@ 74 - "there is already a contraceptive device for me which is non-invasive, works well, is something that women can see so they know it's being used, and prevents the transmission of STDs to boot"

Yes. It's the same contraceptive device that allowed me to be as promiscuous as I wanted at the height of the aids crisis and not get infected (in spite of the fact that there's a higher risk of condoms breaking during anal sex than PIV). But, bringing it back to SNIP's letter, she doesn't trust the device, she doesn't trust her husband to use it properly and she doesn't trust the women he has sex with to not temper with that device.

@ 97 - The above paragraph is why I say it's a trust issue. They obviously have several other problems as well.

@101: "Second, even if it's true statistically complications are less likely with vasectomies, humans simply aren't that robotically logical when it comes to fear of consequences"

So fucking what?

They're not as concerned about their partners taking BCs with potentially fatal consequences.

I'm not arguing that a person doesn't have the right to be worried about a medical procedure, I'm stating that it's safer and less invasive than someone having their tubes tied.

@104: "she doesn't trust the device, she doesn't trust her husband to use it properly and she doesn't trust the women he has sex with to not temper with that device."

Only the first is true. The rest is imagined.

@ 106 - Wrong. Again.

From the letter: "condoms break (or get holes poked in them)"

Condoms break - doesn't trust the device
How do condoms break? When you don't use them properly - doesn't trust the husband
Get holes poked in them - doesn't trust the women he's seeing

Thanks Ricardo. And you used my name and not my comment no. I always enjoy your comments, must be about time for another virtual hug💕

My pleasure, Lava. A virtual hug back.

HAPPY
The antidepressant might be changed, the dosage could be adjusted. You might want to re-explore your masturbating technique if circumstances have changed.

Fer gawdsake be truthful with partners. Setting up a resentment that will outlast any relationship is the alternative.

An affectionate partner who needs to bring her Hitachi with her for a sleepover is WAY to be preferred to someone who's engaged in non-stop 'truth management.'

@91 agreed. 26!!
I was adamant at 26 that I didn't want children. At 30 I didn't care if I did or didn't have kids, it depended entirely on if I was with someone who wanted them (or not), At 36 I started feeling a certain amount of regret, but not enough to do it with the wrong person. At 38, I got pregnant with the right person and delivered at 39. My 26-yr old self had NO BUSINESS deciding what I might want a decade later, let alone what any other 20-something person might want (yes, I realize vasectomy's are reversible, but at financial and physical cost). She is a selfish bully.

I went back to work today after a really long period of disability. It's lovely but I didn't read all the comments. Wanted to add a few things.

@69 - The exact thing happened to me. Throughout my 20s and very early 30s, I never had a doctor who would do the tubal at the same time as I had insurance that would cover it. They were all convinced I might "change my mind". By the time I had the opportunity to do it, my husband had already been snipped and our marriage wasn't open anymore.

@CMD yum... talk to me...

@73
I have no problem accepting the fact that some people might be unsure. The annoying thing here is that the husband won't own those feelings. He says he doesn't want kids. He says he wants a vasectomy. He wont' get one. Why? She has the right to ask. His answers could be "I'm afraid of the extremely rare consequences" that's legitimate. Or his answer could be "I'm afraid I might change my mind about fatherhood" which is also legitimate. What sucks is continuing to say "I want the vasectomy" and then refusing to do it- just dragging his feet, avoiding the conversation and leaving her to wonder what is going on. What sucks double is then blaming HER for being distressed by this.

Really men need to own their feelings about reproduction and be clear and honest about it with their partners. I see way too many men being all wishy washy about it and then just going with whatever ends up happening, only to later claim resentment or being pressured in either way. Grow up!

@74

I have no doubt that this happens- re: for child support. But I suspect it's exceedingly rare. You don't come out ahead, financially, in those situations, and this is before you even count the medical cost etc. But sure, I bet it happens sometimes.

What I think happens more frequently is that someone gets unintentionally pregnant (this happens a lot without any malice or manipulation on either side) and once the possibility of parenthood presents itself, the pregnant person get sentimental about it and starts to romanticize, as well as consider her own age in life and other options for future parenthood, etc. Then, a person who just days ago was rocking the single life, suddenly has a sense of PURPOSE and decides to keep the baby - despite the fact that the father has no interest. The weird thing is that plenty of men also approach the situation this way. They had no interest in kids, but once one is on the way, they are all giddy with the feeling that they are DOING THE RIGHT THING and they are GOOD MEN who are going to be supportive fathers, and they get all on board. Then the realities of parenthood set in, and both people start to fall apart. This is what I see happening all the time with unexpected pregnancy, and I think it's a general ignorance on the part of Americans- they have never really had to spend their lives caring selflessly for others. We live in a culture that is so detached from such things that American parents don't know what they are getting into.

I had to help raise kids and caregive to elders. I know damn well what I want from my life, and I'm adamant about protecting my freedom and finances.

Still, most people tend to work it out and get on just fine even with unexpected families. It's almost as if they were biologically driven to do so!! I've had to accept that most people are far more willing to go with the flow with things than I am. So, you risk a baby! Oh well, we'll make it work. Meanwhile, I'm like ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?

@70, 71, 74: all of those seem more likely explanations for no male pill than a radfem/tradcon alliance.

@79 that attitude, voiced or otherwise shown, sounds like a contraceptive all of its own.

@90 but whom could we trust to arrange them?

@35: Paint wise, it is different: It hurts less.

Either Mr. SNIP wants the vasectomy or he doesn't. If he does, it's painless, and if he's dragging his feet, his wife should make the appointments for him. If he decides not to go through with it, then she can decide not to have an open marriage.

Either way, there's a result: He gets over whatever inhibitions are keeping him from following through on his word, or he fesses up that he didn't really mean what he was saying.

I knew since I was 15 years old that I didn't want kids. I'm 44 now, and it's still true.

If the husband is unsure, or thinks he might possibly change his mind in the future--bank some sperm. If he has other concerns, he needs to talk about them with his doctor with and his wife.

This saying he wants to get a vasectomy and then dragging his feet about it is childish.

@92 re CB, that would be my question too, unless the issue is that the other parties aren't learning those things or haven't shown signs of wanting to. If neither of those is the issue, it sounds more like a hang-up on New Relationship Energy.

Yea, is why spend the time and money solving this and other issues in therapy? Instead why not marry someone and screw around. Then in, say, 20 years, instead of being emotionally healthy, you can be in a sterile relationship with a narcissistic Muscle Mary you can't stand being in the same house with for more than a week. If you're lucky you'll be taking separate vacations to visit your favorite unicorn. Yea, that sounds so much smarter.

