No decision if birth control fails - what should I do?

August 6, 2009 7:25 PM

So, every responsible sexually active adult has "the birth control" conversation. Awhile back, my long-term girlfriend and I had the "what happens if birth control fails" conversation - to my mind, equally important. We have not had sex since.

I don't want kids.
She isn't sure, but leans toward "yes". It's not a dealbreaker for her, and she says her answer might at some point change to a definite "no", but were she to become pregnant, she isn't sure what she would do.
She is able at this point to support a child, she says, so she wouldn't automatically decide against.
She isn't anti-abortion. She just isn't sure what she would decide.

It was actually comments on MeFi that made me realize, as people have said:
"a man consents to fatherhood when he has sex". Realizing this was true, I've done the only thing I can do not getting any assurances on this question - not give that consent.

Naturally, this has left both of us pretty unhappy.

Obviously, a person can change her mind, so an "assurance" has limited value. But just as obviously, if she isn't sure now what she would do in that situation, I'm left with no indication as to whether I might remain childless or suddenly be a father for life. That's a pretty big life decision to leave to someone else's "I'll cross that bridge if I come to it".

So help me figure this out. Am I being ridiculous in acknowledging this decision point and looking for an answer to my question? She thinks I am - no boyfriend of hers has ever had the "what if birth control fails" discussion with her (which I think is crazy). We do use birth control, and clearly I can take increasingly severe actions to work toward eliminating any chance of pregnancy, up to and including a vasectomy (though I don't like some of the possible complications - testicular pain, in some cases relieved only by castration?!). I accept that differences on the question of children break many a couple up. I'm just not sure the possibility of children should do so. At the same time, a sexless relationship isn't what either of us wants, (though yes, there are "other" things we can do).

What do you think, MeFi? You convinced me that a man consents to fatherhood when he has sex.
I don't want to give that consent.
What do I do now?

posted by anonymous to human relations (101 comments total)

Get a vasectomy.
posted by Ky at 7:28 PM on August 6 [49 favorites]

Uh, one correction:

A man does not consent to fatherhood when he has sex.
posted by kldickson at 7:28 PM on August 6 [35 favorites]

"A man consents to fatherhood when he has sex" is a pretty weak argument, no different than the anti-choice crowd who say "a woman consents to motherhood when she has sex".

With that said, most of my friends who have children are people who never had the 'what if birth control fails' conversation before it mattered. If you don't want kids, have a vasectomy. It is much simpler and less prone to complication than pretty much any type of female birth control.
posted by Jairus at 7:31 PM on August 6 [5 favorites]

Kldickson, correction, assuming that the woman was not deceiving the man about her use of birth control, a man is responsible for being a father if he gets a woman pregnant. I don't know what part of that is negotiable.

2nding vasectomy. Have you researched how common those side effects are?
posted by ishotjr at 7:31 PM on August 6 [3 favorites]

if she's on the fence like this, i'd say if she got pregnant she'd probably keep it. with that being the case, and you not wanting to be a father ever, i think you have to get snipped. if you want to be in control of birth control, you've got to use the only option open to you.

beware, this might be a deal breaker for her.
posted by nadawi at 7:31 PM on August 6 [3 favorites]

Don't get a vasectomy. Use condoms.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:34 PM on August 6

You don't consent to fatherhood when you have sex, you consent to the possibility of having to pay child support.
posted by amro at 7:34 PM on August 6 [25 favorites]

a woman controls if she becomes a mother after the point of conception. a man can only control that up to the point of conception. so, as much as it sounds shitty, if a man has sex he's consenting to trust his partner with any decision she makes about an accidental pregnancy. in shorthand - a man consents to be a father when he has sex, especially if his partner won't commit to her plans after conception.
posted by nadawi at 7:34 PM on August 6 [6 favorites]

Don't get a vasectomy. Use condoms.

Did you read the question? The whole thing is about what happens if birth control fails.

Condoms are great but the do fail, and it isn't totally vanishingly rare that a woman gets pregnant despite her partner using condoms.
posted by Justinian at 7:35 PM on August 6

I should probably clarify... Although, of course, ideally one would want to be a father to a child he half-created, there is no law that says you would have to play an active part in the child's life.
posted by amro at 7:37 PM on August 6

Also - use condoms AND the pill.
posted by amro at 7:37 PM on August 6 [6 favorites]

So help me figure this out. Am I being ridiculous in acknowledging this decision point and looking for an answer to my question? She thinks I am

She's wrong. Once a woman is pregnant, you have no legal control over the outcome. If you're sure you don't want kids, then your course of action is the correct one.

