaining about their husbands--get a hobby, people)!

www.icanhascheezburger.com

I dare you not to laugh.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 11:09 AM


I'm open to being informed (politely) about differing perspectives, from more direct life experiences, but I'm having a hard time finding this emphasis on a man keeping options open to have children with a new spouse should he divorce anything but . . . sleazy.

Ok, there is the slim possibility that a man's whole family, sans him, will be wiped out in a tragic accident, leaving him after an epoch of emptiness and grief, the possibility of finding love again and choosing to start a second life . . . a remote possibility, but for those who build contingencies for everything, no qualms there . . .

But the idea that divorce ends a father's family, freeing him to make a new one with a new younger partner, is wrong to me. He may dissolve the marital bond with his wife, but his fatherhood/family dance card is still punched, as long as he still has minor children; he still *has* a family and strong parental obligations to his kids, though his interface with that family changes when he severs the adult marriage (a change that really sucks for the kids, btw, barring severe nastiness in the marriage that falls out to the kids - which could actually get worse after divorce, if the nasty parent has joint custody and gains more unbuffered access/responsibility for the kids; I've seen several friends either avoid divorce for this reason or struggle with it afterward, as they're less able to control ex-spouse's negative impacts on their kids, never mind the continual household-bouncing and disruption to the kids). The marriage may be abandoned, but parenthood shouldn't be --- children should remain at the center of their parents' lives and priorities until they are grown. To me, this precludes forming entanglements that deprioritize your (real, existing) children and your commitment to them. It's hard for me to see making a second family with kids, into which the rotating first set of kids visit but never fit, bound to a new mother who will never feel an unshakeable primacy of commitment to the interests of the first family kids, as not devaluing/abdicating responsibility for a father's kids. (For example, suppose for the new kids, the new mom wants the dad to move to bigger house, but he can't afford to do so and stay in the old kids' school district, etc etc)

BUT personally, I may be empathizing poorly, as I really can't imagine choosing divorce. The idea of breaking my kids' family in 2, making them shuttle back and forth between parents and have no reliable central home, my losing half the time with them and the power to act to solve their problems seems unutterably painful. My dh is wonderful, so the possibility's entirely hypothetical, but it's just hard to see a level of misery so bad that divorce would be preferable. And for a level of misery that *is* so bad --- involving harshness/cruelty, abuse --- I'd have to worry about the kids then bearing the brunt of that nastiness unbuffered, under joint custody. It seems divorce would be preferable then only if you could really excise the nasty parent from the kids' lives, which seems unlikely from what I've seen of current divorces (though my experience is limited and anecdotal, and I'm curious what the norms are nowadays.) It seems that even if your coparent becomes nasty, you're stuck with their behavior toward your kids, divorce just parcels the kids' time between you. Finally, should I imagine cruel fate forcing a divorce on me (husband undergoing a 180 degree personality transplant, suddenly becoming a nasty/addictive/mentally ill/fundmentally selfish hurtful and dishonest person, which does sometimes happen), I can't imagine not continuing after divorce with my children at the center of my world. I can't imagine diverting the emotional energy, and assuming the risks of balancing divergent interests, to let someone new into the family I have primary commitment to, the emotional core of my life, my kids. So, since I can't imagine any of it --- except for the dad who either has 100% or 0% custody of his kids --- I have trouble empathizing with the second family motivations.

So, for the poster who said the vasectomy reduces the street value of a divorced dad to the younger women he wants to date, who might want to have kids --- why *shouldn't* his street value be reduced? If he's already got minor kids, he has a family already, and obligations that take primacy over any new ones he could make. Why wouldn't his existing parental obligations - and how admirably he upholds them - influence whether he be chosen to father even more kids?


So to the

Posted by: KB | May 3, 2007 11:09 AM

Londonmom, I lost respect for you by your 10:57 post.

If i heard a man say something like that about his wife, I would want to kick his ass.

Are you pregnant?

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 3, 2007 11:11 AM

Born free, you're right, it really does sound like moms are pitted against each other so they can argue. Kind of like the radical Christian who switches families with the earth-based Pagans on that TV show.

Gorgyles! Slykicks!

No wonder moms hate each other so much.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 11:12 AM

KLB wrote: "Did anyone else happen to catch Leslie on Montel on Tues? She looked very pretty, appears tall and younger than in the photo."

Thanks for the info. What did Leslie say, and did she come across as reasonable? And what does she sound like?

Posted by: catlady | May 3, 2007 11:13 AM

Maybe he should market himself to women his own age"

Yuck!! Old people competing for sex.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 10:48 AM

Humpphhh. Now hold on there just a minute, whippersnapper . . .

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | May 3, 2007 11:14 AM

You were rude, I was not. The question was serious and I feel bad for the poster.

Now, go get your vibrater and spin away your nastiness.


Posted by: | May 3, 2007 10:59 AM

what is your issue, 10:59? the first response to your post wasn't rude and the nastiness seems to be in your own head. Do you have some bug up your buttocks about vibrators -- a toy the other poster never mentioned?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:18 AM

Londonmom, I lost respect for you by your 10:57 post.

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 3, 2007 11:11 AM

Sheesh, Father of 4 - is this really you because it sounds way harsh.

Londonmom, Your 10:57 post was one of the funniest I've read. You made my morning.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | May 3, 2007 11:21 AM

What in the world possessed Leslie to go on Montel?

Did she do her homework and check out the show in advance?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:27 AM

lmao at icanhascheezburger!

It r the bezt!

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 11:28 AM

I love my wife and always thought I would throw myself in front of a bus to save her. Now that I have my daughter, I know I would throw my wife in front of the bus if I knew it would just make my daughter laugh." Pretty funny.

Yeah, funny.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:30 AM

One thing I'm puzzled about is the double standard for younger adults who want these procedures.

I have numerous male friends who got the V in their late teens/early twenties. No arguments from the doctors. A close female friend, however, requested tubal ligation at age 22, and was told by the doctor that she was too young to know her own mind and was refused the procedure. Yes, tubal ligation is a more serious procedure, but both have the same permanent consequences.

I have a medical condition which makes it unlikely that I will carry a child to term, plus there's a high risk of birth defects and complications. Given this, I am quite happy to have the tubal ligation and spare Mr Bee the V. However, even at my age (early 30s) and with a medical reason to avoid pregnancy, I've been told I have to get a special referral to a doctor who will be willing, as many will not.

Needless to say, I think it's pretty stupid that guys are assumed to know their own minds and girls aren't--and that guys are assumed to be allergic to kids while girls are assumed to be in denial if they don't think they want to be moms.

Posted by: worker bee | May 3, 2007 11:32 AM

Megan's Neighbor, you re a lawyer too, right?

Taken in context, I can understand your sense of humor!

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 3, 2007 11:34 AM

"Needless to say, I think it's pretty stupid that guys are assumed to know their own minds and girls aren't--and that guys are assumed to be allergic to kids while girls are assumed to be in denial if they don't think they want to be moms."

worker bee, this has always baffled me, too, as it has many of my female acquaintances.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 11:36 AM

KB, I don't agree with the hedging your bets approach to this topic, but DH and I have discussed that, if I died, he might want to marry and give his new wife the opportunity to have a child of her own, in addition to being the stepmother to our 2 children. I can't fault him for considering that possibility. It's not unreasonable to consider that a women who would be interested in being a super step-mom to my two children might be open to having a third child in the family.

Posted by: anon for this | May 3, 2007 11:36 AM

KLB - I'm just sooo happy that someone other than a SAHM mentioned Montel. I haven't seen him in years, but that's because I'm so busy drinking and watching Oprah. She's my talk show host of choice.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 11:37 AM

APL, I have the copper IUD, and the insertion hurt like a son of a b*tch. I screamed. Most painful thing ever in my life. That said, it was over in five minutes... and I have much less bleeding now.

Posted by: anon for now | May 3, 2007 11:38 AM

"worker bee, this has always baffled me, too, as it has many of my female acquaintances."

Gawzh, obviuzly becuz you r in da nile. ;-P

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 11:38 AM

I'm a member of the C-section-with-tubal-ligation team. I had to convince DH to agree to baby #2 (he's delighted that I did, btw), but knew during that pregnancy that I had zero interest in ever being pregnant again. Add in my age -- 40 -- and that I just feel much better off the pill than on, and it was a no-brainer. If I hadn't had a C-section, I would be leaning very heavily on DH to have the big V. Based on our very preliminary conversations about it, he didn't seem too keen on the idea, but I can be very persuasive when it's important to me. For pete's sake, my body has been through enough.

Posted by: 2kids2love | May 3, 2007 11:40 AM

Did anyone see ABC news last night? Apparently I should be making $138,000 annually. I'm going to re-read the asking for a raise blog and talk to my husband tonight! Wish me luck.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 11:40 AM

"so busy drinking and watching Oprah"

Moxie, click the "me too" button yet? ;-P

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 11:40 AM

"We don't have have a lot of choice about it and we have found ways to deal with it, mostly toys.

What about your husband? Not being snarky, but that would suck."


"You were rude, I was not. The question was serious and I feel bad for the poster."

I thought she was concerned about the husband's satisfaction, or lack thereof.

Posted by: amused | May 3, 2007 11:41 AM

what is your issue, 10:59? the first response to your post wasn't rude and the nastiness seems to be in your own head. Do you have some bug up your buttocks about vibrators -- a toy the other poster never mentioned

Acting like someone else's sex life is boring or needs some pepping up is a little bit rude.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:41 AM

Chris, you're loving that site, aren't you? The poor spelling makes it even kewter. ;-) I went through all of it yesterday, and I'm going back through it all again. I can't stop--it's such a great laugh!

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 11:41 AM

She has a nice voice and, like I said, is pretty. She did have kind of big hair but I am sure that wasn't her doing. She didn't get much of a chance to talk as they had some real harpies on - it turned into a hag fest at some point fighting about breast feeding, SAHM vs WOHM of course, spanking, organic food. The worst was the spanking harpy - she wouldn't shut up.

Posted by: KLB SS MD | May 3, 2007 11:41 AM

I thought she was concerned about the husband's satisfaction, or lack thereof.


Yes, I was I wasn't asking for a lecture on sex toys.

Posted by: anon for this | May 3, 2007 11:43 AM

I am going to have to take a few pics of my cat and make lablez for them now. Thank you! I think!

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 11:43 AM

Worker Bee and Mona:

I am baffled by this as well. When my husband (then fiance) consulted to get his V, he had this whole argument ready for why he didn't want kids. I went for moral support of course. But I didn't really need to be there at all.

Yet I know if I had been the one seeking sterilization, I would've had to fight because of my gender and age.

It also perplexes me that people think we didn't decide this together. When either of us brings it up to other people, it's like they feel like we've betrayed each other by assuming that we didn't discuss this first. While I am sure that does happen in some cases, ours is not one of them. We talked about this at length and equally agreed this was what we both wanted.

I guess that is true that some married couples don't communicate that very point. I wonder how much of that contributes to the divorce rates...

Posted by: JRS | May 3, 2007 11:43 AM

.................

Posted by: KB | May 3, 2007 11:09 AM

less words or more paragraph breaks, please.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:43 AM

In my early 20's I didn't want to have children and my husband agreed with me. But he said it was my choice to do as I wished. We continued using BC, but then my husband was changing his mind as many of our friends and family were starting families. I did not change my mind. At age 30 I decided to get my tubes tied, and my OB/GYN told me this is permanant, but that it was my choice. My husband was not in agreement and said we would divorce if I did it. I did it and we got divorced. I remarried and at age 39 I felt I wanted to have a child, but in my case the procedure was irreversible. We adopted a child and I have the fulfillment of being a mom. So, even though my dr didn't have a problem with performing the procedure, and I don't feel they have a right to question or deny the procedure to anyone, it is important to think long term and what your life may be like in the future.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:44 AM

Moxie, I didn't know you were SAH. I don't get how they figured those numbers. Did they just add the salaries of all those professions, or did they factor in the hours spent doing each task? If you spend 40h/wk cleaning, you need a smaller house!

And if you WOH, you're worth even more, apparently. But if it's the "best job in the world," and "you can't put a price on it," why do they bother with numbers?

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 11:44 AM

regarding using other methods of BC after the V, there was no way in hades that i would have agreed to get a V if i was also going to have to continue to wear a condom and she continue to use foam ... she went off the pill when we decided to start a family and never went back on ... we used condoms *and* foam (*both*, every time, no exceptions) after that except when trying to conceive ... neither of us wanted her to go back on the pill or for her to have a tubal and C&F was too much a mood killer (before, during, and after) ... gotta love monogamous bareback spontaneous .. by the way, short of becoming impotent, how can i get her interested in the idea of us trying toys? :P

Posted by: 21042 dad o'2 | May 3, 2007 11:45 AM

Leslie had big hair on TV? Oh, the horror.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:46 AM

"Needless to say, I think it's pretty stupid that guys are assumed to know their own minds and girls aren't--and that guys are assumed to be allergic to
kids while girls are assumed to be in denial if they don't think they want to be moms."