Ms Fan - I'm not apportioning responsibility so much as pointing out the horseshoe.

I'm assuming government approval is involved at some level, in which case lobbying makes some contribution, and it's largely the same cast of lobbyists or interest groups as those that have had influence in divorce, etc.

I'm with @1 and @2, regarding SNIP: why wait for a vasectomy he might not ever agree to?
By the way, I'm living proof that vasectomies are NOT failsafe. My folks should have named me Houdini upon my entering the world 7 years and 9 1/2 months after my brother was born, and they thought they were done having kids--ha ha!
Although I'm 52 and have never had one myself (Ricardo, does this make me selfish?), I third the recommendation for you to get a hysterectomy, instead, (not like you have to, either, though, doing so is your choice, too) and hope all goes well.

@14 EmmaLiz: Like you, I never EVER planned on having children, either, and nearly started World War III standing my ground defending my body against an abusive spouse, his equally messed up family, friends, and a lot of idiots who insisted that the only way to save my already bad marriage was to have a baby. Interesting that none of the above individuals pushing motherhood so hard on me would have been around to help raise this prospective child had I actually gotten pregnant upon their bullying and guilt tripping tactics. I would have become either a single parent with a kid or dead and leaving a motherless child, permanently tied legally to a violent sociopath who would have had full visiting rights.
No thanks---I LIKE being an auntie, especially when remaining childless allowed me to fully cut and run from such a nightmare once my divorce finalized.

@ 121 - Selfishness, when giving advice, usually goes hand in hand with some sort of personal gain.

But really, isn't a hysterectomy a rather radical and in this case unnecessary procedure? There are easier ways not to get pregnant.

But don't mind premenopausal little ol' me---no tubes tied, but I am still wildly celebrating my uterine ablation. Wahooooo!

Okay----Griz is off with her beloved on our much needed road trip.
Hugs, positrons, and VW beeps to all.

@123 Ricardo: Yes, getting a hysterectomy in SNIP's situation IS a bit extreme. But you had also pointed out that SNIP's automatically expecting her hubby, in an open marriage, to get a vasectomy was a bit selfish, and I agree. That's his decision. I also stated that getting a hysterectomy was SNIP's own choice to get one, if she saw fit to do so.

@ 125 - Understood. In the same spirit, I have in the past advised many people to get a lobotomy.

Have a nice trip!

XOXOXOXO--See, read & comment with everyone again in next week's Savage Love.
Please let there be some last few rays of waning sunshine before the rain starts!

@SNIP - Go stand in front of a mirror and repeat the following: "I am trying to coerce another human being to undergo a surgical procedure, in order to not have to face the fear of possibly losing him to someone else -- when I'm the one who has vowed to initiate the divorce if it happened."

Repeat until it sinks in just how psychopathic you sound.

DC270 @88: Yeah, you could leave the word "open" out of your post and it would be just as valid a point.

MrBAJ @93: This is fair. My partner is in his 30s and has met with pushback from doctors when asking about vasectomy. Anecdotally, there is much less pushback because of the (at least potential) reversibility of vasectomy, the far lower level of invasiveness/risk, and the sexist assumption that anyone with a uterus will at some point in her life be compelled to use it. See Fichu's post @74 for one anecdote supporting my belief that young men meet with less pushback than young women.

Ricardo @100: Your adamant opposition to vasectomy as a less invasive and risky option than tubal ligation, assuming both partners were equally decided on no kids (I admit this is a different hypothetical than the letter), seems to stem directly from the fact that your brother was in the minority of men who suffer complications. This experience is clouding your ability to accept that tubal ligation is, in point of fact, still far simpler and easier, and in fact making you angry at someone you've never even met. Your attitude speaks for itself here. (Note: Re-read my post @44 as evidence that I am not, and have never been, unaware of or unsympathetic to the issue of men being reluctant to get a vasectomy due to the risks.)

You do make a fair point, that if he gets sterilised and she doesn't, then on the tiny change she changes her mind about children in 10 years' time she has that option and he doesn't. That's the only part of your argument that is in fact valid. But see @43 for a solution to that: freezing his sperm just in case.

*tiny chance

Ricardo @100: So you think my friend's ex got another woman pregnant on purpose because he was too chickenshit to just break up with her? Please.

... Okay, "too chickenshit to admit he didn't use a condom" is a lot likelier. But that scenario doesn't do anything to dispel SNIP's fears that a similar situation might happen in her husband's case, does it?

Auntie Griz: Hysterectomy is not the equivalent of vasectomy; tubal ligation is. Hysterectomy is the removal of one's uterus. In a tubal ligation, all the parts remain and the reproductive system functions as normal; the eggs just can't get through to the uterus to be fertilised. I think you probably knew that already but I thought I'd clarify.

And here we have at least three women on this very board who were sure in their 20s they didn't want children and are equally sure in their 40s and 50s. I hardly call that statistically insignificant.

I am mystified by those who see the wife who wants her husband to get a vasectomy as manipulative. She asks, am I unreasonable to insist? Should I close the marriage until he does? I say, no and yes. Absolutely it is his choice whether to have the procedure. And absolutely it is her choice to shut down the openness (as Dan often suggests in other cases where the openness is causing an issue, to focus on the primary relationship) if he is not using birth control that meets her standards. Or, leave the relationship herself. If this is a dealbreaker for her to have an open relationship, why is this any more "manipulative" than any other condition applied to an openness negotiation? Why doesn't Dan suggest taking PIV sex off the table as an alternative? I don't understand why this couldn't be framed as a negotiation of limits. She is legitimately concerned about other women taking advantage of him.
As for the risks of vasectomy.... I don't want to minimize Ricardo's brother's problem, but, in most cases for most people, it's an extremely simple procedure. It's about as painful as my regular annual Pap smear and pelvic. (I know this because i was there when a friend had his procedure.) Ok, two Pap smears... Equivalent to the pinprick of the numbing agent applied to each testicle. Compared to the pain or discomfort and risks of either childbirth, abortion or miscarriage... The only possible outcomes of a pregnancy... Not even on the same scale.
I will admit some prejudice here. Listening to men kvetch about vasectomy pain or how their sensitive masculinity may not be able to cope with not having (potentially life-threatening to their partners) live sperm just... Idk it's similar to listening to rich folks bewail the lack of parking spaces for their Mercedes when half their audience doesn't even have a car. IMHO all men who are sexually active with women should get vasectomies as soon as they have all the children they want, or they know they don't want children. (Really, the idea that a man would want to prioritize "no ball discomfort, ever," over the health of the women he loves or at least presumably cares for enough to fuck, just grinds my gears. Pregnancy is a serious health risk for women and much more often has negative health outcomes than vasectomy does. Show of hands, birthmothers, how many of you can't sleep through the night without getting up to pee? Maybe she should give him the option of getting the V or she will wake him up every night at 4:00 a.m., for the rest of his life. Yeah not as bad as achy balls for life but much more common.) And, sperm banks exist. So it's not like it's "never again."