You don't consent to fatherhood when you have sex, you consent to the possibility of having to pay child support.

Your children may have a different view, whether or not you like it. Good on y0ou, poster for taking a remarkably more responsible view than this one.
posted by rodgerd at 7:38 PM on August 6 [4 favorites]

I'm sort of not clear what you expect from AskMe here -- an assurance that there is an absolute 100% effective form of birth control? Well, no one can give you that; sterilization's close, but isn't always foolproof. But if that's what you want, and you refuse to have sex until you can have that guarantee, then as long as you stay with your present girlfriend, you can't have sex. Or you could break up and find someone infertile.

If those are out of the question, then what you really want to do is get as close to 100% as you can. So double-up (or even triple-up): use condoms (and/or get a vasectomy) + some combination of hormonal BC/IUD/diaphragm.

And I know this isn't what you want to hear, but there aren't a lot of guarantees in life. It's not a chess game, where you can control the outcome and put all possible negative events into checkmate forever through foresight and strategy. The best we can do is to do the best we can do, and believe that we can handle whatever happens beyond that.
posted by scody at 7:39 PM on August 6 [4 favorites]

I had the talk with my man (who already has a kid, not via me) and we went the vasectomy route because I got increasingly adamant about "No, not everything but, thanks!"

It was incredibly simple (for us), briefly painful (for him), had no side effects and lasts forever. It makes a lot of things much simpler. The risks are very very minimal. I could do some hand-wavey stuff here, but I'd say it's much less likely that your vasectomy would go wrong than that your birth control would fail.

You convinced me that a man consents to fatherhood when he has sex.

I wear my seatbelt, but I don't stay out of my car because I might be in an accident. I am careful, very careful, because I like being alive. Assuming this issue is not specific to your own girlfriend (i.e. it's not that you want kids with someone else either) just handle this on your own if you're going to be this much of a stickler. This sounds a lot more like proving a point than making an honest effort to have sexy funtime with someone. If you and your gf don't see eye to eye on this, move on.
posted by jessamyn at 7:40 PM on August 6 [4 favorites]

Defense in depth, my friend.

A condom ALONE may fail.

The pill/IUD ALONE may fail.

But the chance of both of them failing at the same time? Unlikely.

Sex is good, it's worth the risk.

Propose my solution to her, see what she says.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:42 PM on August 6 [3 favorites]

From a practical standpoint, even if a woman says unequivocally that she'd abort if she got pregnant, once it happens, it's true that the next decision is out of your hands and in hers.

So, if the small chance of pregnancy present even with vigilant birth control practices is unacceptable to you, then yes, you have a decision to make.

If I were a man, and I was sure I didn't want kids, I would absolutely go for that vasectomy.
posted by lampoil at 7:42 PM on August 6 [2 favorites]

also: "She is able at this point to support a child, she says, so she wouldn't automatically decide against." is a huge red flag for me. she isn't considering your desires in all this. you are not at this point, or any conceivable point in the future, able to emotionally support a child, yet she won't rule out making you father a child against your will if birth control failed.
posted by nadawi at 7:42 PM on August 6 [2 favorites]

Just to provide an alternative to all the other answers.. she could take a pregnancy test 48 hours after every time you have sex (or if you have sex frequently, once every 3 days). Then, if positive, she could take emergency contraception which the WHO claims is effective up to 5 days after intercourse but it's usually licensed for use up to 3.

Emergency contraception is not abortion - problem solved. The downside to this plan is the cost of so many pregnancy tests and it's not a 100% surefire fix - but nothing is.
posted by wackybrit at 7:48 PM on August 6

Obviously, a person can change her mind, so an "assurance" has limited value. But just as obviously, if she isn't sure now what she would do in that situation, I'm left with no indication as to whether I might remain childless or suddenly be a father for life. That's a pretty big life decision to leave to someone else's "I'll cross that bridge if I come to it".

I understand your concern, but this is, frankly, a situation you would run into with any fertile woman. Whenever I've had this discussion with anyone I always said I didn't know what I would do if I became pregnant. If a woman's never been pregnant, she just doesn't know what she'll do or how she'll feel and it's better not to make any blind promises.