The ticking biological clock is a known phenomena for females, Not so for males.

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 3, 2007 11:46 AM

"Megan's Neighbor, you re a lawyer too, right?
Taken in context, I can understand your sense of humor!"

What's wrong, Fo4? Somebody give you a wedgie this morning? I'm no lawyer, but I thought LondonMom's post was hilarious.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 11:46 AM

Maybe this is the ignorance of the unmarried and childless talking, but why is everyone so concerned with the wife dying (or getting divorced) and the husband wanting to have children with his new wife, but not vice versa? Isn't it possible that the husband could die and the wife would want to have children with a new husband? Obviously women are more limited by age, so this scenario is less likely, but it seems like it could be a valid argument against the tubal ligation as well, so it kind of nullifies the argument. Don't get me wrong, I admire everyone's selfless interest in the right of their children's hypothetical future stepmother to have her own biological child.

Posted by: Charlottesville | May 3, 2007 11:48 AM

Coming in way late in the game, but I'm laughing my butt off at the guys talking about shaving their "boys." My DH keeps his shaved, and we love it. ;-) Just a thought.

Posted by: anon for this | May 3, 2007 11:48 AM


Thanks, anon for this --- I can understand that rationale. The widower versus divorced/joint custody makes a big difference in the scenario. The father is still putting his kids first and central in his life, and they have one home fully committed to them . . . it's absorbing a new mom then moving on together. Much more respectable than the disposable first family/ reboot with second family scenario that sprang to my mind, with part-time stepmembers . . . though I can't personally imagine making time/emotional energy to court a new spouse while parenting my minor kids alone, men do seem to prioritize remarriage more highly. . .

Posted by: KB | May 3, 2007 11:49 AM

"The ticking biological clock is a known phenomena for females, Not so for males."

It's a societal pressure, to which too many people succumb, believing they have no other choice. It's just what people do.

Is there a bridge I can show you to jump off of too? The view is great heading down...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:51 AM

Okay, I thought londonmom's post (aka the original entry on the website) was funny too, but F04 has a point: what if a man said that about his wife? Wouldn't we all be shocked and offended? I know I would be. And while I'm assuming the original poster meant it in humor, I can't honestly say I'd agree with her.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 11:52 AM

"My DH keeps his shaved, and we love it. ;-) Just a thought."

My urologist told me that a lot of the younger guys are keeing things clean as a whistle down there. (Don't you love small talk with your urologist?) This baffles me -- seems like a lot of unnecssary work.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 11:52 AM

TMI today.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:53 AM

Mona, I like that site too. I don't know if it's on that one, but I saw a similar picuture somewhere with a cat in a CPU tower saying "Oh hi! I upgraded ur RAM." I'm still laughing about it.

Father of 4, let me share something with you that might let you see the posting from the other site in context.

Most people have these thoughts. The differnce between psychopaths and murderers is that "normal" people are able to resist the urges and ignore those thoughts while "crazy" people act on those thoughts. "Crazy" people don't feel bound by societal expectations, and psychopaths don't feel for other living things. So "crazy" people don't have the proper filters. "Normal" people can joke about that because they know it's not reality.

For all the people who will post "I never have those thoughts! I love my..." etc, that's fantastic for you. You are obviously more normal than the rest of us.

Posted by: Meesh | May 3, 2007 11:54 AM

"I'm no lawyer, but I thought LondonMom's post was hilarious."

Yeah, Emily, if you are pregnant you may be excused for laughing. In fact, anything that makes you happy is good...

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 3, 2007 11:54 AM

JRS:

Were you being serious about swallowing? Most women don't do that. At least none that I've ever known.

Posted by: curious for this | May 3, 2007 11:55 AM

Father of 4:
The ticking biological clock is social, not physical. If it was physical, it would come into effect during our peak period of fertility... starting at about age 14 and ending by 25. (And, people who are infertile wouldn't feel it.)

The women who feel the "ticking clock" are responding to various things like pressure from their parents, expectations of society, envy of their friends who have kids, the changing sense of purpose that comes with maturity... not a true biological imperative.

Posted by: worker bee | May 3, 2007 11:55 AM

Hey Emily how are things going? I am eating my way through the house at the moment, but still haven't gained any weight. I dread my next appointment.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 11:55 AM

"The ticking biological clock is a known phenomena for females, Not so for males."

It's a societal pressure, to which too many people succumb, believing they have no other choice. It's just what people do.

---

Speak for yourself. I absolutely did not want kids until ... I did want kids. No pressure from anyone. I was still single, so family definitely wasn't pressuring me to have children :). Also, I was 29 when this change in feeling developed - not staring at impending menopause.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:56 AM

worker bee, this has always baffled me, too, as it has many of my female acquaintances.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 11:36 AM

I would think this is entirely driven by malpractice suits. I may be pulling this out of my A$$. but I think I read that OB/GYNs are the type of doctor sued the most.

As a result, they have to make sure they don't perform the procedue on anyone without the patients certainty. One way to ensure they are certain and understand this is permanent is to really make thenm defend their decision.

I would also guess that they see many women who wish to have their tubal reeversed. Since, only women have OB/GYNs, the docs are more in tune with the reproductive lives of their patients. A man going to his GP is one problem of many that doc will see.

Then there is the "women's perogative". ;)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:56 AM

scarry, u can has cheezburger two.

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 11:58 AM

Father of 4

Re: the ticking biological clock

The risks of birth defects increase for men over 40 - that's a pretty loud tick or might be an alarm going off.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:59 AM

Used to be the rule of 120 before doctors would do tubal ligation. Number of children times womans age had to be at least 120: 3 kids by age 40, 4 kids by age 30, 5 kids by age 24.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:59 AM

"The ticking biological clock is a known phenomena for females, Not so for males."

It's a societal pressure, to which too many people succumb, believing they have no other choice. It's just what people do.

_------------------------------------

SO what if it is societal pressure? If it is true, the reason is irrelevant.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 11:59 AM

Yes, I was I wasn't asking for a lecture on sex toys.

Posted by: anon for this | May 3, 2007 11:43 AM

If you thought THAT was a lecture, you need to get out more. The web is a harsh place for someone looking for a reason to be peeved.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:00 PM

I tried to get OB to do a tubal after my regular delivery of #4, but they wouldn't do it (apparently you can go through the belly button and it's done in 10 minutes). Although I still want more, I agreed to do the procedure to please my mother, MIL and the rest of the family that thinks I'm a freak for having more than 2 kids. Husband won't let anyone touch the jewels, so I'm doing the Mirena. Hoping it will fail, but no such luck so far.

Posted by: 2girls2boys | May 3, 2007 12:01 PM

scarry, u can has cheezburger two.

Had one yesterday and then I hate five tacos from chipolte. I am begining to think my body does not gain that much weight while I am pregnant.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:01 PM

Is Leslie's Montel appearance on YouTube?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:02 PM

Did anyone see ABC news last night? Apparently I should be making $138,000 annually. I'm going to re-read the asking for a raise blog and talk to my husband tonight! Wish me luck.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 11:40 AM

As a SAHM, do you think these studies are as ridiculous as I do?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:02 PM

"SO what if it is societal pressure? If it is true, the reason is irrelevant."

Exactly my point. Just because everyone else is doing does not mean that everyone should.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:02 PM

"Needless to say, I think it's pretty stupid that guys are assumed to know their own minds and girls aren't--and that guys are assumed to be allergic to kids while girls are assumed to be in denial if they don't think they want to be moms."

I agree. As long as the risks of the more serious procedure are considered, I don't see why women should have a harder time getting tubal ligations than men have getting vasectomies. Both should be available upon demand after disclosure of risks and permanency. I wonder how the risk of many these cosmetic procedures people have compares.

However, at least women have the abortion or adoption option. Men legally have no say after conception. I think that balances it out a little.

Posted by: PersonL | May 3, 2007 12:04 PM

halp! I not cheezburger!

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 12:05 PM

Congratulations! This is the most male involvement on this blog I have seen. No issue of balance, life issues, etc have elicited so much great advice and overall positive interaction.

I have to laugh and say that my husband and I actually had a bet to see who would be the one to go under the knife. The bet was on the 2000 election--I was pessimistic and bet Bush would win and he thought Gore could pull it off. We are still using oral contraception because he insists that Gore won the popular vote and the Supreme Court was not making fertility decisions for him! I kid you not! True life story!

Posted by: relativelynewtoblog | May 3, 2007 12:06 PM

men do seem to prioritize remarriage more highly. . .


Posted by: KB | May 3, 2007 11:49 AM

A lot of has to do with the fact that women get physical custody 90% of time when there is a divorce. So even though the man may have kids, seeing them 1 night a week and every other weekend (8day out of 28) just doesn't cut it. Makes for 20 lonely days a month, especially if he didn't want the divorce.

BTW, judging other people by what you would do or feel is pretty unfair, don't you think?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:09 PM

9:38:
Since he is a third-generation alcoholic, drug addicted loser (which is why he is the STBX), I have a feeling he is not ever going to be interested in starting a second family. Our youngest starts college in the fall, and I think he will probably be a grandfather in 10 years or so (if he ever gets into treatment so he SURVIVES that long).

And I didn't FORCE him...I think that, after watching me hooked up to twenty different machines for two days, he was willing to make the sacrifice so that the next surgical procedure I had didn't kill me. Birth control fails, as it did for us (if you read the entire post carefully, you would know that) and a third C-section too soon would have been dangerous. Like I said, it really was one of the best (as in UNSELFISH, THOUGHTFUL AND KIND) things he ever did.

Oh, yeah, the sex was much better without the worry (while he was still able, anyway).

I guess the poster who thought this was good dad/husband day was wrong!

I pity your wife. Does she know you're already planning your family with her replacement?

Posted by: educmom | May 3, 2007 12:10 PM

Fo4 - I think you need to read the other posts on the website to understand why that one was funny. It was clearly a joke to show how - at least for some (if not most) women - when your little baby boy is born, your complete undying love for your husband as your one and only man becomes secondary to your complete and undying love for your little boy.

In any case, it was a joke!

But yes, I'm pregnant. And a lawyer (a double whammy). But I thought it very funny, especially compared to some of the other posts on the site, many of which detailed either drinking too much, not enjoying being a mom, or having an affair.

Posted by: londonmom | May 3, 2007 12:11 PM

Did anyone see ABC news last night? Apparently I should be making $138,000 annually. I'm going to re-read the asking for a raise blog and talk to my husband tonight! Wish me luck.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 11:40 AM

moxiemom, in all seriousness, do you think it makes any economic sense to say, "when I was employed providing accounting or finance services, I earned $X00 per hour, so it's logical to multiply that field-specific rate to the arena of providing childcare services for purposes of reaching an inflated number".

Posted by: anon for now | May 3, 2007 12:11 PM

"SO what if it is societal pressure? If it is true, the reason is irrelevant."

Exactly my point. Just because everyone else is doing does not mean that everyone should.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 12:02 PM

I thouoght you were talking about the trouble women have getting a tubal. If women are changing their minds and suing their doctors, the doctors have to protect themselves somehow.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:13 PM

And people wonder why I haven't remarried after losing my spouse 10 years ago.....

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:15 PM

Im in ur blog

waistin ur produktivitee

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 12:15 PM

My husband & I considered the vasectomy...until his brother had one. His brother's operation went HORRIBLY wrong, and he was out of work for 6 weeks with a hemotoma the size of a grapefruit (yes, you may well shudder). It may be his surgeon was a quack, but after a horror story like that...no thanks. Also after that experience, I have heard a lot about complications being fairly common with the procedure.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:16 PM

In any case, it was a joke!

Posted by: londonmom | May 3, 2007 12:11 PM

Are you sure?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:16 PM

PersonL

"Men legally have no say after conception. I think that balances it out a little."

Men can say which bank they'll write the child support checks from.......


Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:18 PM

I pity your wife. Does she know you're already planning your family with her replacement?

Posted by: educmom | May 3, 2007 12:10 PM

The way you worded your first post sounds nothing like this one. And I don't follow the blog well enough to know anyone's back story. It sounded like you made him get it and now you are getting divorced.

This is the situation where he really needed to be sure he didn't want any more children. Because if he did, he is SOL. I didn't get that he was sure from your first post.

And to answer your question, yes she does know that if she were to be replaced (more likely the other way around), I may want more children. When we had our daughter, she was sure she didn't want to give birth again, so she ahd the tubal the next day. We discussed it and since she was sure and I wasn't, she went under the knife.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:24 PM

12:16 - why so cynical? I didn't write the original entry, so I don't know if the poster meant it as a joke, but I certainly did.

I think it is much more likely that it was a joke than that the poster meant it literally - that she would push her husband in front of a bus just to see her son smile.

Because it IS such an outrageous statement, I think it is safe to say it was a joke.

Posted by: londonmom | May 3, 2007 12:25 PM

londonmom -- it was funny and clever to me.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 12:26 PM

"In any case, it was a joke!"

Londonmom, I'll admit it, I chuckled when I read it too. I just remember a blog a little while ago where you eluded to being pregnant, but I wasn't sure. Poor tactit on my part by jumping on a soapbox to get your confirmation, but effective nonetheless.