Ms Grizelda - Good luck with the weather.

*****

Ms Fan - I don't think you even need statistical significance. Give an adult the facts and let one decide for oneself. Or has the desire to make sure women never regret anything they did reached such a mania that it trumps agency? There's another horseshoe in there.

(General note: a "horseshoe conspiracy" isn't an alliance, just the coincidental agreement for diametrically opposed reasons of people so unlikely ever to agree with each other that it looks like one. For example, recently some people have reported hearing remarkably similar things from BLM and the KKK.)

Squidgie. There are risks to having the snip, erectile dysfunction is one of them. There are risks to pregnancy, death is one of them. Therefore, the decision to have the snip or get pregnant absolutely rests with the person getting snipped or getting pregnant.
Reread the letter. I see nowhere are the words "before we got married, we were both very clear, from our own sides, that we didn't want children."
Are these words implied by the letter, some posters think so. I don't.
The words I read are all about her. The LW has never wanted children, she says, and she worries another woman might get pregnant who will want to keep the baby and access her husband's money. So her solution to this situation, is for him to be snipped. He agreed.

Ah, now the young man's opinion is finally brought into the story. However, a year has passed and no snip.

Then she says she's just about ready to yank the open part of the marriage.
Not, I am so fearful of another woman getting pregnant, I am going to tell my husband I'm no longer interested in having an open marriage, she is thinking of Yanking it. Like you yank a chain, or the leash on a dog.
The whole tone of the letter is controlling. It also points to her being manipulative because she is putting pressure on him to have this procedure.
Which brings me back to my first point, anyone who has the snip or gets pregnant must be free to choose these options for themselves, no external force brought to bear.
All the LW can do is respond. She can say she wants to close the marriage or leave him.

I feel for the students of the first letter writer. How could anyone that dumb be a teacher. Lose your license for online dating?

Klyde @137, if this is his first teaching position and he was in a committed relationship when he landed the job, he's probably unsure of how far his school's strict behavior code extends into the dating arena. His concern may be well-placed if he works in a conservative school system with vague and subjective "morality and decorum" clauses in the code, especially since he is attracted to women at the youngest end of legal. But an obvious solution (since he is looking for casual hook-ups and not a LTR) is to troll for sex partners outside his employment region. If he's horny enough, a 1-2 hour drive and an occasional overnight room rental should provide ample insurance that his employers will not discover anything they could possibly dislike about his sex life.

@ BDF

@ 129 - "Your adamant opposition to vasectomy as a less invasive and risky option than tubal ligation"

Are you on acid? You're totally making that up. Nothing I have said even comes close to this. I am not in the least opposed to vasectomy. I am opposed to a surgical intervention being imposed on someone by another person because the latter has trust issues. Especially when that person has in no way made an equivalent, binding commitment (and since her letter doesn't mention in any way what she would do if she were to get pregnant, whoever says she'll surely get an abortion or give the baby up for adoption his pulling that out of their ass). The solution is that they should agree to close their marriage or to get out of it (again, she shouldn't impose her will). She is quite obviously not ready for an open relationship. I have said that repeatedly, I think it should be clear by now.

I only mentioned my brother's less than fortunate experience of the procedure to state that it is not as risk-free as portrayed (as I've said twice before; don't you read my comments before answering them?) and to suggest that it only takes one such incident to make thousands of guys wary of having it done, because guys are like that when it comes to their junk. Everything else you think I meant is only a product of your own imagination, so please spare me.

"This experience is clouding your ability to accept that tubal ligation is, in point of fact, still far simpler and easier, and in fact making you angry at someone you've never even met"

I suppose you meant vasectomy, not tubal litigation. I am aware of the comparative risks, and I'm quite happy that there is a procedure that puts the responsibilty of birth control in the hands of those for whom it is generally much easier to avoid the responsibilites of a pregnancy. That is just. That is good. It still doesn't mean that vasectomy should be imposed on anyone, because that's just as bad as forcing women to undergo tubal litigation. It's not the operation I've been discussing all along, it's the imposition.

I am opposed to double standards, period. Indeed, I always thought that's what feminism was all about: Equality between the sexes. Eliminating double standards, not creating more of them to benefit women. Are you telling me I was wrong?

I am not angry at someone I've never met. It takes an awful lot more than that to get me to the point of anger, and I reserve that for people who are actually doing me harm. You, on the other hand, seem to be rather angry with me. And its your judgment (or ability to understand what you read) that seems to be clouded. Please stop projecting.

"Re-read my post @44 as evidence that I am not, and have never been, unaware of or unsympathetic to the issue of men being reluctant to get a vasectomy due to the risks"

I don't understand why you feel the need to mention that: I never said or thought you were. I merely tried to explain why I myself thought men were reluctant to do so.

@ 131, 132 - Though the first option is possible (and yes, it does happen), the second is what I had in mind. But then again, couldn't he have made another type of arrangement with the other woman (shared custody, perhaps?). I simply think there's something really fishy in the ex's story. Since I don't know these people or the details of this specific story, I won't even try to figure out what part of it is false, but it's obvious that some part of it is.

People have been known to lie when they do something really stupid. They've also been known to lie when they want to get out of a relationship. That's all I'm saying.

"that scenario doesn't do anything to dispel SNIP's fears that a similar situation might happen in her husband's case"

No, it doesn't. And if that's really a concern to her (as it appears to be), she shouldn't be in an open relationship at all... If she was in any way mature, she'd realize that what she needs is to do some introspection, not to force her husband to get surgery.

That said, and to once again repeat what I said earlier, it's also clear that the husband absolutely needs to tell her his true feelings about children and never make promises he won't keep. Otherwise, he's an asshole, too.

Come to think of it, maybe they're made for each other.

@135: "For example, recently some people have reported hearing remarkably similar things from BLM and the KKK."

You should avoid using weasel words like "some people" and / or stop associating with those people, they sound dreadful.

@ 136 - Thanks for that perceptive analysis, Lava. I wish I'd been able to express myself as clearly and succinctly, but that's basically all I meant to say.

I still don't understand how everyone here thinks she is FORCING him when it is something that he tells her he wants to do and then doesn't do.

Yet she is being blamed?

Why isn't anyone responding to this? If he is unsure, or if he thinks he doesn't want kids but might change his mind, or if he is afraid of side effects, WHY DOESN'T HE SAY SO?