If you're absolutely sure you don't want children, get a vasectomy. This won't necessarily allow you to have worry-free hot pig sex with this woman. I suspect your girlfriend may leave you once you've had the snip and she has to face the fact that having a baby with you will never be an option. However, sterilizing yourself will eliminate both the risk of fatherhood and the potential for similar problems with future girlfriends who are not on the same page as you regarding reproduction.
posted by orange swan at 7:49 PM on August 6 [9 favorites]

I don't know that the argument that a man consents to fatherhood when he has sex. It merely means that, provided she isn't lying about her use of birth control, that he recognizes that should the birth control fail, he has potentially contributed genetic material to a child that will be his, and he has a legal obligation to support said child. Let's not confuse fathering a child with actual fatherhood.

Nonetheless, the only surefire way to prevent pregnancy is to avoid sex. How long is "awhile back"? Maybe you're both just coming to terms with the discussion. If, for the moment, she is on birth control, and clearly not on the "child-bearing" path, then you two should be able to communicate that. Likewise, if she decides that she wants to have children, and your position is still the same, the relationship dynamic will change and you'll deal with that then.
posted by honeybee413 at 7:49 PM on August 6

to my knowledge, no pregnancy test will tell you within 48 hours if you're pregnant.
posted by nadawi at 7:52 PM on August 6 [8 favorites]

While I know this was not the core of your question, please don't believe the urban myths surrounding vasectomies. While it is a surgical procedure, with attendant risks, the rate of post-surgical complication is around 2%, with almost all symptoms entirely temporary and reversible. From a (admittedly very quick) scan of the medical literature, I can't find any cases in which castration was a solution to CTP... when it does happen (extremely rarely), it's usually solved by reversing the vasectomy.

That being said - you did the right thing in having the discussion. It's really unfortunate that your girlfriend is freaked out about it, but that is far better than the alternative (being pregnant and freaked out because nothing has been planned or discussed).

You haven't mentioned your age, or how long you've had your desire not to have kids. If you're over 25... ideally, over 30... and this has been a decision you've been constant about for at least five years, then I would say remove the worry from both your minds and make an appointment to have a vasectomy. (Do not do it just so you can have sex with your girlfriend again! Make the decision for yourself, irrespective of her, and regardless of the probability that doing so will solve this problem).

If you don't want to take that step, and, after several months of communication, she can't, or won't, approach the subject rationally, then you have every right - even an obligation - to walk away. Life with her is a commitment to her and her health. The inability to talk about, or even consider, something as common and life-changing as accidental pregnancy means (to be very blunt) that you're not a part of her future.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 7:52 PM on August 6 [3 favorites]

The good news is that you have taken the first and probably the most important step. You have talked to your partner about this. Like always, communication is key.

Secondly, don't forget that no-one has the right to dictate you actions in a relationship but you. This is especially important when it comes to sex and children. The decisions you make now can have long-lasting consequences to both yourself and others. As such, you are showing a high level of responsibility in wanting to decide this before it becomes urgent.

Now, as far as "a man consents to fatherhood when he has sex," I think there are two parts to this.

The first is the acceptance of the consequences in case your partner does become pregnant. As to whether this is parenthood or not is up to your partner and yourself. Either way, you first need to be ready to accept the possible consequences of the outcome. If you are not ready to accept either consequence, I think that the reasonable course of action is abstinence.

If you are willing to accept the consequences, but would still rather not have to do so, then it all comes down to your personal risk aversion. Different birth control methods obviously carry different risks. If you are highly adverse to having children, yet willing to accept the consequences if you must, then you should make sure you use a highly effective birth control method ( or methods! ). As your willingness to accept the consequences changes, you can likewise change your birth control methods.
posted by tdreyer at 7:53 PM on August 6

Life finds a way.

I know a few vasectomy babies, and a few tubal babies (that is, babies conceived well after assurances were given as to the sterility of one partner).

I even know a couple who were both surgically "fixed" and managed to end up pregnant.

If you're that sure, get a vasectomy. If she's willing to work with you to avoid pregnancy, and you feel comfortable taking that chance, then continue sexual relations. If not, then not.

Just to provide an alternative to all the other answers.. she could take a pregnancy test 48 hours after every time you have sex (or if you have sex frequently, once every 3 days). Then, if positive, she could take emergency contraception which the WHO claims is effective up to 5 days after intercourse but it's usually licensed for use up to 3.

