Tubes tied question

[Trianii]

My oh-so-charming love of my life decided to play what he thought was a fun game he calls "silly logic"and made up his own scenarios in response FOR a vas.

They included:
It's better to get a vas now since he's had a few close calls with several of his mistresses
It's better he doesn't have his own genetic child because serial killers tend to pass that trait down
And my favorite, it's better for him to get the vas than me the tubal because he doesn't know how to operate any of the household appliances and as a result I'd have to still take care of the house and him while recovering.

Oh gosh thats funny!!! Good for you guys!

 

[Cacia]

What the ???? Biologically more predisposed? An obvious reason to send us for surgery.<sarcasim>

I don't blame all men for anything. Let me rephrase this.

Whoever sits out of the career track and takes care of the children has an interest in the income provider limiting their procreation, even after divorce, in the best interest of the children.

And men being biologically more likely to procreat with multiple mates is historically true...it's not my slam, just a fact.

 

[Rick Murchison]

And men being biologically more likely to procreat with multiple mates is historically true...it's not my slam, just a fact.

Now think of the math in that statement... in a world where the number of men and women are about the same, for it to be true it would mean that for every man that mates with two women there would have to be either a woman that mates with two men or a man that mates with none. In other words, it is a popular myth, because it is mathematically impossible Indeed, in some places there are subcultures where the women have babies like clockwork every 10-12 months from the time they're able to bear until they can't. Fathers? You'd have to sterilize 90% of the men to have any impact on the birth rate at all, because "everybody mates with everybody" routinely. In those cultures in particular, the sterilization of men is totally ineffective as population control.
What is true is this (in our society at least): It's a whole lot easier for a fertile woman to find a man ready, willing and able to impregnate her than it is for a fertile man to find a woman ready, willing and able to get pregnant by him. So I'd say there's certainly a greater willingness in men to have multiple partners than there is in women - but... since it takes two to tango, the math doesn't convert that asymmetrical willingness into asymmetrical acts. So if there are more men that have had multiple partners than women, all that means is that on average women who have multiple partners have more partners than men who have multiple partners do. It is a mathematical certainty.
And another: Some folks think very very differently than most of us here.
The myth of "more men procreate with multiple partners" is sort of a natural - though misguided - conclusion from the fact that a woman's children can each have a different father... but only one mother. Odd conclusion, as for there to be multiple fathers it only proves that the woman is procreating with multiple fathers, and it doesn't prove anything at all about whether the fathers have children elsewhere...
Rick

 

[CheddarChick]

wow this thread veered off course.....LOL Did you expect anything else????

 

[erparamedic]

This thread is interesting. I have heard of docs requiring a spouse's signature, but never a psych exam. As TSandM said... it's hoops. You jump thru them, you get the surgery.

I had a tubal by the time I was 22. My case was kinda unique though, in that the doctor highly recommended it. (Don't go jumping to conclusions now... I'll explain! LOL) I was told by 3 OB/GYNs that I'd probably never be able to bear children due to multiple gyn issues during my teenage years, and IF I could get pregnant, it would be very hard to do, and the younger I was, the easier it would be. I was 19 when I married, and we began trying right away. To my amazement... I was pregnant 6 weeks after we started trying! I had a very rough pregnancy, bed rest, and a rough delivery turned emergency c-section. That "baby" is now my 9 year old son. I miscarried my 2nd pregnancy. My 3rd pregnancy was harder to conceive, and MUCH harder to carry than my 1st... same problems, but more pronounced. She was born 5 1/2 weeks early, very healthy. She's now 7 years old.

Due to the problems carrying the pregnancies, my doc highly recommended that I have a tubal. She said I already beat my odds of bearing children... and if I were to get pregnant again, she didn't think I would carry beyond 30 weeks. I was fine with that... I had 1 boy, 1 girl... and would not take any chances with having any more. I remember laying on the operating table... Sierra had just been delivered, when the doc moved up toward my face and said... "Last chance to back out of the tubal." I said, "NO WAY! FIX ME!" LOL

 

[steelemagnolia6]

In many states it is a requirement to have the husband sign... My guess that it is so that he won't sue the doctor for malpractice. It could possibly be for the reason of acknowledgment that the wife is going to have a procedure that will render her 99.9% sterile....

When I had my tubes cut, tied, burned, a small piece totally removed and twisted in 1990 after the birth of my son, both myself and my husband had to sign statements that we realized that this was a non-reversable procedure and that there were dangers involved in this surgery...I did not have to have his permission to get this done...

The state of Texas at that time required that any routine voluntary tubal ligation paperwork had to be signed at least 30 days prior to the operation and you had to be 21 years old and have at least 2 children... gives you time to change your mind I suppose...

and no it didn't throw me into premature menopause, drive me insane or give me one moments problem or regret... I no longer had to worry about birth control, or the thought of another miscarriage...

 

[Cacia]

but... since it takes two to tango,

That is assuming a one to one relationship. If 30% of the women opt to be "indiscriminate" over and over, there are plenty of women "to go around".

So..are you saying that most men are not more sexually promiscuous than most women?

I really need to be corrected if I am wrong on this, because I would bet the farm. But..I love to see the light when I am wrong.

 

[erparamedic]

That is assuming a one to one relationship. If 30% of the women opt to be "indiscriminate" over and over, there are plenty of women "to go around".

My key point might have been missed. You protect your children's health care, education, and financial well-being if the male is sterilized, more than if the mother is sterilized. (Assuming the father is the main provider). Whoever stays off the career track to rear the children risks the most financially...and would have a vested interest in the mate limiting their reproduction.

I can certainly see what you're saying, and understand your viewpoint. I can honestly say, though, I've never thought of it that way before!

I'm fixed (have been for over 7 years), hubby is still loaded. Hmmm... I wonder what he would say if I asked him to get fixed? j/k

 

[Cacia]

...maybe you shouldn't. lol.

I'm just saying "in general" it might be smart if women considered the possibility that even if you are divorced....husband can go out and start a "new" family and the pie gets diminished with each new wife. Many men that swear they are "done" get talked into one more rather easily, I've noticed.

Science Week:

In contrast, ova-producing females are reproductively limited, not by matings, but by the number of offspring they can produce; because mating has costs, females are selected to mate discriminately.

Men might prefer the wives to get sterilized, but does it make statistical, financial, or health sense?

I'm just asking...in the era of prenuptials, maybe Ivanna should have sent the Donald to the vet.

 

[erparamedic]

...I'm just asking...in the era of prenuptials, maybe Ivanna should have sent the Donald to the vet.

Haaaahaaahaa! The vet! Haaaahaahaa!