But no, it's the wife's fault.

@139: "That said, and to once again repeat what I said earlier, it's also clear that the husband absolutely needs to tell her his true feelings about children and never make promises he won't keep. Otherwise, he's an asshole, too."

I think we all agree that they need a long but not incredibly painful conversation about their collective nervousness.

Also, what's the deal with the server eating posts without submitting?

@142: Obviously she forced him, "psychotically", to suggest that he wanted the procedure done, and it is also her fault that he's dragging his feet, because of reasons.

I think that Mr. Ven spends a lot of time on blogs and at websites that offer up the most divisive versions of humanity and that contributes to him having a pretty misanthropic bent. While I am hardly a Pollyanna and certainly am aware of people with hateful attitudes and worldviews, I stay away as much as I can from coming into direct contact with them. Perhaps I am a naive, happy ignoramus, but I prefer to immerse myself as much as possible in the words of people who are decent. So I experience humanity differently and have a different overall opinion of people. Perhaps we're both warped and our particular bends balance each other out. B ut I do think that Mr. Ven has a vision of humanity that is a lot bleaker than it really is.

EmmaLiz @ 142
Undead @ 144
Lots of details are missing in the letters submitted, let alone edited for print, so commenters make their own interpretations and judgments based on experiences and shticks.

The mentioning of the inheritance was a red flag for me, and the whole tone about his vasectomy sounds- again, to me- as if she’s the one who came up with the idea and is lobbying hard in this direction.

Now don’t get me wrong, saying one member of the equation seems to be an asshole doesn’t mean the other isn’t. I think the husband is reluctant to go with the procedure, but is cowardly dragging the issue in order not to lose his open marriage privileges.

They should get a bottle Argentinean Malbec and Brie de Nangis- a French one that actually does have a taste- and along with some dark rye bread have a serious talk and lay all cards on the table.

@ 142 - Coz she's got the finger on the divorce button. Whatever he says, whatever he does that she doesn't like, he "loses". Of course he's afraid to tell her what he really wants.

Which doesn't mean he shouldn't. Trying to weasel your way out of such a loaded issue is never a good long-term strategy, but I suspect neither of them has good communication skills.

@ 146 - I never realized Brie had that effect on people.

@142 EmmaLiz, maybe because she is an entitled young woman who doesn't hear? Or recognize he is ambivalent, for whatever reason, and then sit with him and tease out his reasons, with some love in her heart not just concern for her pockets?
Maybe because he really doesn't want the snip, and likes the situation of having an open marriage, and realises if he told her the truth she'd yank the open part?
Maybe because as a young man in his twenties he is too immature to realise he can't have it both ways with his wife?
There is no Fault here, as I see it. I don't blame her for wanting to somehow protect herself against all outcomes she doesn't like, as I don't blame him for being ambivalent about closing down his fertility.
I've just responded to the choice of words the LW used, and frankly I DONT SEE MUCH LOVE in them. if I can pick up where this young woman is at, then perhaps he can too. And perhaps he is planning to exit the union.
Either way, this marriage doesn't look like it's based on a deep love between two trusting of each other adults.
And I do BLAME her for hounding the kid to get the cut. She doesn't have that right. She doesn't OWN him because they are married.

@145: Absolutely, I just see no reason for their opinions to be taken seriously. There are plenty enough terrible opinions on the Internet, few of them novel.

@146: I see it as one of many concerns, having to pay child support would certainly affect their marriage, alongside all other distractions of affection and duty. Does it sound odd still? Sure. But the only thing I know they need to do is talk about and work out their individual securities for the betterment of the pair. Why go the "golddigger" route when it's not known?

I'd rather just focus on what we know for certain.

What we know undead? Well we don't know if he ever said he doesn't want children. He just agreed with her to have a V because she is worried he'd get another woman pregnant. We also know he is ambivalent about that course of action because he didn't go out the next bloody day or the day after that or the day after that etc, and get the bloody procedure organised.
We know she is concerned about his money, because she told us she is. And why would that concern her in the least. Unless his big inheritance is one of the reasons she's jumping up and down so much. Why even mention the money at all.

And this notion that his father was tricked into paying for babies he didn't want. I sure hope the payout was huge, because having a child to get cash is the dumbest motivation ever.
As those of us who have lived long enough know, there are no guarantees in love. While this young women follows this path of pushing a man to close down his fertility so she feels safe, I'd suggest she is heading for divorce. Better she realises she can't own and control another human being, and adjust her behaviour accordingly.
Stop with the imposition on his body and say she wants to close down the marriage. Then see what he does. Or fucking walk.
I can't believe posters here think it's ok for anyone to force anyone else into such a life changing behaviour. It has to be his decision.

This young man is rich, and assuming like most rich people there is a prenup, will still be rich if these two divorce. I see he is keeping his options open. Dishonest of him, yes.
This young woman knows she never wants children, she also knows that while he stays fertile, at any time he could divorce her and get married again and have kids. Unless deep in his being he knows he also really really doesn't want children, he will continue to play this game.
The whole open marriage might lead to unwanted pregnancy thing, while valid, is not the whole reason the LW is in such a panic. As I imagine it. She wants him to get the snip so at no time in the future can he be able to father children. Yet he's telling her by his inaction, that that is exactly how he feels. That he may in fact divorce her at some point and have children with someone else.

@150: "Well we don't know if he ever said he doesn't want children. He just agreed with her to have a V because she is worried he'd get another woman pregnant"

His wife does not, and told him so all throughout their relationship, and he echoed her beliefs, agreeing that he did not.

"my life plans have NEVER included children, step or otherwise.) My solution is for him to get a vasectomy. He says he's for it, but it's been a YEAR and he hasn't made an appointment. I'm seriously considering yanking "open" until he's sterile. Maybe he really wants children and he's not telling me"

It's not like he's given her any contrary or confusing response!

Maybe he lied, but his direct indications to the wife tell her that he does not.

He needs to be honest about his decision, because there's a disparity between his actions and what he states.

And to the "payout", she mentions it because he made a deal of it to her.

You're right undead, he needs to be honest with his wife and own his truth.
Your last point you completely made up. Where in the letter does she say he made a deal of it to her, re payout?

@CMD I get worked up reading these comments and then you talk about what you are going to lay across your table and suddenly I'm feeling relaxed and charmed.

My Undead friend @ 149
“What we know for certain” is not so certain since LW’s tell us only one side of the story, leaving plenty of room for questions and speculations.
I’m sure you’re also aware that some of them, whether admitting it or not, contact the chief only to bolster their position or add few more items to their panties collection.