48 hours? No pregnancy test on earth that doesn't involve expensive electronic devices and knowing where to measure ... that I've ever seen. Has there been significant advance that I'm unaware of in the last few years since I've dropped fifteen bucks at a drugstore for a pee stick?
posted by tilde at 7:55 PM on August 6 [3 favorites]

While I understand what people mean by the statement "sex means consenting to fatherhood", I personally think you're taking it too far / too literally.

Condoms are designed to prevent pregnancy. Every now and then, they fail to do so. This is the reasoning behind the statements.

Seat belts are designed to prevent death in an auto accident. Every now and then, they fail to do so. Are you consenting to dying in a car accident by simply driving, and you shouldn't drive if you don't want to die?

Circuit breakers are designed in part to help prevent fires in your home. Every now and then, they fail to do so. By using electricity, are you automatically consenting to your house burning down, and if you don't want that then you should live on candles and batteries?

Extreme examples, maybe, but the point is if you didn't do any of the things in life that had a small chance of resulting in something you wouldn't ordinarily consent to, you would lead a pretty boring, inactive life.

I don't argue that it's your choice. You are free to not want kids, and if you absolutely cannot compromise on that, then you need to compromise elsewhere; such as never having sex again. Are you willing to make the commitment to lifelong abstinence right now? Because that's what you're essentially saying.

If you're not willing to go that far, you need to then consider whether the chances / risks of birth control failing outweigh the chances / risks of encountering complications in a vasectomy. I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for, because in the end it's some kind of choice you're going to have to make... there's no magical solution here. Either you permanently abstain, have sex with protection and accept the risk of potential fatherhood, or have sex with a vasectomy and accept the risk of complications.

Look at it this way, assuming the only absolute you have is that children are out of the question: If you have a vasectomy, there's a (very tiny) chance that you will never be able to have sex again. If you don't, and you fully subscribe to the "sex=consent" mantra, then you're guaranteed never to have sex again.
posted by SquidLips at 7:55 PM on August 6 [3 favorites]

had no side effects and lasts forever.

Vasectomies can lead to autoimmune problems, as the immune system "recognizes" the trapped sperm as foreign.
posted by orthogonality at 8:04 PM on August 6

Your girlfriend is being honest, and continuing to be honest even knowing that this means she's not having sex. She is very unlikely to actually suddenly decide that yes, she's entirely sure she would have an abortion, and even if she does decide that, she's not guaranteed to follow through.

You're not being silly, but you need to decide what to do next. You can suggest using multiple kinds of contraception, though bear in mind that this puts all the responsibility on her, or you can get a vasectomy. Neither are foolproof, but both are as close as you can get barring celibacy or having sex only with men.
posted by jeather at 8:04 PM on August 6

Also, are people really suggesting that the OP get a vasectomy? Really? "You don't want to have kids, so have a vasectomy?" Is this really good logic?

I mean, a vasectomy. That's the kind of decision you make after you've had a couple kids already. Or if you're with someone who you're pretty sure will be your life partner, and you've made this decision together after much soul searching. It's not the kind of decision a single guy makes because he doesn't want to have kids with a woman who he feels so dispassionate about that he's already stopped having sex with her.

Don't get a vasectomy over this. You may want to have kids eventually. I've even heard that doctors will try to convince single guys not to get vasectomies, because of the likelihood that they'll regret it later.

My god. Some of the people in this thread are pretty extreme. I guess askme is a bad place for this sort of question.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:07 PM on August 6 [2 favorites]

I would be worried if your girlfriend is so adamant against considering your wishes if she gets pregnant.

One thing that bothers me about laws is that even if you don't want to have a child, if you SO gets pregnant and wants to have it, you're responsible for at least a financial aspect.

So, if you're in a situation where she absolutely would not consider your wishes in this matter, then I would question whether or not it's a good relationship to be in.
posted by elder18 at 8:07 PM on August 6

Do you drive a car?

Because if she uses the Pill, or an IUD, and you use condoms, her pregnancy is significantly less likely than you dying on the streets of an American city thanks to a multi-ton metal box driven by a distracted or drunk person.