But here is what I really want to say and didn't get the chance earlier:

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 3, 2007 12:27 PM


>BTW, judging other people by what you would do or >feel is pretty unfair, don't you think?

12:09, that's why I asked to be politely informed, because my experience limits my understanding/ empathy for the situation, sort of a question, when is this not as selfish as it seems on first blush? I do know many divorced parents and would like to be more understanding without intruding . . .

Also, I am curious about real info on joint custody, because while people/kids mention going back and forth - as in 'I'll have to ask her dad about the slumber party since he's got her then' or 'I'm negotiating with her mom about changing her activity mix' - it's hard to get a sense of how often/how much custody is shared. It seems like most of the arrangements I've heard of are near 50-50 -- 4 days/3 days, or alternating weeks --- though I don't know if that's unusual or if evenly shared custody tends to revert to more mom-dominant over time (and I'm in Atlanta, you'd think we'd be nonprogressive). I certainly think losing any access to your kids is painful, for any good parent, and the more time lost the more painful it would be . . . though I perceive some shuttle schedules/stepfamilies as ones that make some kids feel very rootless/marginalized . . . it's a painful situation however sliced, though the kids' interests should be primary.

I'm sorry if I was insensitive. I have seen some divorced parents do their best to turn the lemons of two-household-flitting into lemonade.


Posted by: KB | May 3, 2007 12:29 PM

"I think it is much more likely that it was a joke than that the poster meant it literally - that she would push her husband in front of a bus just to see her son smile"

I didn't get that it was a joke at all.

I had the feeling that the son was a special needs child who rarely/never smiled.

In any event, there does seem to be some kind of anger thing going on (paging Alec Baldwin...)

Posted by: Born Free | May 3, 2007 12:31 PM

Moxiemom,
Every year, someone comes out with that study on what a housewife should make and every SAHM gets excited. Old news...

Posted by: Me | May 3, 2007 12:31 PM

JRS:

Were you being serious about swallowing? Most women don't do that. At least none that I've ever known.

Posted by: curious for this | May 3, 2007 11:55 AM

curious for this - I don't know any women who DON't swallow. I'm very sorry for you, if you're a guy, and pity you if you're a woman.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:34 PM

Way late weighing in here, but anyhoo. I got my V after two kids, and one surprise pregnancy that ended in miscarriage. The LW wanted to be done. I personally would have been happy to have another, but I wouldn't ever want to do so unless LW wanted it too. And the V is just a million times less invasive/troublesome than any other choice. I've had worse days in a dentist's chair.

I'm not impotent, I'm not growing breasts, my voice hasn't gotten higher ('course, I never had a super-deep voice to begin with).

A good decision all around.

So as to keep my man card, let me just say, that now that I'm V'd, I'll be damned if I ever use a condom again. :-)

Posted by: proxl | May 3, 2007 12:34 PM

This blogz bring new meenage to floggin ded horseez.

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 12:39 PM

Thanks Fo4! We are excited. We haven't really told many people yet (despite being almost 14 weeks) so it is kinda weird to mention it much here, but I figure - hey, if Elisabeth Hasselbeck can share her pregnancy at 3 months on national t.v., surely I can start feeling comfortable telling people now that I'm in the blessed second trimester.

Not that I have much choice, I'm sure I will be getting very fat very soon.

Don't have much to add to the V discussion. DH and I have never discussed as we are pretty young. I don't think either of us would consider going under the knife until much later in life. This blog has made me curious about whether he would ever or if he is one of those guys who would hestitant b/c you never know what the future holds...

Posted by: londonmom | May 3, 2007 12:39 PM

We are pretty much done with kids - but neither of us has done anything so 'official.' Partially because I'm on the pill for more than birth control reasons, I guess, and I believe my DH doesn't want to get it done.
But educmom: before I had kid #2 the nurse asked me in L&D if I wanted to get my tubes tied. I was thinking: um, no, why are you asking? It seemed to me a strange question, but I guess they do it a lot. I may be older than you, but my SIL is still 'young' and she had it done about 8 months ago when she had number two.
I think making it all official is just difficult. I spoke with a friend who has 3 and she was saying how it was just tough to decide that you're 'done.' Finished, we don't want more. But they are even not ruling out more (although she kind of thinks they're done).

Posted by: atlmom | May 3, 2007 12:41 PM

proxl

"The LW wanted to be done. I personally would have been happy to have another, but I wouldn't ever want to do so unless LW wanted it too."

Eureka!! You sound like a real keeper.

Do you have any like-minded brothers who are on the marriage market?

I have 3 single sisters.......

Posted by: June | May 3, 2007 12:43 PM

I am 45 and would be officially horrified if we got pregnant again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:46 PM

"I think it is much more likely that it was a joke than that the poster meant it literally - that she would push her husband in front of a bus just to see her son smile"

Why? Because it was posted by a woman, and a woman would never do someting like that? If a man said something like that, even on the comedy central website, he would get a ton of flak.

Most, if not all, of the posts on that site seem pretty serious to me. Don't know why this one is any different.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:48 PM

I am really puzzled at the vasectomy, but we still use condoms crowd. I thought the whole idea was that we could STOP dealing with any form of birth control after the first few months. What's the selling point, if you're still using condoms?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:49 PM

"Were you being serious about swallowing? Most women don't do that. At least none that I've ever known."

Really? I do. Easier and my dh loves it.

Posted by: anon for now | May 3, 2007 12:50 PM

Curious for this:

Yes, I do seriously do that. It's really the most convenient way to dispose of it, honestly. But it's not like I treat it as if it were poison or something gross. It doesn't break any momentum during the act. It intensfies the experience. And it's highly erotic.

Posted by: JRS | May 3, 2007 12:53 PM

Eureka!! You sound like a real keeper.

Posted by: June | May 3, 2007 12:43 PM

Because doing what the LW wants is the most important thing in married life.

This guy want more children, yet sterilized himself because the LW wanted him to. If he was not sure he didn't ever want any more children, he shouldn't have done it. I hope she doesn't want him to go away someday.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:53 PM

"Because doing what the LW wants is the most important thing in married life."

Posted by: words to live by | May 3, 2007 12:55 PM

"BUT personally, I may be empathizing poorly, as I really can't imagine choosing divorce. The idea of breaking my kids' family in 2, making them shuttle back and forth between parents and have no reliable central home, my losing half the time with them and the power to act to solve their problems seems unutterably painful."

Posted by: KB | May 3, 2007 11:09 AM

KB is right. Someone once wrote that each family is a little civilization, and that divorce destroys that civilization. In addition, the philosopher Michael Slote has written about "virtue ethics" (see his book, "Morality and Virtue".) Keeping one's promise is a virtue, i.e., it is admirable. Breaking one's promise, when the other party has kept his or her promise, is the opposite of a virtue. It is generally regarded as blameworthy.

So, if your partner has kept all the promises you both made at your wedding -- no abuse, no cheating, no meanness -- is it admirable to destroy your children's civilization just because your marriage no longer makes you as happy as you think it should? I don't think so.

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | May 3, 2007 12:56 PM

I find myself agreeing with 12:48. Some of those, especially that, were scary. Definitely if a man said it, people would be screaming for his head... more than Imus'.

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 12:56 PM

Because doing what the LW wants is the most important thing in married life.

This guy want more children, yet sterilized himself because the LW wanted him to. If he was not sure he didn't ever want any more children, he shouldn't have done it. I hope she doesn't want him to go away someday.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 12:53 PM

No, you're projecting into this husband's heart your own terms, and your terms are about playing defense. His terms are about how to have a successful marriage. It's not too difficult to guess who of the two of you -- you or he -- will be happier at the end of the day, with your respective approaches.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:58 PM

9:16 am wrote: "If I had a procedure during my first marriage (2 children) I would never get my wonderful son in the second marriage. And believe me, during my first marriage I was ambivalent even abouut those 2 children, let alone was planning for more."

This is the saddest thing I've ever read. Those poor first 2 kids. You're second wife must have been INSANE to have a child with someone who feels this way about his kids.

Posted by: atb | May 3, 2007 12:59 PM

On the double standard for men and women, FWIW, my husband said that when he got his vasectomy during his first marriage, he was in his early thirties and had no kids and the drs gave him a really, really hard time - I think he had to go to more than one to get someone to do it.

Posted by: anonymous for this | May 3, 2007 1:00 PM

And if you WOH, you're worth even more, apparently. But if it's the "best job in the world," and "you can't put a price on it," why do they bother with numbers?

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 11:44 AM

Yikes, I am a SAHM - coming out loud and proud. Just kidding. I thought it was hilarious given that there are pretty much no requirements for the position except fertility and certainly limited ability to measure how skilled one may or may not be at any of the parts of the job. They broke out all the different jobs we do all day (housekeeper, psychologist - a big haha to that one, driver etc..) and figured how much it would cost to pay someone outside to do it. They certainly didn't figure in the age of the kids either. When they were both infants I would have said 138K sounded fair, but now that they are bigger and in school part of the day my "workload" is different. I happen to really enjoy the gig and will continue to do it "for free" AND I'm gonna keep sleeping with "the boss". I will say it was nice to see a positive story on being a SAHM that didn't end with - you won't be able to get another job, he might die or leave you .......

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 1:03 PM

2girls2boys wrote "I tried to get OB to do a tubal after my regular delivery of #4, but they wouldn't do it (apparently you can go through the belly button and it's done in 10 minutes). Although I still want more, I agreed to do the procedure to please my mother, MIL and the rest of the family that thinks I'm a freak for having more than 2 kids. Husband won't let anyone touch the jewels, so I'm doing the Mirena. Hoping it will fail, but no such luck so far."

Please tell me you're joking. Cut the ties for crying out loud. Did you ask your husband what he thinks about more kids?

Posted by: atb | May 3, 2007 1:05 PM

If I had a procedure during my first marriage (2 children) I would never get my wonderful son in the second marriage. And believe me, during my first marriage I was ambivalent even abouut those 2 children, let alone was planning for more.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 09:16 AM

So 9:16 finally had a child that measured up to his expectations of perfection. I am so very sad for the two children of his first marriage. I've known quite a few first-marriage-kids who with dads who communicated similar ambivalence. The scars may not show but they are ever present.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:08 PM

No, you're projecting into this husband's heart your own terms, and your terms are about playing defense. His terms are about how to have a successful marriage. It's not too difficult to guess who of the two of you -- you or he -- will be happier at the end of the day, with your respective approaches.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 12:58 PM

I am not projecting anything, if he is not sure he never wants any more children, he shouldn't have done it, period. The fact is he made a possibly stupid decision for a noble reason. He may never regret it or he could find out that child his wife just had is really the mailmans.

Life is full of a lot of twists and turns and you never know where it will take you.

And I am plenty happy, thanks for caring.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:09 PM

OK, last one...

$138K to stay at home? Please. Let's assume a 50 hour work week. That's over $50/hour. I'm not buying it. I respect, admire, and envy SAHPs, but that's a little silly.

Posted by: atb | May 3, 2007 1:10 PM

"Although I still want more, I agreed to do the procedure to please my mother, MIL and the rest of the family that thinks I'm a freak for having more than 2 kids."

You take ballet lessons to please your mother. You show less cleavage at the wedding --maybe -- to please your MIL. You don't do jack for "the rest of the family".

You would have SURGERY with life-altering implications to please anyone other than yourself and your husband? Get counseling, lady, and fast. You need a lesson in boundary-setting.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:11 PM

This has been a wild day on the blog. I bet Leslie is cringing. Sex toys, swallowing, and sock sacks. I can hardly wait to see what happens next.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 1:12 PM

My friend just went through the tubal as her husband was worried about his jewels. She ended up with an infection and complications from the procedure and ended up in back in the hospital for a couple of days. All of that could have been avoided by a 1/2 hour trip to the doctors for darling hubby.

Posted by: CaliforniaMom | May 3, 2007 1:13 PM

"I am not projecting anything, if he is not sure he never wants any more children, he shouldn't have done it, period."

Why do know-it-alls think that inserting the word, "period," makes their point somehow more persuasive? Not. It's the desperate rhetorical move of the frequently wrong.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:14 PM

atb, that was my question. Are we assuming they get the full salary of a cook, head doc, waitress, housekeeper? Why? Those four jobs alone would add up to 160h/week at full time, and the study only accounted for about 90h/wk. I haven't seen the breakdown, but I'm assuming they've just added up the full-time salaries of all these positions. Do SAHMs really clean their houses for 40 hours per week? I'm not buying it.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 1:14 PM

He said he wouldn't mind, not that he wanted another child with all his heart and soul. They must have been using birth control for goodness sake if the pregnancy (ending in miscarriage) was a surprise. He just wouldn't have been upset about having another child as LW would have been.

Robin L.

Posted by: Re: Man and LW | May 3, 2007 1:16 PM

$138k to stay at home -- so how much should we get "paid" to get a vasectomy?