Ricardo and EmmaLiz-
I’m delighted to see my cheesey posts are gaining traction. As some may recall, earlier this year I’ve failed miserably to get the public engaging in conversations about important issues like lingerie and soccer.

My opinion is ... I have no earthly idea. At all. But the snipped relationship definitely seems... not one I want to be in. Like lava, there is a whiff on controlling. But some people are not malicious control freaks. What I mean is that there are people who control themselves and every aspect of their lives, usually because they are deeply anxious people... as versus people who set out with the intent to control people. The controlling of "others" is merely a byproduct of their deep anxiety, fear and need to control themselves. They are completely oblivious to boundaries.

I feel bad for lw. She sounds like a very unhappy person. I feel doubly bad for the husband. I can't imagine living that way.

This BTW had nothing to do with the decision or not to have kids. And she is free to divorce him if he won't get snipped. She has the hegemony over her own decisions and body. She can't force him though. That is the boundary she crosses, right into his body.

Guess I had an opinion. Just like I have an ass hole too.

I don't post often but have read for many years...I'm very surprised at the negativity directed toward SNIP. My theory is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with the fact that someone is bringing up such a serious potential consequence to open relationships. I have nothing against open relationships, but they're often talked about here in strictly positive terms, and I think the idea that there can be serious downsides, too, is discomfiting. Personally, I get the concern. There are over a million unplanned births each year. Accidentally getting someone pregnant is not a rare occurrence.

@squidgie: Thank you--I'd wondered why nobody else had brought up taking only PIV sex off the table. Dude doesn't want to get the snip, fine: he can be content with the many other ways t have sex with someone when with his other partners. He wouldn't be the first open-relationship person with that boundary.

I also don't see it as an asshole thing to say that a vasectomy is an openness-dealbreaker, or a marriage dealbreaker, or whatever. (And no, she doesn't sound really patient with him, but I wouldn't have a lot of patience with a guy who kept saying sure, sure, and then never doing what he said he would--this is not kindergarten, I'm not here to hold your hand while you decide.) He wouldn't be an asshole to say that he wasn't having one and he'd walk if the marriage closed down. These are all reasonable lines to draw. So...draw one already.

Also adding to the chorus of "never wanted them, never will". I'm 33 and got my tubes removed a year or two back. Best protracted-argument-with-my-insurance-company I ever spent.

@CB: Thank you. I'm a het woman who has the same thing happen: after the first year/six months, my interest in a partner goes from "hell yes every day" to "enh, maybe once a week if he really wants it." I could spend a lot of time and money on therapy, but honestly, being in a platonic relationship, or several FWB arrangements, or whatever work just fine for me--these things aren't less valid because people romanticize the other options.

Forgot to add, re: HAPPY: depending on the crowd you're running in, the truth may not actually be a big deal on most first dates. I've found that "I'm on some medication that means it takes me a while to come," doesn't get so much as a batted eye around here: half the time, the response is "Oh, me too."

The Atlantic has a pretty good article on male birth control. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv…
TL;DR: there are a lot of decent ideas, but large-scale safety trials on humans are expensive and the people with the money for that don't think there's a lucrative market.

As for SNIP, my experience is that when person A repeatedly asks person B to do something important to person A, and person B repeatedly says they'll do it or would like to do it, but repeatedly doesn't do it because of *excuses*, that's almost always a situation where person B doesn't want to do the thing but fears drama if they're forthright.

I have not read all of the comments so I don't know if anyone has suggested the alternative to tubal ligation, which unlike a tubal ligation will permanently eliminate any possibility of her ever getting pregnant . If she absolutely opposed to having children then she should consider the irreversible act of having her ovaries removed. That way she doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant by anyone, After all, as she pointed out, condoms do break. Marriages fail all of the time. Maybe her husband is just being pragmatic, she doesn't want to have children, but maybe his next wife/partner will. I know vasectomies can be reversed, but that is not foolproof. I suppose he could have some of his sperm frozen for future use and then have a vasectomy. Psychologically, some men feel emasculated after they've had a vasectomy.

Sophie X @13

Maybe it is difficult to find a reputable doctor in this country who would sterilize a healthy 26 yo woman, but who says that she has to have procedure performed in this country. also, since a tubal ligation can be reversed, she is not asking to be sterilized

@163 Cynic; also many men were cut into as babies, maybe they feel enough already.

@142: It is his body. When he is good and ready, he will do it. In the meantime, she is casting about for leverage to make it happen. That isn't her place. You are quibbling about the exact meaning of "force," but what she is doing is trying to make a choice happen that doesn't belong to her.

If she really, really, REALLY never wants kids in her familial life in any capacity whatsoever, she already has an option: to divorce him. She already knows she has that option, and has already vowed to use that option, should the situation arise. But that's not good enough for her, she wants to make him undergo a surgical procedure so that she doesn't ever have to face even the possibility of using that option. That is excessively controlling of her. She is working out her insecurities on his body.

Skeptic @163: She's not worried about getting pregnant. She's worried about A THIRD PARTY getting pregnant. She can't sneak into her metamours' houses and remove their ovaries while they sleep.

Squidgie @134: "Why doesn't Dan suggest taking PIV sex off the table as an alternative?"
Okay, put yourself in the position of a poly woman who's got involved with a man in an open marriage. You go home with him. He says, "I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to have PIV with you, even with a condom, because my wife thinks you may be a gold-digging condom saboteur." DTMFA.

Ricardo @139: Yes, I did say that the wrong way round, thanks for the catch.
And you think my FRIEND is lying?? What incentive could she possibly have to make up a story about her partner getting another woman pregnant and leaving the relationship to go help raise the child? (I agree, someone is lying here: almost definitely Ms "I can't have kids," if that's what she told him; otherwise the partner, if that's what he says she told him in order to make his fuckup seem less his fault.)

Lastly, SNIP is not forcing him to get a vasectomy. She is considering bribing him to get a vasectomy. There's a difference.

Sorry, two more lastlies:

No, those of us who are certain a woman like SNIP would get an immediate abortion if the two forms of birth control she's probably already on fail are talking out of our wombs, not our asses.

And "equality" cannot be applied when there is not anatomical equality. She does not have testicles, so she can't get a solidarity vasectomy, as much as she might like one. And he does not have a uterus. The reason for "inequality" here should be blazingly obvious.

Fan sweetie; @167
" I keep asking( if he wants kids) he keeps saying no," maybe not forcing, but it sure sounds like pressure.