Nothing is certain. It's good that you're serious about your responsibilities, but nothing in life is certain. You could die tomorrow, by things that are much more likely than becoming a father while using multiple forms of birth control. Go get some condoms and have some sex.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:09 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

Though this was alluded to already, there is absolutely zero value in the strategy of taking a pregnancy test, and then thinking that you can get the morning after pill if it's positive. By the time you're producing enough HCG for the pregnancy test to be positive, you're going to be out of the window for the morning after pill to be effective.
posted by mercredi at 8:13 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

Pills + Condoms and you are good to go...forget about that vasectomy homey......that should do the trick.......
posted by The1andonly at 8:14 PM on August 6

I will agree that no woman really knows what they'll do if they have an unplanned pregnancy. What will you do? Make her sign a contract to abort and get it notarized? I doubt any woman would do that. Specifically because, even women who are in the NO BABIES!! category realize that it's not something you can know beforehand. (For that matter, if she did turn up pregnant, YOU might change your mind and want to be a Daddy!) As much as I like to plan ahead and be prepared, this is one bridge you really can't cross until the time comes.

If you're still sure you're sure about no babies ever, you can still have sex. With yourself, another man, a transsexual, or a woman over 70. (And I suppose women who have had a hysterectomy)
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 8:16 PM on August 6

That's a pretty big life decision to leave to someone else's "I'll cross that bridge if I come to it".

Hell, yes. You are not crazy, irrational, or extreme.

If you never want kids, then having a vasectomy actually is pretty good logic. I mean, is there another reason to have a vasectomy?

Look, if you don't want your shoes to get rained on, don't leave them in the yard. If you don't want your sperm to... well, you get my drift.
posted by selfmedicating at 8:16 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

I think if you are this sure you don't want kids, you should either get a vasectomy or use condoms (while she's on some other form of birth control). It's fine that you don't want kids, and she is unsure. She may eventually become sure, at which point she can make up her mind whether or not she wants to be with you. But you should be honest with her every step of the way. I think it's ok that you feel the way you do; it's the way you are and there isn't anything wrong with it.

However,

including a vasectomy (though I don't like some of the possible complications - testicular pain, in some cases relieved only by castration?!)

It seems the issue is that you aren't sure whether or not your gf will get an abortion if she were to become pregnant. Abortions are also medical procedures with complications for a woman's health. If you expect her to get an abortion should it be necessary, but you yourself are not willing to undergo a medical procedure yourself to ensure no kids, well, I think this is not cool; your gf might not think so either.
posted by bluefly at 8:18 PM on August 6 [43 favorites]

You sound amazingly ridiculous. You stopped having sex because of Metafilter? No, you stopped having sex because you read some shit on Metafilter that fed into whatever fear you already had of having a kid.

Yes, that's right, you're using Metafilter to enable your celibacy.

Get off the internet, go pick up some condoms to augment whatever your girlfriend is using for birth control and then go home and do it like they do on the Discovery Channel. Either that or reassess why it is you don't want to have kids and figure why you're willing to ignore perfectly good techniques for cutting this chance down to a really small number.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:18 PM on August 6 [18 favorites]

You don't consent to fatherhood when you have sex, you consent to the possibility of having to pay child support.

Please not this. The world really doesn't need more fathers who have no active involvement in their children's lives other than writing out the obligatory check.

I can think of three ways a man can prevent pregnancy:
1. Condoms
2. Vasectomy
3. Abstinence

Those are written in order of their fail rate. As far as I know, those are the only options available to men. Pick the one that best suits the amount of risk you are willing to accept.

Both luckily and unluckily for you, some women will find #2 and #3 to be a deal-breaker for them. Those women, though, will be the ones who want children (that's the deal-breaker for #2) or sex (that's the deal-breaker for #3).

In HSE (health, safety, environment), there's a theory called "swiss cheese." It's about barriers to risk (in context, risk to health or environment). The idea is that if you have only one barrier, the barrier may be breached -- like a slice of swiss cheese, it may have holes. With two barriers, you reduce risk because then the first and second barrier must be breached (imagine two slices of swiss cheese, with the holes not aligned). With three barriers, the risk is decreased even more, and so on.

If you think about it that way, doesn't it make sense to just use 2+ forms of birth control? For example, if you wear a condom (#1) with spermicide (#2), she takes the pill (#3), and she uses a diaphragm (#4), and you withdraw before ejaculation (#5), and you two track her ovulation and don't have sex when she's ovulating (#6), would that be a low enough risk?