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 1:16 PM

"Why do know-it-alls think that inserting the word, "period," makes their point somehow more persuasive? "

The know-it-alls also use the word "Puleez" a lot to make their point more persuasive.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:16 PM

$138k to stay at home -- so how much should we get "paid" to get a vasectomy?

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 01:16 PM

I don't know, but I hope whoever gets the benefit of the vasectomy swallows.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:18 PM

"$138k to stay at home -- so how much should we get "paid" to get a vasectomy?"

All the worry-free sex you want for life...

And some swallowing, too!

:-)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:18 PM

is it admirable to destroy your children's civilization just because your marriage no longer makes you as happy as you think it should? I don't think so.

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | May 3, 2007 12:56 PM

Me either, but it only takes one person to destroy the childs civilization. For example, if my wife wants to divorce me, how can I stopher? Short of throwing her in front of a bus, (would that make my kid laugh), I may have no say in the matter.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:18 PM

Do SAHMs really clean their houses for 40 hours per week? I'm not buying it.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 01:14 PM
I know some who might actually spend that amount of time. I however, do not! Today, I am a landscaper, laying mulch. I'm probably worth $7.50/hr for that task. I made grilled cheese for lunch for my daughter, not exactly chef stuff and its leftovers for dinner. I'm not sure if I should be paid differently for driving the kids to swimming and sitting at swimming. Coaching the soccer team, I'm gonna throw in for free today. The whole thing is laughable. If you need 138K to do this job then it isn't for you.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 1:22 PM

Scarry, indeed. A bit much bashing, even for me. If it were not for Mona's cheezburger site I do not know what I would do.

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 1:24 PM

Come on Moxiemom, you must make at least $138k per picture!

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 1:24 PM

Arlington Dad - are you saying you are interested? If that's the case, my market segement is quickly growing (3, including you). If you, Patrick Dempsey and my husband will pony up 46K each then maybe, just maybe we can make a film.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 1:29 PM

I think moxiemom has a confession to post on the (other) site. lmao

Posted by: Chris | May 3, 2007 1:29 PM

Mona- I also take issue with 90hrs/week. A 50 hr week is more like $76K and $30/hour. Still a lot, but better. What is the spouse doing when s/he's home? Does s/he get a home salary, too? What about WOHPs, who do all of that, minus day time childcare? I don't pay people to do any of those things. I do them myself and bring home enough for the mortgage and childcare. Lame.

Posted by: atb | May 3, 2007 1:30 PM

"I am not projecting anything, if he is not sure he never wants any more children, he shouldn't have done it, period."

Why do know-it-alls think that inserting the word, "period," makes their point somehow more persuasive? Not. It's the desperate rhetorical move of the frequently wrong.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 01:14 PM

And this rebuts my point how? If you weren't sure you didn't want any more children and your husband was, would you have a tubal to please him?

I know very little about the poster above, other than the words on the screen. From the words on the screen, I don't see any certainty in his decision.

This is a permanent surgical procedure. If there is any ambivalence about future children, I don't think you should have it done for any reason.

Since you obviously know more than me, if you think I am wrong, please let me know why.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:30 PM

Keeping one's promise is a virtue, i.e., it is admirable. Breaking one's promise, when the other party has kept his or her promise, is the opposite of a virtue. It is generally regarded as blameworthy.

So, if your partner has kept all the promises you both made at your wedding -- no abuse, no cheating, no meanness -- is it admirable to destroy your children's civilization just because your marriage no longer makes you as happy as you think it should? I don't think so.

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | May 3, 2007 12:56 PM

No one promises not to be "mean" at the wedding, and the wedding vows can't be the determiner of whether one or another marriage should survive. Otherwise, the most long-winded would be the most air-tight set of terms and conditions. You can try to shoehorn each of the following into your "no cheating, no abuse" list, but the real point is, until you've walked in the shoes of someone in a marriage that is falling apart, you'd best keep your judgmental, Matt-Knows-Best routine to yourself.

What if the spouse is discovered to:

1. have hidden $100,000 in debt because she was scared you wouldn't marry her if she disclosed it?

2. have an interest in, and trafficed in, child porn?

3. have transmitted a sexually transmitted disease to you, but claims to have been faithful?

4. be gay, or discloses that he has decided he is gay; he is not cheating, but is no longer interested in having a sexual relationship with his wife?

5. have developed an addiction that interferes with his ability to be a good father or husband? you name it, gambling, legal or illegal substances, including drinking. he's not interested in getting help.

6. is a workaholic and refuses to cut back, or otherwise indicates that major life priorities are no longer shared - say his #1 is acquiring the most money, and your #1 is serving your Lord and raising your children to see that service as their number #1 value also.

there are many reasons why couples who take their vows seriously, regrettably determine that the household or civilization, if you prefer, is crumbling and one of them considers the best interests of the children over inertia.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:32 PM

"And some swallowing, too!"

Swallowing??? What's that???

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:32 PM

I have to say it. I hate anonymous posters. I can't tell them apart, and I'm not going to search through posts to try to figure out who said what when. How hard is it to come up with a name? Look how creative my name is. It doesn't have to be clever.

Posted by: atb | May 3, 2007 1:33 PM

Moxiemom -- if the discussion of "swallowing" didn't embarass me enough today, your "offer" sure did! Thanks for the chuckle, but I can't compete with Patrick!

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 1:35 PM

To atb: with some of the stances I take as devils advocate, if I posted with a name, you guys would be ignoring me by my second post.

It is really easy to post with a name if you are on the "right" side of the discussion.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:37 PM

To atb: with some of the stances I take as devils advocate, if I posted with a name, you guys would be ignoring me by my second post.

It is really easy to post with a name if you are on the "right" side of the discussion.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 01:37 PM

if you don't think we ignore you now, you're kidding yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:39 PM

when the swallows return to Capistrano...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:41 PM

And this rebuts my point how? If you weren't sure you didn't want any more children and your husband was, would you have a tubal to please him?

I know very little about the poster above, other than the words on the screen. From the words on the screen, I don't see any certainty in his decision.

This is a permanent surgical procedure. If there is any ambivalence about future children, I don't think you should have it done for any reason.

Since you obviously know more than me, if you think I am wrong, please let me know why.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 01:30 PM

You've said the same things 5 times. You know what's best, not for yourself, but for a poster who is happy with his own decision. Your criteria makes sense for you. Apply it in your own life and discontinue ranting on ad nauseum about what someone else should do - a decision, by the way, with which he is most happy.

The above poster does not appear to be rebutting your point, but commenting on your style. He or she gets to do that as well. Must you control every life choice and every comment of others?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:44 PM

more about sock sacks - don't they fall off? or is that a stupid question?

Posted by: anon for this | May 3, 2007 1:45 PM

12:18:
I can see why you might have come to that conclusion, having reread my entry. I think we both believed this would be the one & only marriage (youthful idealism -- what can I say). I don't think he will want a second family, even if he gets himself together, and that's probably for the best anyway. Maybe if he had been under 35 instead of almost 50 when we separated, he might have had more interest in a second set of children. Who knows?

And even though I think it's kind of unromantic to think about what you might do in the event of death or divorce, those conversations need to be had.

Posted by: educmom | May 3, 2007 1:46 PM

"Matt-Knows-Best routine to yourself."

I've always had the feeling that Matt was latent/repressed and in the closet.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:47 PM

i always preferred hummingbirds

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:55 PM

Matt-Knows-Best routine to yourself.

Of all the things that have been "shared" today (sock sacks, shaving, swallowing ....), I'm actually going to put the Matt-knows-best routine at the bottom of my list of things I wish I wasn't exposed to.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 1:56 PM

swallows, hummingbirds ... all good ... gotta love the eager gobbler too

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:57 PM

moxiemom

"Of all the things that have been "shared" today (sock sacks, shaving, swallowing ....), I'm actually going to put the Matt-knows-best routine at the bottom of my list of things I wish I wasn't exposed to."

As opposed to the things you've shared on this blog during its life?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:59 PM

"more about sock sacks - don't they fall off? or is that a stupid question?"

Staples or duct tape. That's all I'm gonna say.

Posted by: To anon for this | May 3, 2007 2:00 PM

swallows, hummingbirds ... all good ... gotta love the eager gobbler too

Man I am having a hard time keeping up with all the names of the sex toys

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:02 PM

if you don't think we ignore you now, you're kidding yourself.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 01:39 PM

And yet, here you are, answering me.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:02 PM

"if you don't think we ignore you now, you're kidding yourself.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 01:39 PM

And yet, here you are, answering me.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 02:02 PM "

Or are you answering yourself?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:04 PM

if you don't think we ignore you now, you're kidding yourself.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 01:39 PM

And yet, here you are, answering me.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 02:02 PM

you confuse an answer with an aside. confusion is a habit for you.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:06 PM

to anon defending himself. Being unnamed doesn't give you more attention, at least from me. I'm more likely to ignore anon comments. They usually just look like trolls and answering them will generally go nowhere interesting. If you want to stand out as not-a-troll, get a name. If you make intellegent, fun, interesting devil's advocate type comments, you'll be well received. You may be targeted, bus so what? If you just want to flame, then whatever. Boring.

Posted by: atb | May 3, 2007 2:06 PM

"If you make intellegent, fun, interesting devil's advocate type comments, you'll be well received"

whether you are anonymous or not.

Shouldn't the content be the standard?

Posted by: Gutless Coward | May 3, 2007 2:09 PM

Shouldn't the content be the standard?

yes

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:09 PM

You've said the same things 5 times. You know what's best, not for yourself, but for a poster who is happy with his own decision. Your criteria makes sense for you. Apply it in your own life and discontinue ranting on ad nauseum about what someone else should do - a decision, by the way, with which he is most happy.

The above poster does not appear to be rebutting your point, but commenting on your style. He or she gets to do that as well. Must you control every life choice and every comment of others?

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 01:44 PM

So, I should just shut up? What makes you the holder of all truth? Why do you feel the need to control every comment of mine?

Just because I used this poster as an example of my point doesn't mean the point only applies to him. In fact, after clarification, it probably doesn't, but the point I am making is still valid.

Do you disagree with this statement: If a person (not this particular one) is unsure about future children they should not have a tubal/vas because their partner wants them to.

If so, why?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:12 PM

The SAHM salary was computed based on a 40-hour work week with 52 hours of overtime. Since WOHM don't get compensated for what they do at home after their regular work day, then the SAHM's shouldn't either. If a figure is determined for their worth, it should only be based on 40-hours.

Ridiculous anyway since the SAHM has more leeway in deciding what to accomplish on any given day. For example, a pre-school teacher has to teach her class - the SAHM can decide to put in a dvd for the child instead of teaching pre-school lessons. A psychologist gets paid 40 hours if he/she sees patients for 40 hours. A SAHM may act as a psychologist occasionally, but not 40-hours per week and therefore shouldn't be compensated.

Posted by: amused | May 3, 2007 2:13 PM

"You've said the same things 5 times"

But not well.

I've lost track of the debate, whatever it is.

Posted by: Born Free | May 3, 2007 2:15 PM

Parents who sterilize themselves because they want to indulge themselves with sex, but can't accept the responsibility of the consequences, namely procreation, can never, will never, be able to model self control for their own children. They have surrendered control over their desires, but somehow, they will expect sexual self control from their hormonally charged teenage sons and daughters.

What a bunch of hypocrites!

Posted by: Objectify Yourselves | May 3, 2007 2:15 PM

I am now an urgent car facility - I just put two Barbie band-aids on. cha-ching!

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 2:16 PM

Objectify Yourselves -- Catholic? Mormon?

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 2:18 PM

"You've said the same things 5 times"

But not well.

I've lost track of the debate, whatever it is.

Posted by: Born Free | May 3, 2007 02:15 PM

I got taken to task for suggesting that it was bad decision, for a poster who seemed to be ambivalent about future children, to have a vasectomy to please his wife.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 2:20 PM

Objectify Yourselves

"Parents who sterilize themselves because they want to indulge themselves with sex, but can't accept the responsibility of the consequences, namely procreation, can never, will never, be able to model self control for their own children. They have surrendered control over their desires, but somehow, they will expect sexual self control from their hormonally charged teenage sons and daughters. "

The same could be said for birth control in your world.

In any event, my children and grandchildren (who ARE hormonally charged teenagers)are not privy to my personal business.

Are yours?

I would like to know how to "indulge myself with sex", is that something new?

Posted by: Gutless Coward | May 3, 2007 2:22 PM

Moxiemom - the gift that just keeps on giving:
"I am now an urgent car facility - just put two Barbie band-aids on"

Funny in more ways than the typo

Posted by: KLB SS MD | May 3, 2007 2:24 PM

oops, urgent CARE facility - I am clearly NOT a spelling or typing teacher.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 2:24 PM

"oops, urgent CARE facility - I am clearly NOT a spelling or typing teacher"

I guess you'll have to take a cut in pay for a bad performance review.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:28 PM

Just FYI: Vascectomies aren't necessarily permanent. They are reversible, albeit not easily reversible. That fact might make the decision a little easier for some.
For me, the main reason I would opt against a permanent or semi-permanent form of birth control is something that is almost unthinkable, and certainly difficult to mention: what if my child or children die? I know they could never be replaced, of course. Still, the fear haunts me. Probably I wouldn't be able to keep living myself in that event.
I only scrolled through the comments very quickly, so I don't know if anyone else had raised that point.