Hunter @169: Oh, you thought Squidgie was suggesting SNIP herself not have PIV with her husband? How's that going to stop him from getting another woman pregnant?
Thanks for the bi wishes! :)

Lava @171: I know the difference between force and pressure. A lot of the other comments seem to be confusing the two.
If he doesn't want to be pressured then he can either admit he doesn't want the vasectomy or just get it done already!

Sorry, yes I am procrastinating: the only people here using the word "force" are yourself and Ricardo. Everyone else seems to have stuck with less biased language, so yay.

If I was him Fan, I'd be leaving this very unpleasant, controlling and manipulative young woman behind.

Ms Cute - It's always possible. But, remember, as Miss Marple reminds us, the worst is so often true. I'll admit that I don't enjoy venues where I agree with less than a quarter or more than three-quarters of the sentiments going around. At least I thank you for not trying to "save" me, and I throw a lot more Henry Tilney quotes at you than any of the "good" people here. I refer the assembled company to my response to L5.

*****

Ms Rand - Well, while an issue like abortion doesn't offer much horseshoe potential, race relations seems a fertile field. Take two groups of people, A and B, whose extreme members each think the other group to be the spawn of Satan, and those extremists are likely to have views about A/B relations that will have many practical points in common, though the approaches are diametrically opposed. Or, take gendre relations. Who are the people pushing for single-gendre schools? mainly two horseshoe ends - WRAs who claim that girls do better in an environment where they aren't harassed and intimidated by patriarchal boys, and MRAs who claim that boys do better in an environment where they aren't judged and drugged as defective girls. I'll give a more specific example below.

*****

Ms Cute again - You may recall the letter to the most recent Prudie Emeritus from a gay engaged man whose family was pressuring him to invite to the wedding an anti-gay uncle who had actually voted against marriage equality in their state legislature. Prudie Emeritus urged the invite on the Changing Hearts and Minds line of reasoning; Mr Savage doubtless would have done the same. I mentioned the letter here, I recall. I strongly loathed Prudie Emeritus' suggestion that it was somehow better if the vote had actually been the uncle following the will of his constituents and not a reflection of his personal beliefs. I also railed against the Tyranny of the Mushy Middle, who were determined to get the warring parties to pretend to play nice so that they could pretend everyone got along. My thought was to reschedule the wedding to conflict with a legislative duty. There may be a time for ambassadorial behaviour to change hearts and minds, but one's own wedding ought not to be such a time of enforced duty. And making a hater suffer through an event he didn't want to attend any more than the celebrant wanted him there was far more likely to have a negative influence than a positive.

Alas, out of time. Doubtless more to follow.

Lava @175: And that's certainly an option for him. But he wasn't the one who wrote in. If I were him, I'd make up my mind about the vasectomy, or person up and admit I was afraid, and talk to SNIP about my fears and see if I could come to terms with them. If I wasn't sure, I'd decide whether the marriage was more important than the fucking-other-women bit.

I'm certainly hoping that she's at least committed to forsaking all others herself, if that's what she's going to ask hubby to do. If her idea is "you can't fuck other people without a vasectomy, but I'm going to continue to do so because I know I'd abort," then I'll move over to Ricardo's camp on the double-standards issue.

Mr Ven, I see the point for single-sex schools for some kids. I don't think you have to be either a WRA or an MRA to see that in some ways and at some times and for some kids, they do better in a same-gender environment. Most of our schools really aren't equipped to deal with boy energy and research is clear that in mixed-sex environments girls do start under-performing when they are about 11-14 years old.

I don't think that kids can't do well in the usual mixed-sex/gender environment that public schools traditionally provide, but I think that some provisions should be made for those students who do much better in single-sex environments. I don't think it compromises one's egalitarian principles to understand the need to meet individual children's educational and social needs.

I think of you as somewhat of a self-segregationist or at least a sexual separatist when it comes to preserving historically gay spaces, and often I've seen you appear to sanction a sort of "separate but equal" stance when it comes to preserving gay culture.

I'm female, 26, and in an open marriage with a wonderful man. I am having a recurring fear that he'll get some other woman pregnant and she will refuse to abort. I trust him, but condoms break (or get holes poked in them). He inherited serious money from his father, and his father got "oops'd" into having three kids. I would immediately divorce my husband if this happened. (Yes, I'm an asshole, but my life plans have NEVER included children, step or otherwise.) My solution is for him to get a vasectomy. He says he's for it, but it's been a YEAR and he hasn't made an appointment. I'm seriously considering yanking "open" until he's sterile. Maybe he really wants children and he's not telling me, but I keep asking and he keeps saying no. Am I being unreasonable asking for the snip?

We don't know how long this marriage has been open (or how long it has existed, period. She's 26, so I assume not too long-- though Dan could have changed her age as he often does little identifying details), or whose idea it was to open it. It's hard to know if either SNIP or her husband is worried about his money or whether his father's three accidental children simply put the idea that children can be conceived easily and unintentionally or without the father's intention into her mind.

She's right to worry about pregnancy--that's a very common side effect of sex. She can't order a woman to abort and she can't force her husband into getting a vasectomy--the only person whose actions she can control is herself. If she is this fearful about the consequences that can arise from opening the marriage, I think she needs to share them and the couple needs to close down the marriage until she is no longer so fearful.

She says she's "asking" him to get a vasectomy, but she needs to accept that it's his body and his choice what he does with it. It sounds like she's harping continuously about this ("Maybe he really wants children and he's not telling me, but I keep asking and he keeps saying no") and maybe he wants to keep his options to have children open, or maybe he is just nervous about having someone do something that will affect his genitals for fear of pain or erectile functionality, or maybe he does get off on the idea that he's spewing his seed when he has sex. Whatever. These are all legitimate concerns and they are his and not hers to override.

They need to talk.

HAPPY doesn't have a problem (other than a common side effect of antidepressants, which she can and should address with her doctor), she has an excellent, useful litmus test. People can indeed be judgey when it comes to antidepressants, and those people are not good partners for people who take antidepressants (or people with mental illnesses that can be treated with antidepressants, since someone who is judgey about antidepressants has some serious misconceptions about mental illness). Best to find out right away rather than months in, where one is more likely to have more emotional or logistical entanglements with someone one is dating,

come on, this should be easy. his body, his choice. why is there disagreement on this? even if he said one thing, he can change his mind about his body. it's his.

she shouldn't pester him for a vasectomy any more than a man should pester a woman about her body. maybe he wants the option to change his mind in the future. not that it matters, but that is entirely reasonable. her fears -- as she's articulated them (accidental or malicious pregnancy where the woman doesn't planB or abort and also sues for child support -- are far less reasonable.

we don't know the "terms" of their relationship. if she entered because he promised a vasectomy, he should hold up his end of the agreement. if he wanted to be with her to have an open marriage, and the vasectomy was added as a condition later, than she is the one being unreasonable.