I ask because as frightful as that sounds, no sex at all sounds (marginally) worse. Just marginally, though.
posted by Houstonian at 8:19 PM on August 6 [2 favorites]

You don't mention how old either of you are. I think if you were to say that you were both in your early 20s the answers here would be significantly different than, say, if you were both in your late 30s or 40s.

The finality of a vasectomy is not something to be taken lightly. Yeah, it supposedly can be reversed in some situations, but who is to say that you might not break up with this woman (or God forbid, something were to happen to her) and you were to meet another, who you fell head over heels with and you suddenly decided you want kids?

There's no reason your partner can't go on DepoProvera, or get an IUD if she feels that she can't dependably rely on BCPs, and then use condoms in tandem.

Or, if you really want to be obsessive about it, you can go the route Houstonian mentions. But, damn, that kind of takes all the fun out of it.
posted by dancinglamb at 8:36 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

Condoms are about 87-98% effective (depending upon knowing how to use them correctly)
"The Pill" is about 95% effective.

Lets just assume the condom efficacy is 87%, and the pill is about 95%.

That leaves 13% chance of pregnancy with a condom (alone) and 5% with the pill (alone)

If we combine them (use both at the same time...as in: chick takes pill daily, dude wears a condom every time)...there is about a one chance in one hundred and fifty four (1/154) of getting preggers.

AND...sex, just like roulette does NOT have a memory. If you have sex 154 times, that does NOT mean you will get pregnant once. Nope.

Thats like saying if you bet 38 times on roulette in vegas...you are BOUND to win once. Nope.

As for vasectomies...yeah, you're right...there are potential side effects. Just like a side effect of a tonsillectomy is death. Yeah, it can happen. How often does it happen...not very often.

Good luck.
posted by hal_c_on at 8:38 PM on August 6

I'm not going to comment on any of the other issues here, but although you aren't explicit, reading between the lines it sounds like you may have asked her to promise that she would get an abortion were she to become pregnant. Do whatever you need to do to deal with your own concerns that having sex in general can lead to the possibility of fatherhood, say "no sex" and explain how you feel about the possibilities, but - if you are even remotely doing anything like pressuring her to make a promise like that, that's some seriously fucked up Rumplestiltskin shit (and it's asking her to potentially trade her first child for sex no less, which is more messed up than trading a child for gold made from straw IMO) and I could kinda understand that she might be a little freaked out.
posted by XMLicious at 8:42 PM on August 6 [18 favorites]

I want to favorite bluefly's comment a thousand times. I would like to add that the risks associated with abortion (planned parenthood link) are much more severe than those you've listed for vasectomies. You're unwilling to expose yourself to the minuscule chance of castration, but you expect your girlfriend to happily undergo a much more complicated procedure which includes the (admittedly tiny) risk of death? (I tried finding hard statistics for the risks involved, but have you ever tried googling "abortion risks"? I'm not of a mind to sift through the propaganda at the moment. Please, if someone else is better informed, chime in.)

In conclusion, her body, her choice. Likewise, your body, your choice. Don't want kids? Snip it.
posted by philotes at 8:46 PM on August 6 [8 favorites]

We have not had sex since.

Do you still hug? Kiss? Play with each other's genitals? Go down on each other? Make each other cum at all? When you "not give that consent," what exactly are you saying no to? There's lots of sex you can do that doesn't involve a risk of pregnancy, but if you're saying no to those possibilities as well as penis-vagina intercourse, then it might be there are other issues here besides her unwillingness to promise you she'll have an abortion if she gets pregnant.
posted by mediareport at 9:00 PM on August 6 [2 favorites]

"You don't want to have kids, so have a vasectomy?" Is this really good logic?

It's something the OP is already exploring, so if he's as absolute in his decision to be childfree as his post claims then I don't see why this is such a leap of logic. You don't want to have kids and want to be as sure as possible that the sex you're having won't result in pregnancy (even knowing a vasectomy is not absolutely 100%), then I don't particularly see the problem here.
posted by asciident at 9:01 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

she isn't considering your desires in all this.

So? Her body, her choice. I fail to see what is controversial about this.

If you have sex 154 times, that does NOT mean you will get pregnant once. Nope.