Posted by: anon onlooker | May 3, 2007 2:31 PM

"oops, urgent CARE facility - I am clearly NOT a spelling or typing teacher"

"I guess you'll have to take a cut in pay for a bad performance review."

Nope, her husband (boss) will have a fling (who could blame him, talk about an intellectual wasteland), and call it a day.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:31 PM

hey 'objectify yourself', where can i sign up for some of that? .. i mean, as parents, we already have the 'taking responsibility for the consequences' thing goin' big guns ... i get less sex now than before i was snipped ... so if i am missin' something, please tell me where i can sign up for some of that 'surrendering control to my desires' ... sounds pretty frikkin hot to me

Posted by: 21042 dado'2 | May 3, 2007 2:32 PM

devils advocate

"I got taken to task for suggesting that it was bad decision, for a poster who seemed to be ambivalent about future children, to have a vasectomy to please his wife."

Can't sperm and eggs be frozen?

Can't future children be adopted or fostered?

Is anyone ever 100% sure of any major decision they make?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:35 PM

Just FYI: Vascectomies aren't necessarily permanent. They are reversible, albeit not easily reversible. That fact might make the decision a little easier for some.

Posted by: anon onlooker | May 3, 2007 02:31 PM

They are not always reversible, so when deciding, I think they should be considered permanent.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 2:39 PM

"what if my child or children die"

It's tough. It's really, really tough. But most parents recover and move on with their lives, ie. Jackie Kennedy, Barbara Bush.

They don't all have more children, even those that physically can.

It remains a private and personal decision.

Posted by: Been Therer | May 3, 2007 2:40 PM

"So, I should just shut up? What makes you the holder of all truth? Why do you feel the need to control every comment of mine?"

I don't feel any need to control you and did not say shut up. I suggested that repetition without a new point makes one a dull boy on the web. Tell the truth: Do you find it either helpful or enlightening when someone makes the same identical point over and over?

if you have a new point, do tell.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:41 PM

Nope, her husband (boss) will have a fling (who could blame him, talk about an intellectual wasteland), and call it a day.

Oh and you are just so bright. PLease, tell us more.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:43 PM

I know that insurance companies are increasingly paying for sterilization procedures, but it amazes me how often they don't, but are willing to spring for covering pre-natal care, and labor and delivery (although that, too, is increasingly not covered).

Also, I am not yet 30, but find a great deal of opposition in general (from acquintainces, medical professionals, etc) towards someone my age getting permanent birth control. Why is it that I am told that I should wait until I am older to get such a procedure done because I "might change my mind"? Why don't people ever tell someone wanting to get pregnant, "Oh, you might want to wait, having a child is permanent, you might change your mind!"? Isn't having a child pretty permanent, too? Yet no one hardly ever questions someone's decision to go ahead with procreation. Our society is very decidedly pro-reproduction. Why all this talk of the problem of permanence with one decision (sterilization), but not the other (reproduction)?

Posted by: Wyoming | May 3, 2007 2:45 PM

devils advocate

"They are not always reversible, so when deciding, I think they should be considered permanent."


But what do you care what I do with my body? If I make the wrong decision, how will it have matter to you?

And why is your thinking so rigid on this matter?

Posted by: Officer Krupke | May 3, 2007 2:48 PM

What I love about the SAHM compensation figres is that they don't take into account what she would have to do for herself anyway. For example, I don't have kids, but I make dinner every night. Am I a "chef"? I had to mulch all last weekend. Am I a "gardener"? No. During the day, SAHMs simply do all the things that WOHMs have to do outside work (with the exception of childcare).

Posted by: Meesh | May 3, 2007 2:48 PM

you need a permit and background check to own a gun legally (Cho not withstanding), you need a deed to buy a home, a license to operate a car, but any idiot with a working set of gonads can generate human offspring.

Posted by: it's amazing | May 3, 2007 2:52 PM

I got taken to task for suggesting that it was bad decision, for a poster who seemed to be ambivalent about future children, to have a vasectomy to please his wife.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 02:20 PM

you're still not listening. you're being taken to task for redundancy, not content.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:54 PM

"Why all this talk of the problem of permanence with one decision (sterilization), but not the other (reproduction)?"

Because, quite honestly, those of us who do choose not to have children are viewed as abnormal. We **should** have the desire to procreate. And since we don't, we're the odd ones out.

But, I tend to look at it as not following the crowd. I'm not going to have a child just because someone tells me I should. And if I do happen to change my mind (not very likely, as I get less and less patient the older I get), I would adopt. If the ability to parent became that important to me, I wouldn't feel the need to have a biological child.

Posted by: JRS | May 3, 2007 2:56 PM

Divorced mom of 1

"(this includes all the other posters who on other days have said things like you can tell which couples are going to get divorced and they should have seen it coming) you are making many people feel bad who had no choice."

#1 Very important life lesson. Unless there is a gun at your head, there are very very few times in life when you "had no choice".

#2 Very important life lesson. People can't make you "feel bad", you let yourself "feel bad."

Posted by: Madonna | May 3, 2007 2:58 PM

I had not considered sterilization during a C-section. If my pregnancy is successful, I will certainly consider it. I really want another child, but that's all I want. And since I am 41, if I do have another child, I am sure I won't want another one after that. What a great idea!!!

And I don't think that thoughtful sterilization is an abdication of responsibility and self control. In fact, I see it as taking active responsibility for one's reproductive life. What I think is irresponsible is having child after child, with no thought as to how the finances will be managed, how the college will be paid for, or how the family will manage to deal with the huge responsibility fo a new life added to the household. Too many people have children without even considering the future. That, in my view, is way more irresponsible than getting sterilized.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 2:58 PM

"Can't sperm and eggs be frozen?"

Absolutely, if I were to make this decision, even if I were certain, I would do this. There is no guarantee that they will be viable in the future though.

"Can't future children be adopted or fostered?"

Sure, why not. But that is different (not better or worse) than your own biological child. This is a personal decision, if you are willing to go this route, it makes the decision much easier.

"Is anyone ever 100% sure of any major decision they make?"

No, but I am highly risk adverse (comes with my job). So I think, in situations that are more than likely irreversible, one should err on the side of caution.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 02:35 PM

I also believe that a marriage can only work when each partner is true to themselves. While there needs to be give and take, on things as important as fertility, each partner needs to be true to themselves.

I have one child with my wife, I wanted two but we settled on one. So when the discussion came up near the birth date of my child, she was sure she wanted no more biological children, I was not. As a result, she had a tubal.

I doubt I will ever have the opportunity to have another biological child, seeing as I love my wife and intend to stay married to her, but I would have felt uncomfortable eliminating the possibility.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 3:01 PM

Meesh,

The guy from salary.com did a live chat with Leslie last year. He got hammered with questions about working moms and why SAHM make more.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 3:02 PM

Boy, I am not even going to become involved in this discussion. In some ways, it is worse than BF and smoking discussions combined.

Sorry, no CTOTD today.

Posted by: Fred | May 3, 2007 3:09 PM

Come on Fred, the sock sack is funny.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 3:12 PM

I propose a mid-afternoon poll for the sane folk. Choose either what's behind Door A or Door B, or for extra credit, nominate another of your choosing. Which of the following comments wins the Most Sanctimonious Post of the day:

Behind Door A we have Matt from Aberdeen at 12:56:

"Someone once wrote that each family is a little civilization, and that divorce destroys that civilization. In addition, the philosopher Michael Slote has written about "virtue ethics" (see his book, "Morality and Virtue".) Keeping one's promise is a virtue, i.e., it is admirable. Breaking one's promise, when the other party has kept his or her promise, is the opposite of a virtue. It is generally regarded as blameworthy.
So, if your partner has kept all the promises you both made at your wedding -- no abuse, no cheating, no meanness -- is it admirable to destroy your children's civilization just because your marriage no longer makes you as happy as you think it should? I don't think so."

Behind Door B, we have Objectify Yourselves at 2:15:

"Parents who sterilize themselves because they want to indulge themselves with sex, but can't accept the responsibility of the consequences, namely procreation, can never, will never, be able to model self control for their own children. They have surrendered control over their desires, but somehow, they will expect sexual self control from their hormonally charged teenage sons and daughters.
What a bunch of hypocrites!"


and the winner is . . . .?


Posted by: KS Mom | May 3, 2007 3:13 PM

Come on Fred, the sock sack is funny.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 03:12 PM

Maybe to you it is. You have to remember an vernerable man's saying, "Kick one guy in the nuts and every man feels it!"

Posted by: Fred | May 3, 2007 3:16 PM

devils advocate

"I have one child with my wife, I wanted two but we settled on one."

It sounds like YOU make a decision you didn't like.

Maybe you aren't a good husband/father and that is why your wife decided on one child.

Posted by: Gumby | May 3, 2007 3:16 PM

Okay, time for true confessions. What are your secret guilty pleasures? Mine is bazooka bubblegum (ok, my husband knows, but he is the only one). Anyone else?

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 3:16 PM

Door B -- don't criticize people for being sexually active!

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 3:16 PM

and the winner is . . . .?

C. both of them

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:17 PM

My desire for Emily's bloomers despite my previous protests!

Posted by: Fred | May 3, 2007 3:18 PM

Emily

Are you really 41?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:19 PM

KS mom, I vote for door B for today, although Matt gets the overall lifetime achievement for being a sanctimonious bore.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 3:19 PM

Emily, my guilty pleasure is Maury Povich paternity tests. I'm glad I work a day job or I'd get nothing else done but watch Maury.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 3:21 PM

Door B, hands down.

Posted by: Laura | May 3, 2007 3:21 PM

Yup. I am really 41.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 3:21 PM

Fred

"Boy, I am not even going to become involved in this discussion. In some ways, it is worse than BF and smoking discussions combined."

That's cause it involves sex!!!

The kooks always stick their noses into the bedroom. They live for it!!!

Posted by: Officer Krupke | May 3, 2007 3:22 PM

B

Posted by: door B | May 3, 2007 3:23 PM

KB-

My DH is the product of his father's "second family". I don't know the details of the divorce, but his ex had custody, and he had visitation. He remarried a woman who had no children, and she wanted some. His reason for having kids three and four wasn't because he didn't love kids one and two, just like he hadn't had kid 2 because he didn't love kid 1. You balance your responsibilities to all of them.

Their mother also remarried, to a man with his own children, who moved in with them. That was probably more disruptive to their homelife than the birth of their half-brothers, but they seem to have survived just fine. I don't think you should expect parents to ignore their own potential happiness for the supposed good of their children. And both parents are still married to their second spouse, so i assume they found some happiness.

And my brothers-in-law are happy, productive people who don't seem to harbor any deep-seated resentment towards their half-siblings or step-siblings. And my DH is wonderful, so I for one am happy he was born :-)

Posted by: Kathrina | May 3, 2007 3:24 PM

I vote for Door B.

Matt in Aberdeen deserves some small iota of credit for using a consistent nom du whatever rather than boring everyone AND being anonymous a la the formerly anon and now "devils advocate" person. But it was a close call.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | May 3, 2007 3:24 PM

BF when I use it means breastfeeding

Posted by: Fred | May 3, 2007 3:25 PM

I thought everyone's guilty pleasure was this blog!

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 3:27 PM

What is a sock sack?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:27 PM

"Don't sock sacks fall off?"

How to make a sock sack:

Collect several of the child's socks that have lost their mates. You will want more than one, as there are design failures that must be discarded, and washing the thing is just silly. Cut off below the heel. Cut a hole in the side for "Mr. Johnson". Slip Mr. Johnson through the hole and tuck "the boys" in. If necessary, thread embroidery floss around the cut end, and gather and tie into a bow.

For those who have missed the context, this jewel sack is used while the hairs grow back. Those hairs itch and prickle.

Posted by: Matt M | May 3, 2007 3:29 PM

Re: "what do you do if your children die"?

Thought about it, considered it. That was one of many issues that played into our decision to have no. 2.

But I also know I am done with pregnancy, period, for a lot of reasons -- age, medical, emotional, etc. And after getting to know my daughter, I realized that if something happened to her, even if I were in shape mentally and physically to have another baby, I could never "replace" the unique little person she is, and that it would be better not to even try. So I would just have to find some other way to manage, whether that's adopting, volunteering with kids, whatever.

Maybe if I were 25 it would be different, I don't know. But where I am now, I can't envision any of those future circumstances -- divorce, remarriage, death -- leading me to want to have more children.

Posted by: Laura | May 3, 2007 3:29 PM

Mona - I second your guilty pleasure. I'm always amazed that A: you would go on t.v. to find out who is the father of your baby and that B. there are as many as 7 potential dads! Its like a car crash on the highway.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 3:30 PM

"I had not considered sterilization during a C-section"

I asked my gyn about tubal ligation in my 4th month of pregnancy with my last child. We knew we didn't want more children after the last. He said that it could be done at the time of a C-section. If it was a vaginal delivery, you would have to come back later after having time to heal.