@154: Yes, the last was my take on it, but I don't see why she would frame it like that if he didn't frame it like that to her.

@156: I am not omniscient, all I know is what someone states in some sincerity, it is possible that they are lying, but unless they out themselves as an unreliable narrator and/or state their partner's desires in a strange puppet-voice... she simply does not know or understand the hesitance, and will hopefully know when they can confront the issues at hand.

@159: +1

@biDanFan - she's not bribing him, she's extorting him. she's taking something away, not offering something new. there is a difference.

and pressuring can be as wrong as forcing, in some instances.

@ricardo if the double-standard is that she can change her mind if she decides to have kids later, but he might not be able to, i think that is an entirely reasonable concern.

@emmaLiz it's also a double-standard that she is worried about him knocking someone up, but not herself getting pregnant. in your own example you say sometimes people get pregnant and suddenly decide having the baby is the right thing to do. that *could* happen to her as well, couldn't it? as much as it could happen to him? otherwise, he can be an absent father and only pay child support. if the money isn't really the issue, she should trust that he doesn't want to be a father. sure, it's expensive, but it's very unlikely. might as well not ski or ride a bike for fear of becoming paralyzed.

If one member of a couple is not comfortable with the terms of an open relationship, the relationship should be closed by mutual consent until each partner is satisfied that their comfort levels are high enough.

There are a ton of circumstances that could cause someone to be anxious about having an open relationship. If the primary relationship is really primary, if each partner's needs and comfort and diminishment of anxiety are really important to the other, then it should be an obvious first step to close down the relationship at least until the issues get resolved and the couple comes to an understanding that is acceptable to both.

@176: " race relations seems a fertile field. Take two groups of people, A and B, whose extreme members each think the other group to be the spawn of Satan, and those extremists are likely to have views about A/B relations that will have many practical points in common, though the approaches are diametrically opposed"

Are you serious?

You've offered no evidence for this.

Racists believe that nonwhites are subhuman by birth.

Antiracists believe that racists are terrible human beings by choice and malintent.

The next time you come up with such an asinine, worthless opinion, keep it to yourself or share it with SeattleBlues.

@183: "she's not bribing him, she's extorting him. she's taking something away, not offering something new. there is a difference."

She's taking away her consent with an arrangement she is not happy with, which is hardly extortion, even if plenty of dudes think it is.

@ 167 - "And you think my FRIEND is lying??"

Not at all. I think her ex lied, and possibly the other woman, too.

@ 169 - "And "equality" cannot be applied when there is not anatomical equality"

Once again, you are bringing the conversation back to the operation, when my point all along has been her imposition (of said operation).

The letter, stripped down to its most basic elements: "I am struggling with this fear, and my solution is for someone else to undergo a surgical procedure." Does that sound logical to you?

Well, sorry, but it really isn't.

BTW, there's absolutely nothing in SNIP's letter to suggest she's not taking precautions to not become pregnant herself. Given her explicit statement regarding her absolute conviction against being either a mother or a step mother, we can pretty safely assume that she's using some form of contraception and is willing to have an abortion in case of accidental pregnancy. She isn't worried that she's going to get pregnant.

Right, wanting control over variables like... the members of your familial unit aren't "control issues". People in open relationships taking these factors seriously aren't with problems just because others aren't as concerned.

@ 156 - It had to be Brie...

Sorry, but lingerie and football are two things that have so far failed to appeal to me in any way.

Let's talk about cheese instead! You could pretty much get me to agree with/to anything for a piece of extra-aged Gouda (a big piece, though: I'm not that easy.)

uar @185 Obviously (to me at least) venn is not talking about (white) racists versus anti-racists (of whatever colour), but about white racists versus black racists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supr…

@191: You are incorrect, and the patronizing Wikipedia link is not the same.

Venn referred to BLM, which is not a black supremacist group, is literally a group intending to protect black lives from systemic murder, and conflating them with a group best known for lynching blacks.

That's analogous to comparing a holocaust memorial group with Neonazis.

Fucking shameless.

@114:

Firstly, let me completely support your and everyone else's decision to not have children. I did not want kids for a very long time and, without the right person in my life, I would not have had them....

That said, I wish you'd really re-read your post there, because it is rather insulting to the breeders among us (of which I am one). Both of mine where planned, for sure, so no need for anyone to "get on board." But, to this day, a substantial portion of pregnancies are unplanned. Turn the clock back fifty years without the pill, and what, almost all could be considered "unplanned" in a sense?

You give short shift to people getting on board for the kid with some starry-eyed delusion that they are doing the right thing. No, they are doing the right thing if its clear the child is coming. (In this, btw, I completely support the right to choose and ended a pregnancy myself at 19). It is the right thing to make the best of what life hands you. It is the right thing to love that child and do the best you can to bring that child up in this world. That can include giving that child away to a loving couple to adopt.

And I will say my children have saved me a time or two, in the dark. I went through some very bleak moments in my life two or three years ago. Had I not laid in bed and thought, I can't curse my children with a mother who eats a bottle of benzos with a martini chaser, I might not be here to chide you today.....

Which leads me to this.....

"This is what I see happening all the time with unexpected pregnancy, and I think it's a general ignorance on the part of Americans- they have never really had to spend their lives caring selflessly for others"

Really? When we of the first world democracies have the poorest social security net and very often care is taken on, not by big government brother, but our own families? As if none of us helped raise our siblings (ahum) or took care of our dying parents? As if we were raised in a bubble ourselves and are confused why a bubble does not magically appear when our squalling heirs (and heiresses) and handed to us just cleaned of blood?

There is an ignorance when parents take that baby home for the first time, but I don't think its a special American ignorance.

Seriously, I encounter #alllivesmatter garbage from your average unenlightened person enough, the last thing I need to be reminded of is how common racist-enablers are in the queer/kink scene.

@186 i was responding to the comment that this was a bribe. it's more of an extortion than a bribe. the definition of extortion being: "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats." there is a threat here (divorce). now, i wouldn't come out and say she's extorting him, even if he was the letter writer offering his perspective. but in a metaphysical way of speaking, it is an extortion.

Ms Rand - The inherent nature of BLM is immaterial to whether their extremist adherents spout rhetoric that creates a horseshoe with the rhetoric of the extremist members of a group that, for this purpose, I am quite prepared to allow as much worse overall as a group. The horseshoe doesn't have to have balanced ends. How just one holds the causes of the two groups to be makes no difference; whether one supports A, B, both or neither makes no difference; whether the racial prejudices of one group are entirely justified and the other entirely not makes no difference; whether 90% of A are extremists and 10% of B makes no difference to the similarity of the A and B extremist rhetoric.