154 sexy times at a 1/154 chance of conception each gives me a roughly 1 in 3 chance of not having a kid at the end of it. Better throw in the rhythm method, too.
posted by @troy at 9:03 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

I read somewhere that even a vasectomy is not 100% safe, but I'm not sure if that's true.
posted by archagon at 9:05 PM on August 6

My thoughts are that she doesn't have to have a firm decision made on her life and whether she wants kids- with you or anyone else- but you appear to have decided you don't want kids AT ALL, so I think you should make the choice that's best for you regardless of who you're in a relationship with. And the reality is that if you don't feel comfortable having sex with a condom and birth control pills in place, then you feel this way because of how much you don't want kids, which would be a concern for you (or should be, at least to a point) no matter what your partner would want to do, simply because you have no desire to come to that bridge at all. Therefore, I think you should get a vasectomy because it's an action you can take that controls your body and will enable you to feel comfortable having sex, whether it's in this relationship or another one. The reality is no matter what your partner might say- or what another partner who absolutely does not want kids might say- an unwanted pregnancy will create problems you don't want to deal with, even if abortion is an option.

I can't say whether not wanting kids will break up your relationship, but if it will, then that will happen regardless of whether you have a vasectomy. I will say that it sounds as though a pregnancy, however, WOULD absolutely break up your relationship- and not without being very messy.
posted by questionsandanchors at 9:05 PM on August 6 [3 favorites]

Looking at the pregnancy math, aren't those numbers based on annual pregnancy rates. So it's not that the pill is effective 95% of the times that you have sex, but rather that in a year, 95% of women will not get pregnant.

So, using your math, and assuming you have sex an average number of times, you'd only have a 1/154 chance of pregnancy in a year, not per act of intercourse.

(not that this isn't a little off topic. but to continue the drift, if you take at face value the mirena iud published efficacy of 99.9% and pair that with condoms, you've got a higher efficacy than expected from a vasectomy.)
posted by mercredi at 9:26 PM on August 6 [4 favorites]

Uh, he would want her to consent to an abortion instead of childbirth, either way she's going to have medical risks.

I suggest that she get an IUD and you use condoms. The pill is too unreliable when you introduce human error, and you'll be freaking out about whether she really took it or not.
posted by kathrineg at 9:32 PM on August 6

Even if she were to sign some type of contract promising an abortion, or foregoing child support, or whatever... you should be aware that if she did get pregnant there is no way she could ever be held to it. This is due to the viewpoint that by any such contract she would be "giving up the rights of the child", which she legally cannot do. IANAL, but saw my ex-husband learn this one the hard way.
posted by FuzzyVerde at 9:35 PM on August 6

[comments removed - this thread sort of needs to not turn into "you know what *I* think about reproductive rights generally..."]
posted by jessamyn at 9:36 PM on August 6

A consequence of (hetro/fertile) sex is possible pregnancy. Your girlfriend is prepared to deal with that possible outcome by either keeping or aborting the fetus. Good for her in knowing her options and recognising that there is rarely a definite answer she can state right now for all time, especially as options for her health are better discussed with her doctors at the time of the health issue. You can take steps to diminish the risk of pregnancy (vasectomy) or you can accept that you can't eliminate the possible consequences of your actions.

You really sound like you are trying to make the consequences of your own actions entirely your girlfriend's responsibility. The reason she never had this discussion with her past boyfriends is because trying to duck your personal responsibility is not really an adult thing to do in a relationship and trying to negotiate away your responsibilities while also trying to experience the behaviour that creates the responsibility makes you sound really inexperienced.

You made a case against your vasectomy due to complications, I hope you also pointed out to her that she shouldn't have an abortion, or childbirth, or a tubal due to possible complications either. And of course you have made sure she is aware of all the possible complications of the various contraceptives for women up to and including death (probably statistically the same as your risk of castration).

If you can't accept your responsibility then it is good that you are not having sex. Whether either of you will find a fulfilling relationship devoid of the mutually risk-taking part of sexuality is entirely another question.
posted by saucysault at 10:11 PM on August 6 [15 favorites]

I don't want kids and understand where you're coming from on that front. I'm also all for vasectomies and live in one of the mist vasectomied countries in the world. I see no reason why such things should be reserved for those with children already or those who are married. But still, this:

... Or if you're with someone who you're pretty sure will be your life partner, and you've made this decision together after much soul searching. It's not the kind of decision a single guy makes because he doesn't want to have kids with a woman who he feels so dispassionate about that he's already stopped having sex with her.

Just as you'd be pissed off if your girlfriend got pregnant without your permission, she also has the right to be pissed off if you get steralised without hers. Both are life long decisions that affect both of you and should be made together. Maybe this turns out to be a deal breaker or may be you decide to live with the risk or maybe you get a vasectomy, but she has the right to equal input either way.