I ended up having unscheculed C-section. After the baby was born, while still on the table, I said 'Don't forget what else you're supposed to do while you're in there.' The child was greatly wanted and dearly loved, but we knew she would be the last.

Don't know if it's true or not, but I was told that tubes tied can come untied, but cut is forever.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:30 PM


Divorced mom of 1,

That twin arrangement sounds like a clever way to pull some positives (extra 1-on-1 parent-kid time) out of a negative (zero sum game of when she's got the kids, he's missing them, and vice versa).

Sorry to come off as disparaging *any* outside social interests of the divorced. I can see where noncustodial times bring free time, and maybe loneliness for many. I was thinking more along the original spark of the discussion, of remarriage and especially having new kids in a newly formed family (you know, the 'don't risk a vasectomy or you won't be able to catch your next wife who'll want her own babies too'); that is, of changing the family your kids live in when they're with you. I just see that as a huge commitment of new emotional energy, and a risk to the stability and interests of your first family kids, to be taken slow and weighed very carefully. It's not the having a social life but the changing your child's comfort zone, of family in your home.

But, there must be something so hard for many about the gaps left by divorce, of being your child's on-duty parent part-time, but left without an adult partner and sometimes even without your child, being in limbo . . . too hard to 'get' without experiencing it maybe . . . because even though it feels to me as a happily married parent that I'd never want to bring the complications of a new dad, stepsiblings, etc into the nest that is my family of parent and kids, that it would be too risky and I'd just want to sustain that nest til the kids were grown and *then* look outward if need be . . . that's not what most people do, it seems . . . it seems that the pull to create another family is very strong, maybe dabbling in new outside relationships risks them blossoming to demand center stage commitment soon afterwards(?) I'm surprised how many of my online mom friends who have divorced - within months of the dad moving out, shared custody and all, the dad's already got a live-in girlfriend with her own kids who get more of dad's parenting than his own do . . . and the kids are adapting to life under a totally new-to-them stepmom's rules and priorities half the time. It's more than half of the moms I know who've divorced (which is still a pretty small subset of my moms group, 10 years running).

Posted by: KB | May 3, 2007 3:30 PM

Re: "what do you do if your children die"?

valid question, but they really aren't replaceable.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 3:30 PM

Kathrina

Your husband's story had a happy ending, but there are many, many children from broken, patchwork, crazy-quilt homes who weren't so lucky.

Children in "Brady Bunch" type families are at the same risks as children of single parents.

I delayed my "potential happiness" until my children were of age.

Posted by: Dr. Phil | May 3, 2007 3:31 PM

Well, I went to see my Doctor,
I said, "Doc, I can't pay my bills!
The rent's all spent,
The truck's got a dent,
And I think I'm gettin' the chills
From being forced to sleep alone,
You see this house just ain't no home,
I can't afford no kids,
My life is on the skids,
'Cause my woman says
"Leave me alone,
Unless you get a vasectomy!
You ought to get a vasectomy!
Just one little male alteration
Can keep us from another altercation!
Get a vasectomy!
You ought to get a vasectomy!
Oh what a vas deferens there could be!"

Well, the next thing I know,
I'm laying on a table
With a light shinin' in my eyes!
They strapped my wrists,
They strapped my ankles,
And they double-strapped my thighs!

The nurses were a gigglin'
And I was a wigglin',
Most uncomfortably,
When the Doc walked in,
With a perverted grin,
And here's what he said to me:

"It only hurts
For a little while,
That's what they tell me,
That's what they say!"

Oooeeeiy! Ooooh! Aiiiy Oh!

Well, it's two weeks later,
And I feel a little better,
My mind is more at ease.
The rent's still spent,
The truck's got a dent,
But my woman's no longer a tease!

And even down at the office,
There is a lot more interest in me,
The girls all grin when I walk in!
And brother, they mean to please
A man with a vasectomy,
You ought to get a vasectomy!
Like a sun-kissed orange,
I've been squeezed,
'Cause its all juice and there's no seed!

Well, a vasectomy!
You ought to get a vasectomy!
Oh what a vas deferens!
It's beginnin' to make a little sense!
Oh what a vas deferens there could...'

Here is the part that I like the most,
It takes the danger out of bein' close!

Oh what a vas deferens there could..

They snip those little suckers right in two
And clamp 'em of with super-glue!

Oh what a vas deferens there could be!

Posted by: The Limeliters said: | May 3, 2007 3:31 PM

Re: "what do you do if your children die"?

I hate to say this, but you can have four or five children who can all die. My uncle's mother has outlived all her kids. They had a heart defect. Most of them died in their early 20s. My uncle died two years ago after my cousin. Sad but true, nothing in life is forever.

Posted by: scarry | May 3, 2007 3:32 PM

Moxiemom, I'm with you there. I've made a game of guessing whether the guy is the father or not. I'm usually right, and I think it's kind of sad that I've gotten that good at guessing. Usually the mothers that insist the most vehemently are the ones who have no clue who the father is. I saw one woman who cried over not being able to reach her baby's "daddy," who she was "100%" sure was the father, and then when it turns out he wasn't, she said "Don't call me no more! Get out of my life!" Excuse me, but weren't you the one dragging him to the show for testing, and complaining that you could never reach him?

It also stuns me that there could be 7 fathers, especially considering that there are only about three days out of a 28-day cycle in which one can conceive.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 3:36 PM

"Like a sun-kissed orange,
I've been squeezed,
'Cause its all juice and there's no seed!"

This is my favorite part of the song. I am laughing so hard I can hardly breathe.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 3:36 PM

My vote is for B. I like Matt in Aberdeen most of the time.

And my guilty pleasure is this blog (and now the TMC Web site) and reality TV. Not "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars" (puke) but stuff on A&E and Discovery like "Cold Case Files," "Super Obese," and "Intervention."

Posted by: Meesh | May 3, 2007 3:37 PM

when I had my second child I was 40. The nurse at the hospital asked me if I wanted to get a TB (!) I was shocked. Was it my age? My DH has not had any procedures either and we have not thought about it at all. Between two full time jobs with DC-type hours, high energy kids, and just life, I would be very surprised in my old age if I were to get pregnant.

Posted by: fedmom | May 3, 2007 3:37 PM

Kathrina

Your husband's story had a happy ending, but there are many, many children from broken, patchwork, crazy-quilt homes who weren't so lucky.

Children in "Brady Bunch" type families are at the same risks as children of single parents.

I delayed my "potential happiness" until my children were of age.


Posted by: Dr. Phil | May 3, 2007 03:31 PM

If ever there was a topic where a one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate, it's divorce. You are happy with the decision you made, 3:31, but your decision in your family with your spouse and your children does not apply to the rest of humanity.

I vote for the fake Dr. Phil's comment over either Door A or Door B.

Posted by: Allie | May 3, 2007 3:39 PM

--Re: "what do you do if your children die"?

I didn't have a tubal until after two children. Two children dying together is highly unlikely, as is both children dying separately while still young.

If I were to lose one or two, I imagine that the grief would be all encompasing and it would be quite a while before I would feel fully capable of caring for a baby. If one of my children died, then, as awful as it would be, I would not be childless. If both died, then I would be childless, but I'm not sure, even then, that I would want another baby. My reasons for 'getting fixed' had more to do with my age than the fact that I already had two.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:41 PM

are there any Brad Paisley ("Celebrity") fans out there?

"Vasectomy" Parody by Spaff.com

I've got five A.D.D. daughters
Can I control 'em? Well, no
Don't get me wrong, I sure love 'em
Especially when I'm not home

Can't wait to get 'em all through college
Can't wait till I'm not poor
Soon I'll be through changing diapers
Here's the reason I'm sure:

I'm getting a vasectomy
It's adios paternity
You can say that kids are fine
But once you've lived with mine
You just might disagree

Dangerous relationships
Get much safer after just two simple snips
The stork'll tell me thanks
'Cause I'll be shootin' blanks
& Romance won't be a risk
Getting a vasectomy
(Uh huh)

I'm overwhelmed with girlie problems
And man those clothes ain't cheap
& If you count naps at the office
I average four hours of sleep

I tell my wife more kids 'd kill me
She says it's worth the fuss
Wish there wasn't this vas deferens
Between the two of us

I'm getting a vasectomy
The only solid guarantee
Those pesky birds and bees
Never leave their trees
And stir things up for me

Enough of my genes have staked their place
I've done my part to propagate the race
I face the nurse with pride
'Cause I'm fit to be tied
Ya know it's no disgrace
Getting a vasectomy

Wait - the queen of the Nile says I'm exiled
If I won't help bring her a son
She'll say sleep in the basement
Let me ponder here...
Hey, hey, fatherhood
Here I come!

Reversin' the vasectomy
It's adios serenity
Since sanity's a myth
What's the problem with
Another kid or three?
Who needs a vasectomy?

No vasectomy!
(Nuh-uh)
(Where's my Advil?)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:42 PM

some of the anti-snip can be cultural. my cousin's husband is italian. when she suggested, after their 3rd child that he get snipped, not only did he say not but his entire family was shocked, appalled & offended that she would dare to suggest such a barbaric notion. it was only after she miscarried w/ a surprize that he did grudgingly agree.

Posted by: quark | May 3, 2007 3:44 PM

Amen, Emily! Family planning rules!!

I wish I was surprised by the number of women who said their doctors were not willing to do a tubal ligation because of their age, but I'm not. It's shameful that women are treated as unable to make intelligent decisions about their reproductive system (if you doubt me, refer to Justice Kennedy's recent opinion, which is scary no matter HOW you feel about abortion).

I missed the sock sack comment that upset Fred. Was it funny enough to repeat?

As for the poll...please show THEM the door.

Posted by: educmom | May 3, 2007 3:44 PM

It also stuns me that there could be 7 fathers, especially considering that there are only about three days out of a 28-day cycle in which one can conceive.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 03:36 PM

Well, the ladies aren't exactly mathematicians either or maybe they really are that busy! Meesh, I like those reality shows too - especially the 100lb tumor or 100 things found in the human body. Maybe the previous poster was right, I am a vast intellectual wasteland? Oh well, at least I'm happy despite the insufficient nature of my gray matter.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 3:44 PM

I vote for Door B.

Matt in Aberdeen deserves some small iota of credit for using a consistent nom du whatever rather than boring everyone AND being anonymous a la the formerly anon and now "devils advocate" person. But it was a close call.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | May 3, 2007 03:24 PM

Thanks, love you too.

Sorry for trying to stay on topic. BTW, do you swallow? (that was an interesting topic drift)

So, I guess if your wife says get a vasectomy, you should just do it, whether you want to or not.

The penalty for being boring around here is pretty steep.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 3:45 PM

in his next life, maybe devils advocate will connect with parentpreneur and they can discuss the same two topics all day long, in and out of the bedroom.

Posted by: Poetic Justice | May 3, 2007 3:49 PM

Hey Devils advocate -- you "single" earlier this week, weren't you?

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 3:49 PM

Moxiemom, don't feel bad about your penchant for trash reality shows. I tend to get sucked in also. That wife swap show is awful, but time and time again, I watch it. A few years back, there was a reality show called "Are You Hot?" It had Lorenzo Llamas as a judge, and basically, men and women would just be judged on their looks. It was truly awful, but I watched it too. I think humans have are drawn to the truly awful. We just can't stay away.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 3:50 PM

educmom


"It's shameful that women are treated as unable to make intelligent decisions about their reproductive system "

Mona

"It also stuns me that there could be 7 fathers, especially considering that there are only about three days out of a 28-day cycle in which one can conceive"

Yes, indeed.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:51 PM

Not to defend the woman with the 7 potential fathers, but:

1) it's actually more like 5 days of fertilty, since sperm can last up to 5 days; and

2) unless you are tracking things very carefully, you may not know exactly when those 5 days occurred, especially if you have irregular cycles.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:53 PM

My husband and I don't have children yet, so we haven't discussed our options regarding sterilization. I don't know how he feels about getting a vasectomy, but I don't know if I would close the baby-making factory if we had children of the same sex. Did the sex of the children factor into your decisions to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation?

I'm reading the truemomconfessions site right now....good stuff!!!

Posted by: MV | May 3, 2007 3:55 PM

Thanks Emily, actually I don't feel too bad. My goal is intellectual equilibrium. I watch Wife Swap then a little Frontline - back to zero. I read Family Fun magazine then Newsweek - back to zero. I'm still trying to figure out where Rome and The Tudors fall, I think it is a 50/50 split - I will resolve this as I go to my next "job" chauffer/psychologist (driving to the hated/feared swimming lessons):)

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 3:55 PM

It's shameful that women are treated as unable to make intelligent decisions about their reproductive system

Posted by: educmom | May 3, 2007 03:44 PM

Do you think this is the reason? The doctors think you are stupid?

I think it is mostly the experience of the doctors, which is baised by what they see. Since they probably don't see a lot of women saying how happy they are at having their tubes tied and see a lot of women in pain wishing they hadn't made the decision. They would probably want to make sure the woman is sure.