If you want to keep quarreling, try defending the hijacking of Toronto Pride or the gay-shaming young woman at that Orlando vigil. I'll give everyone an earful about that. Otherwise, your virtue signal has been registered. You are a Good Person.

Ms Cute - I am entirely prepared to believe that you and many other reasonable people see value in single-sex education. My point is just that the loudest voices in favour of it are coming from extremists who see only one side of the coin, but propose remarkably similar solutions.

I shall at least happily cite you the next time I encounter an MRA rant claiming that all feminists treat school-age boys as defective girls.

Ms Cute - I knew I left something out. Whether your conclusion is right or not, I can work within that parameter. Besides, I have to fight for gay culture. Mr Savage will sell us out and make us a subsidiary of at least one alien group. Voluntary intersectionality I can give FTWL and judge on a case-by-case basis. Enforced intersectionality (cover your eyes, Ms Cummins!) - oh, dear, no.

@160 "I'm a het woman who has the same thing happen: after the first year/six months, my interest in a partner goes from "hell yes every day" to "enh, maybe once a week if he really wants it."

I feel sorry for you. Many long-term married couples still have sex. See article:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/23…

It's late but I see one little thing has not yet been noticed in the comments. If SNIP's husband has a vasectomy, he will still have to use condoms with other partners (and maybe still with his wife, depending on their arrangements) to avoid STDs. Not having to use condoms is the primary incentive for guys to get the V. This is probably why he is dragging his feet on getting it done. No incentive, especially if wife doesn't follow through with her threat/consequence of shutting down the openness or breaking up.
And BDF, I most often agree with you but I can't on the point of "how awkward it would be if you picked up a poly guy and he said he couldn't fuck because of..." Yes, it would be rude if he followed up with why. But I've been with many poly guys (with their wives'/primary partners' knowledge and consent) and it is a very common thing for PIV to be off the table. In fact it was the rare occasion when it was allowed. Perhaps it is an effect of kinky people being less concerned with "going all the way," less traditionally sexually focused or something. But definitely it is no big deal if married dude is not allowed to fuck. It is probably the most common prohibition in open relationships either due to perceived intimacy or risk of pregnancy/STDs.
Again I do absolutely see it as his choice to get the V or not. As it is her choice to stay in the relationship or not.
A few years ago, about half of all pregnancies were unplanned. I think it is down to about a third now, and then about half of those do not result in live births. So, somewhere between a quarter and a sixth of all live births are a result of unplanned conceptions. There is a reason they call us breeders. Pregnancy is probably as great or greater a risk than an STD for this couple. They should shut down the "open" until they have this resolved.
As for incentive for the guy... Has the wife suggested that within the marriage they could have condom-free sex if he gets snipped? That could help motivate him. Seems like the sequence could be: close the marriage (or take PIV out for other partners), talk extensively to come up with a game plan, get all the std tests possible, get the snip, take all the tests again, go rubber free in the marriage, then re-open. Consider adding other partners as fluid bonded with the full testing/waiting/testing again procedure. All others, condoms or no PIV. (Other possibilities, no snipping but all PIV partners for him must be verified nonfertile, e.g. Tubes tied or post menopause. Or, PIV with condom allowed but coming must be not in vagina. Could be fun...include a pic of where the semen landed in post-action report...depending on their mix of fetishes they could find a way to make it fun.)
Whatever they do, more conversation, fewer demands, are recommended.

@193

Obviously not everyone, and I've written here and elsewhere about people who take parenting very responsibly and enjoy it and have happy families.

That said, almost all of my professional experience was in social work and public health, and I can say without a doubt that the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies IN MY EXPERIENCE have turned into miserable families. I know my experience is skewed, but yours is too, which is why it's good for us to talk about different perspectives.

And no, getting sentimental about parenthood is not the right thing to do necessarily- a pregnancy does NOT mean a child is coming. We need to stop thinking this way which is the point of my post and why I don't care if it offends "breeders" (a term I would not use btw). Early term abortion of unplanned embryos does not need to be so emotionally fraught. It's not in most places in Asia (which is the basis of my comparison with Americans)- it's just a practical procedure. I feel very strongly that we need to take the stigma out of early term abortion here.

As for happy unplanned pregnancies or planned pregnancy, that's entirely different. Please note that my words were in the context of unexpected pregnancy in which neither man nor woman were interested in kids and then one of them became sentimental about it and decided that parenthood should happen despite the ambivalence or disinterest of the other.

Finally, yes, while many Americans take care of elders and small children, it is not the norm to grow up in multigenerational families where taking care of needy family members is an expected and regular part of daily life for everyone. This is changing around the world also btw as capitalism and industrialization spread.

Ms Cute - Actually, as long as we've gotten onto education, what's your position on dress codes? I suspect you and I could make a reverse horseshoe on this one, as you'll likely be able to make a case for everyone, and I probably loathe both sides about equally.

We need to stop thinking this way, Emma Liz?
If a foetus is left alone, then a baby is coming. If an abortion occurs then the baby stops coming.

Squidgie @202: Perhaps it is an effect of kinky people being less concerned with "going all the way,"

Interesting, thanks for your perspective. I can see how this would work when the primary purpose of the secondary partner was kink play. But if it were not specifically a play-partner relationship, then taking the one thing OS partners do more than any other off the table would be a dealbreaker for a hell of a lot of vanilla people.

I'm not sure where you're getting your assumption that SNIP and her husband are using condoms. Given her low degree of trust in them, I'd be very surprised if they were her primary form of birth control. She's much more likely to be using hormonal birth control, no condoms with the spouse, condoms with all other partners. This is typical in my experience of poly-with-primary couples' approach to STI and pregnancy prevention.

I do like your idea of "all his other lovers must be at least in their 50s" ;)

@205
First off, the majority of abortions (90%) occur in the first three months- the first two months of which we are talking about embryos not fetuses. Not that this really matters to the larger conversation. If an embryo is left alone, it might become a fetus which, if left alone for weeks and weeks, means a baby is coming. I don't see what this has to do with what I said though since my statement was that we need to stop thinking that an unplanned pregnancy means a baby is on the way. It's a false assumption.

We generally accept that having sex does not mean someone must get pregnant. Likewise contracting HIV does not mean that someone must get AIDS. And conception does not mean a baby must come. We luckily have medical technology to prevent all these outcomes.The only reason a child should ever be on the way is if someone chooses to become a parent, and hopefully that choice involves both parents.

(Later term abortion is far more nuanced, though that's irrelevant to this conversation.)