There is probably a little (or a lot of) fear of a malpractice suit as well.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 3:56 PM

So, if your partner has kept all the promises you both made at your wedding -- no abuse, no cheating, no meanness -- is it admirable to destroy your children's civilization just because your marriage no longer makes you as happy as you think it should? I don't think so.

matt in aberdeen


I don't see why people are finding this so offensive. I agree completely. All the reasons given so far such as alcohol problems, fiscal irresponsibility, etc would be things that I would classify under the "abuse" umbrella. Maybe it's a broad definition, but I consider anything detrimental to the marriage and family as somewhat abusive.

I know too many people who have given up on marriage because 'we've grown apart', 'I am not attracted to him the way I used to be', 'She never wants to do anything but stay home since the baby was born (exhausted, maybe?)', 'I'm just not happy.'

Those are the times when people should suck it up, try to find the happiness they used to have together, be civil by treating each other with respect even if physically they treat each other as roommates rather than partners. The children didn't ask to be born, and it is the parents responsibility to give them a stable home. Look for personal happiness after the kids are gone.

Posted by: Amazing | May 3, 2007 3:57 PM

Not to defend the woman with the 7 potential fathers, but I like to look at it this way,
For every woman with who makes the unwise choice of having 7 sex partners in one monthly cycle, there are 7 men who made the equally unwise choice. No woman has sex by herself (unless of course she has a really good shower massage, and then the need for those 7 partners completely disappears).

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 3:58 PM

"some of the anti-snip can be cultural. my cousin's husband is italian. when she suggested, after their 3rd child that he get snipped, not only did he say not but his entire family was shocked, appalled & offended that she would dare to suggest such a barbaric notion. it was only after she miscarried w/ a surprize that he did grudgingly agree."

Oh-oh, I guess this is what I'm in for. Although in my culture it's also taboo and common for doctors to force women to get tubal ligations.

Posted by: MV | May 3, 2007 3:58 PM

Real men don't get vasectomies!

Posted by: Objectify Yourselves | May 3, 2007 3:59 PM

KB and others who've commented on divorce and creating new families - a fair number of kids with single parents are NOT products of divorce - they didn't "lose" their dad (or mom), they just never knew that person in the first place. I hate that my son doesn't have a dad, and I have a) wondered whether a stepdad is better than no dad, since I've heard stories from people who adored their stepdads and people who hated them, and b) thought about whether I would view dating in general differently if I was divorced but my ex- was still involved with our child ... I think there's a big difference. I would absolutely want to have more children if I got married, even if it meant a his, hers, and theirs situation - and it doesn't mean I would want my husband to abandon his first kids.
I also know that I feel differently about it because my child is a boy than I would if I had a daughter, but that is a whole different subject.

Posted by: TakomaMom | May 3, 2007 3:59 PM

Hey Devils advocate -- you "single" earlier this week, weren't you?

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 03:49 PM

Actaully, I was agruing with Single most of the day.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 4:00 PM

Did the sex of the children factor into your decisions to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation

Not at all.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:02 PM

Emily, while you have a good point I'm going to disagree slightly in that there is a greater onus upon the woman to make "good" choices about the people with whom she has sex simply because the consequences are significantly greater for her than for the man.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 4:03 PM

The penalty for being boring around here is pretty steep.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 03:45 PM

what is that penalty again?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:03 PM

Devil's Advocate -- okay, good. "Single" said "love you too" and bunch of times, so that made me wonder.

Posted by: Arington Dad | May 3, 2007 4:04 PM

"Not to defend the woman with the 7 potential fathers, but"

When I've been drinking & partying a lot, my sexual partners and activities tend to become a big blur. You know how it is.

Besides, Maury is offering me a free trip and stay at a nice hotel.

And, since I don't have a shred of decency in my character or an ounce of self-respect, it is no problem for me to repeatedly go on TV searching for the fathers of my kids.

After all
" It's shameful that women are treated as unable to make intelligent decisions about their reproductive system "

Posted by: Trixie | May 3, 2007 4:07 PM

there are 7 men who made the equally unwise choice. No woman has sex by herself (unless of course she has a really good shower massage, and then the need for those 7 partners completely disappears).

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 03:58 PM

Not if the woman was the only one they had sex with (though given the character of the people usually on that show, I doubt it). Isn't the unwise choice here the number of different partners, not the partners themselves?

I mean one of the men could think he is her steady boyfriend (poor sap).

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 4:08 PM

Devil's Advocate -- okay, good. "Single" said "love you too" and bunch of times, so that made me wonder.

Posted by: Arington Dad | May 3, 2007 04:04 PM

I am not always boring and on the wrong side of the discussion.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 4:11 PM

I am not always boring and on the wrong side of the discussion.

Well......... you DO work for Satan.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 4:12 PM

"All the reasons given so far such as alcohol problems, fiscal irresponsibility, etc would be things that I would classify under the "abuse" umbrella. Maybe it's a broad definition, but I consider anything detrimental to the marriage and family as somewhat abusive."

Amazing, if you are willing to stretch the definition of "abuse" to include "anything detrimental to the marriage and family, then you are not dealing honestly with Matt's point. His view is essentially, if your spouse doesn't beat you or cheat on you with another partner, then it is ethically and morally irresponsible to divorce. To expand "abuse" to a point that captures at least half of all divorces is not exactly standing on principled ground.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:14 PM

Isn't the unwise choice here the number of different partners, not the partners themselves?

I was actually being kind of flip there. But in the age of AIDS, I think that everyone in the scenario is being pretty dumb. Those men exposed themselves to the potential disease of every other man that woman had sex with. Even if they can't get pregnant, they don't sound very smart to me.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 4:14 PM

MV (and others), don't get too hung up on the italian thing ... i am of italian descent on both sides of my family (think the barones or the costanzas, not the sopranos or the corleones) ... i was happy to get snipped ... and no one from either side of our families knows about it .. none of their business

Posted by: 21042 - dad o'2 | May 3, 2007 4:14 PM

'Re: "what do you do if your children die"?'

"valid question, but they really aren't replaceable."

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 03:30 PM

Of course, you can't replace a lost child. And yet, when my cousin's son was 4 years old, his little 2-year-old sister died. His parents didn't want him to grow up an only child. They got him a little brother.

A vasectomy would not have made any difference in that case, because they got the little brother by adopting him.

No one knows what the future holds in store for us.

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | May 3, 2007 4:15 PM

Emily

"there are 7 men who made the equally unwise choice."

The mind boogles that any of these people would willingly be in the same room, much less have sex together.

Some of them make Britney Spears look like a genius!

Posted by: Shudders | May 3, 2007 4:15 PM

F04 thank you for the link to the Northwestern study. I am shocked that more people aren't appalled at the link between vasectomies and dementia. No way will I let my husband get one now. I guess we'll continue our hodgepodge approach, which is to use the Fertility Awareness Method and condoms on the fertile days.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:15 PM

"I am shocked that more people aren't appalled at the link between vasectomies and dementia"

I'm not. My husband was impotent and pretty gaga before the age of 40 without a vasectomy.

Posted by: Wilma | May 3, 2007 4:19 PM

Especially considering the "you should suck it up because of the kids when your marriage isn't sufficiently awful, based on an outsider's criteria" sentiment espoused (har, har) by some:

If ever there was a topic where a one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate, it's divorce. You are happy with the decision you made, 3:31, but your decision in your family with your spouse and your children does not apply to the rest of humanity.

-Allie

Posted by: Bears Repeating . . . | May 3, 2007 4:20 PM

"The bet was on the 2000 election--I was pessimistic and bet Bush would win and he thought Gore could pull it off. We are still using oral contraception because he insists that Gore won the popular vote and the Supreme Court was not making fertility decisions for him! I kid you not! True life story!"

This is hilarious!!! I would be saying the same thing as your husband!!!

Posted by: MV | May 3, 2007 4:21 PM

I was actually being kind of flip there. But in the age of AIDS, I think that everyone in the scenario is being pretty dumb. Those men exposed themselves to the potential disease of every other man that woman had sex with. Even if they can't get pregnant, they don't sound very smart to me.


Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 04:14 PM

I agree about the stupidity, but how would they know who and how many other sex partners she had?

If you are saying you shouldn't sleep with someone you don't know well enough to know that about them, I get your point, but other peoples promiscuity is not for me to judge. Stupidity, I'll judge. Sexuality, not my place.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:22 PM

"I guess we'll continue our hodgepodge approach, which is to use the Fertility Awareness Method and condoms on the fertile days."

Sounds like a hot sex like, for sure!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:22 PM

"I agree about the stupidity, but how would they know who and how many other sex partners she had?"

If they are having sex with her, they should make it their business to know. This kind of knowledge does not come from a conversation which happens as you are taking your undies off. It comes from knowing a person for longer than a week and a half. If she was having sex with 6 other men, I doubt that she appeared to be the paragon of virtue. My guess is that the guys just thought they were getting some nookie for nothing, and thought nothing of it until the pregnancy came along and they became potential child support providers.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 4:26 PM

I am not always boring and on the wrong side of the discussion.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 04:11 PM

you're not on the "wrong" side. I, for one, agree with you. BUT you're a repetitive drone. the chip on your shoulder is blinding you to the difference.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:26 PM

I am not always boring and on the wrong side of the discussion.

Well......... you DO work for Satan.

Posted by: moxiemom | May 3, 2007 04:12 PM

Gotta pay the bills somehow. ;)

I think you are underestimating your ability to pull in that 138K. You crack me up sometimes.

Do the make pornographic comedies? Could they be the mans version of a romantic comedy?

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 4:27 PM

"Not to defend the woman with the 7 potential fathers, but:

1) it's actually more like 5 days of fertilty, since sperm can last up to 5 days; and

2) unless you are tracking things very carefully, you may not know exactly when those 5 days occurred, especially if you have irregular cycles."

Fine--let's be generous and say 7 men in 28 days. That's still SEVEN men in TWENTY-EIGHT days! Still a bit excessive, don't you think?

And: "there are 7 men who made the equally unwise choice."

True, but there's rarely one man with seven women. Not saying it doesn't happen, but even so, two wrongs don't make a right, and people owe it to their children to get the paternity right.

Posted by: Mona | May 3, 2007 4:28 PM

"True, but there's rarely one man with seven women."

Unless the man is in the NBA.....

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:31 PM

"Fine--let's be generous and say 7 men in 28 days. That's still SEVEN men in TWENTY-EIGHT days! Still a bit excessive, don't you think?"

No, it's an intelligent choice concerning a woman's reproductive rights!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:33 PM

'Fess up - Anyone ever been with more than one (wo)man in the same day?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:33 PM

"If they are having sex with her, they should make it their business to know. "

The whole point of the one-night stand is to know as LITTLE as possible about the other person.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:37 PM

'What if your child dies'

After such an unthinkable loss, I would be terrified to have another. Irrational fears would prevent me from having another. I would be afraid that the next child would die also. I would be afraid that I would ruin the child's life by becoming Queen of the Helicopter Mothers our of fear of losing that child.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:37 PM

I am not always boring and on the wrong side of the discussion.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 04:11 PM

you're not on the "wrong" side. I, for one, agree with you. BUT you're a repetitive drone. the chip on your shoulder is blinding you to the difference.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 04:26 PM

Well, why didn't you say so the first time I said it?

I assumed that when I first said what I said and only got disagreement and flames that there was no one that agreed with me. Even when I asked specific questions, no one would answer in agreement. It boggled my mind that everyone would think what I said was wrong. (Now I realize that I am just boring)

BTW, if I am boring, talking about me must be even more so. Please call me boring again, it is sooooo interesting.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:38 PM

"The whole point of the one-night stand is to know as LITTLE as possible about the other person."

In that case, wouldn't it be smart to use a condom and not expose yourself to the potential other partners that have had sex with the gem that you chose for your one night stand?

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 4:43 PM

I can't believe we made it through Vasectomy Day without a single reference to the frozen peas. I don't feel like we delved deep enough into the topic...

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 4:44 PM

Arlington Dad,
Please enlighten us. I am totally in the dark about frozen peas.

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 4:46 PM

No one knows what the future holds in store for us.


Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | May 3, 2007 04:15 PM

Ah, the irony.

In response to this topic, Matt and a few others keep saying, "No one knows what the future holds in store for us", but when ever, in the context of discussing whether women should continue to work or maintain their job skills in the event of divorce or death, e.g., "no one knows what the future holds in store for us," Matt and others hyperventilate that those women aren't being positive thinkers or committed to their marriages if the unknown is a concern.

*snort*

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:47 PM

'Fess up - Anyone ever been with more than one (wo)man in the same day?

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 04:33 PM


3 men in one day is my record (college spring break jamaica!)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:49 PM

Choice B for many of the same reasons as above.

Guilty pleasures: again, agree with many of the others about TLC,etc but LOVE Deadliest Catch the most of all.

Posted by: KLB SS MD | May 3, 2007 4:49 PM

Mike Rowe - Dirty Jobs - what a cutie!!

Robin L.

Posted by: Guilty Pleasure | May 3, 2007 4:52 PM

Emily

"In that case, wouldn't it be smart to use a condom and not expose yourself to the potential other partners that have had sex with the gem that you chose for your one night stand? "

Yes, but there's the rub. I need to be blotto to have the one-night stand in the first place, so my judgment is really impaired. The men don't seem to worry about condoms. Anyway, I don't remember much the next day; I usually have had a blackout.

I don't see why you are judging me so harshly. You're married; you don't have to look for sex. All my friends do it!

Maybe you've forgotten what it's like to be young.

You're all a bunch of killjoys.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:53 PM

4:52 - THANK YOU - how could I forget him. I have an autographed photo hanging in my office. Did you know he is from Baltimore and was a singer? He seems like the kind of guy who would keep you laughing all day long. He would be a great friend and boyfriend. I bet if he broke up with you you would remain friends.

Posted by: KLB SS MD | May 3, 2007 4:54 PM

'Fess up - Anyone ever been with more than one (wo)man in the same day?

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 04:33 PM

two men in 24 hours, but not the same calendar day. somehow that distinction meant a great deal at the time, LOL.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:54 PM

3 men in one day is my record (college spring break jamaica!)

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 04:49 PM

I hate it when people post anon. ;)

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 4:54 PM

Two men at the same time in a hot tub.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:55 PM

"The whole point of the one-night stand is to know as LITTLE as possible about the other person."

In that case, wouldn't it be smart to use a condom and not expose yourself to the potential other partners that have had sex with the gem that you chose for your one night stand?

Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 04:43 PM

Emily, Have you ever had a one-night stand?

Condoms and fun are mutually exclusive.

"Just a second. I'd love to have mind-blowing meaningless sex with you for the next several hours and then never call you again. Have you had a check-up lately and are there any condoms in your nightstand?"

She will get up, get dressed and go sleep with my wingman.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:57 PM

Emily -- you put a bag of frozen peas on "the area" to keep swelling down after a vasectomy.

Not as interesting as 7 men in a month, but this fact is more likely to come up in conversation in your world.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 3, 2007 4:58 PM

Cleaning up a little bit on comments based on my previous post:

First, thanks for calling me a keeper. But I must admit that I can be an a-hat in *many* other ways.

Secondly, two points of clarification: Point A: "wouldn't mind having another kid" is not strong enough. "really want another kid" is too strong. "Would enjoy and welcome another kid" is about right.

Point B: I believe my child would be short-changed if s/he weren't wanted by both parents (and that is not a knock on single parents; I believe kids are better off with living with one parent who wants them than living with two parents that includes one who resents their presence).

A third thing: I'm Catholic and fairly devout (no, I don't wish to debate this). We socialize with other devout suburban Catholic couples, many much more conservative than we. And I'd estimate 75 percent of the husbands are snipped (yes, we do discuss such things).

One place where being Catholic does affect me: Divorce is a bigger deal to us than it is to the larger society, I think. Not to the point where I think it's freakish or an assault on society or that divorced people are bad people, but to the point where I'm just culturally unable to consider "hedging my bet" and saving my swimmers in case there's a second wife in my future.

Posted by: proxl | May 3, 2007 5:03 PM

It`s a sad commentary on our sick culture that anti-life fanaticism consumes so much time, energy and treasure.

Deliberately mutilating oneself simply to foreclose the gift of life is a horrible thing.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 5:04 PM

It`s a sad commentary on our sick culture that anti-life fanaticism consumes so much time, energy and treasure.

Deliberately mutilating oneself simply to foreclose the gift of life is a horrible thing.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 05:04 PM

Glad I am not anon any more!

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 5:10 PM


Takoma Mom,

I also feel the difference. If you're the sole parent now, adding onto your family later, thoughtfully as of course you would, isn't going to leave your child behind or pull you away from him. You'll still be 100% his, physically and emotionally there for him. It's enlarging your family which is still 100% his, he's still at the center and in a home which is his own . . . my misgivings, which are mainly personal feelings, nothing deeply researched, deal more with making a child a partial/visitor/non-member of a family that has become his parent's higher, more immediate priority, in reality or kid-perception.

While I place a high priority on maintaining the role of an already involved, loving dad, I wouldn't worry too much that the abstract slot of dad goes unfilled for your son. Some people get great dads and some crummy dads, some get physical grace, some perfect pitch, some amazing quickwittedness, some deep bonds with siblings, or with extended family, and some none, and some get a solo parent wholly committed to them, like you. We all get different advantages and blessings and not happening to end up with one particular great one is not a looming deficit.

Posted by: KB | May 3, 2007 5:12 PM

We socialize with other devout suburban Catholic couples, many much more conservative than we. And I'd estimate 75 percent of the husbands are snipped (yes, we do discuss such things).

Posted by: proxl | May 3, 2007 05:03 PM

Sorry I used you to try and make a point earlier.

I am a lapsed Catholic, but find the thought of divorce a big deal too.

Out of curiosity, do you think this (75% snipped) is the case because of the Catholic church's stand on birth control? And if so, how does permanent birth control square with that stand? One big sin as opposed to many minor ones?

No offense intended, so please don't take any.

Posted by: devils advocate | May 3, 2007 5:18 PM

I assumed that when I first said what I said and only got disagreement and flames that there was no one that agreed with me. Even when I asked specific questions, no one would answer in agreement. It boggled my mind that everyone would think what I said was wrong.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 04:38 PM

You've commented, what, 10 - 14 times today because you had to get affirmation from someone, anyone, any person willing to type into a box, "I agree"? this oddly insecure behavior cries out for a bad pun: grow a pair, Dude.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 5:20 PM

"It`s a sad commentary on our sick culture that anti-life fanaticism consumes so much time, energy and treasure.

Deliberately mutilating oneself simply to foreclose the gift of life is a horrible thing."

Anon at 5:04 aka The Judgemental One

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 5:20 PM

It`s a sad commentary on our sick culture that anti-life fanaticism consumes so much time, energy and treasure.

Deliberately mutilating oneself simply to foreclose the gift of life is a horrible thing.

Posted by: | May 3, 2007 05:04 PM

this has got to be the same person who posted as "Chrissy". I have the utmost respect for practicing Catholics, but no one talks like this: "anti-life fanaticism" "foreclose the gift of life".

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 5:22 PM

Yes. It's ever so pro-life to stop having sex in your 40s because you can't afford to feed a 6th or 7th child.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 5:26 PM

"Deliberately mutilating oneself simply to foreclose the gift of life is a horrible thing."

Ding ding ding!! We have a new winner -- Door C!

Posted by: Laura | May 3, 2007 6:19 PM

Let's get back to those people who never plan to have kids. We have discussed and both don't want kids. He wants me to get the tubal but I am afraid that in ten years he will change his mind and that maybe the child being biologically his will be important enough for him to leave me for another woman. I am on BC and love it (timing periods, or not having as many a year). It is a bit tricky always worrying that every new weird hormonal symptom is a potential pregnancy.

As a side I hate all the people who tell me knowingly "you will change your mind." I agree that if my husband wanted kids and I didn't, but then had kids, yeah I would change my mind. Maternal instincts would kick in and I would love them. And yes it's possible that with many years to go until my fertility goes, we might have a mutual change of mind. But we might just as easily not. And I do not appreciate people telling me what I'm going to do with my life.

I'm also a little bothered by the guy who was 37 and divorced with (2-3?) kids from prior marriage who was looking for a wife and glad he didn't get the V. So you already have 2-3 kids...you're not lacking children, or a family. You're looking for a woman, obviously not a woman your age because chances of you meeting in that short time span, falling in love, and deciding more children is the way to go seems slim. I am all for divorced people deciding to have 2nd families (I've seen several work out fine) but I'm bothered that men seem to feel they need a "just in case" so they can spread their biological seed everywhere. I mean, you can alwyas adopt. The world does not need MORE copies of your genes running around. Get over yourselves. Women don't have the same outlook unless they honestly want more kids. They are more interested in their kids already, or their family, rather than thinking what a future spouse will demand.

I just want to know how the "I don't plan to have kids ever" people deal with this. I guess if the husband is adamant enough to get the V then I am on board (we can always adopt if mutual change of mind, biology not important to me).

Posted by: Married No Kids | May 3, 2007 6:49 PM

"I am all for divorced people deciding to have 2nd families (I've seen several work out fine) but I'm bothered that men seem to feel they need a "just in case" so they can spread their biological seed everywhere. I mean, you can alwyas adopt. The world does not need MORE copies of your genes running around. Get over yourselves. Women don't have the same outlook unless they honestly want more kids. They are more interested in their kids already, or their family, rather than thinking what a future spouse will demand."

In defense of the men, I've known more than a woman or two for whom a vasectomy would be a knock-out factor. Sure, maybe that means he's not the one for her, but, all things being equal, divorced man may feel it is unfair for his second wife to have to choose between marrying him and having her own biological child. Depending on the man, the situation of the divorce, and a ton of factors we can't know here, this attitude could be more considerate than it appears at first blush.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 6:57 PM

DevAd,

You said,

"Out of curiosity, do you think this (75% snipped) is the case because of the Catholic church's stand on birth control? And if so, how does permanent birth control square with that stand? One big sin as opposed to many minor ones?"

First, it's not an unreasonable question, so no offense taken.

Secondly, no, I don't think that the high anecdotal rate of V's in my peer group is a reflection of that. Pretty much everybody in this group of folks -- are parents of school-age kids (that's largely how we met) -- and pretty much nobody went from the altar to the maternity ward in the first year of marriage. So you can conclude that they practiced some form of non-permanent birth control until they were ready to have families. This was the case for us, certainly.

I have no specifics, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that a strong majority of Catholics that attend Mass regularly in the US do not adhere to the church's proscription on birth control.

What's more, I get the feeling that, at the parish level, the clergy understand this, and do not wish to fight it.

Posted by: proxl | May 3, 2007 7:30 PM

//So you can conclude that they practiced some form of non-permanent birth control until they were ready to have families. This was the case for us, certainly.//

How are you a DEVOUT Catholic and yet actively choose not to follow one of the most basic and critical tenants of the Church? Most Catholics in America are actually Episcopalians.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 7:35 PM

"Most Catholics in America are actually Episcopalians...."

Being brought up a Catholic and the spouse as a Wiskeypalian, I fully understand what you mean!

Posted by: a regular | May 3, 2007 7:44 PM

Someone asked about the Mirena -

It is awesome!!!

Takes your cramps away for years.

You can use smaller tampons.

"Installation" no worse than ordinary cramps, and gone sooner.

Posted by: better late than never | May 4, 2007 9:14 AM

Married no Kids wrote: "I just want to know how the "I don't plan to have kids ever" people deal with this. I guess if the husband is adamant enough to get the V then I am on board (we can always adopt if mutual change of mind, biology not important to me)."

We don't plan to have kids, ever. But we know we might change our minds, so we're keeping the option open. I'm thinking that when we're in our 40s, he'll get the V. I would do it now because I also don't care about "passing on our genes" or whatever, but, unfortunately, hubby thinks that these imaginary future kids HAVE to be ours. So that's why we're waiting I think.

Posted by: Meesh | May 4, 2007 9:58 AM

I believe that my devoutness comes from my belief in Jesus Christ, in His presence in the Eucharist, and in my belief in greatest of His commandments: loving God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself. I do not accomplish these things as well as I should, but I accept and rely upon His grace and forgiveness.

That good enough for you?

PS -- Maybe you could have enough nerve to sign your post when you criticize me or anybody else.

Posted by: proxl | May 4, 2007 3:33 PM

3 men in one day is my record (college spring break jamaica!)


GROSS

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 3:40 PM

To the Tune of the 59th Street Bridge Song

(you know, Feeling Groovy)

Hello cold bag of peas
I need some comfort if you please
Gonna' put you above my knees
Sitting down and feeling snippy

Da, da, da, da ,da, da, feeling snippy
La, la, la, la, la, la, getting snippy

Hello doctor what you knowin'
Gonna' have my wife glowin'
Those daily pills, not gonna' be knowing
Sitting down and feeling snippy

Da, da, da, da ,da, da, feeling snippy
La, la, la, la, la, la, getting snippy

That IUD, it gotta' go
Rubbers and foam, you must know
I am finally taking total control
Sitting down and feeling snippy

Da, da, da, da ,da, da, feeling snippy
La, la, la, la, la, la, getting snippy

Posted by: Posted by a Regular but not Chris | May 4, 2007 11:02 PM

Wow, miss one day and miss a great topic!

My husband was too squeamish to undergo the snip snip. As a result, we have an 8-year gap between our second and third children. While we've adjusted to having an unanticipated 3rd child during the six years since she's been born, I often wonder how different our lives would be if my hubby had just had the cajones to go through with the vasectomy! As luck would have it, I needed abdominal surgery shortly after my daughter's birth, so had the surgeon tie my tubes as long as he was in there anyway.

Posted by: mp | May 5, 2007 1:36 AM

I agree that having an unintended kid is what will push guys to get the V. That is why I did it.

Posted by: KC in Lubbock | May 5, 2007 10:12 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company