You've started off correctly, by talking to her. I think the 'what if it fails' conversation is really important and I commend you for that. Now you need to keep going, talk to her some more and figure it out. What she wants is way more important than what any of us think after all.
posted by shelleycat at 10:13 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

Honestly you can't rely on any woman's commitment or suggestion that she would get an abortion if she got pregnant. And that's not meant to be derogatory towards a woman. It's just not the sort of thing a woman can promise.

Ultimately it's just another set of probabilities. You can certainly choose to date someone who says they won't keep an unplanned pregnancy. That's your choice and it's not unreasonable.

However, your girlfriend has given you her answer. Don't pressure her to give you a better answer one way or another. What would you do if she said she would keep the child? Maybe you should do that now.
posted by Wood at 10:16 PM on August 6

I think if you were to say that you were both in your early 20s the answers here would be significantly different than, say, if you were both in your late 30s or 40s.

Yeah, because if he's under 30, he's going to have a hell of a time finding a doctor who'll perform a vasectomy on him.
posted by hades at 10:24 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

My girlfriend loves her IUD. I love the fact that as long as I check for the two strings, we are looking at an error rate of 0.1%.
posted by mmdei at 10:30 PM on August 6

Yeah, I'ma chime in as a woman saying that abortion is freaking scary. I don't want anyone scraping a knife on the inside of my uterus, with the possibility of infection/infertility/surgery/hysterectomy/etc if anything is left behind or if they scrape too hard... *shudder*. It's absolutely not something that anyone should be pressured into either doing or agreeing to do; if you're not comfortable with even a vasectomy in order to prevent ending up with a child, you should be able to understand why she might not be comfortable with an abortion.

Also, I've got to echo not making the choice lightly - a lot of people have thought they didn't want to have kids only to later realize that they didn't want to have kids yet or with this person - and going with multiple protection methods even if you do get the vasectomy. As has been mentioned above, there are more than a few vasectomy babies out there.
posted by Lady Li at 10:36 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

Oh, the big reason I'm a fan of multiple methods - see the 0.1% failure rate quoted above for IUDs? I don't know how accurate that number is, but if you have sex twice a week that's 100 times a year and you're looking at about a 10% chance of a failure during that time. So you want to minimize the odds that a failure of one system will result in pregnancy.
posted by Lady Li at 10:39 PM on August 6

It sounds like you want to have control over this situation. This is fine. I would not endorse the views of anyone who tells you that you should not have control over fatherhood and/or multiple years of child support.

You have to remember that the things people parade around as "rights" are not innate; they have varied by time, by arbitrary map squiggles you might be within based on that time, and so forth. Humanity has yet to come to full agreement on all rights and all responsibilities. All of this is intangible and unprovable. Because of this, we fall back on imperfect laws made by imperfect people, group shaming, and whatever it is we think we can get away with.

With that in mind, you have to look at the consequences based on where you are, now. If a woman becomes pregnant, the woman may opt to legally terminate the pregnancy (these last few decades, anyway, in the US). If a woman becomes pregnant due to sex, the man (in all but some truly edge cases) cannot legally terminate the pregnancy for her. Combine that with child support, which a man can't simply say, "Yeah, I think I'll pass on that, didn't want the kid," as it exists now, and you can see the origin of the line "women have reproductive rights; men have reproductive responsibilities." It's hardly a perfect summation of the situation, but it does speak to your concern. That's the way it works here, now.

Given that, after your orgasm occurs during intercourse, the situation completely out of your hands. Your ejaculate is your contract, spelled out in many millions of swirls of DNA. It comes with its own seal.

Because ejaculation is now the critical decision point, after which you cannot "take it back," all you can really do is decide if the ejaculate in question goes in a little bag, if there are sperm in your ejaculate, and if she'll be around when you do ejaculate. It sounds like the last option is contentious, so you are either left with condoms or vasectomy.

The vasectomy is, in its own way, a compact you sign with yourself, and one which says, on the pain of an unpleasant and expensive operation to reverse the vasectomy, "I hereby agree to involuntarily limit, to a great degree, the ability to get anyone pregnant." It's like putting money in a trust — you've taken away some of your own options in exchange for reducing some other risk. With that weighty contract in your mind (unless you have a great deal of cash lying about, vasectomy reversals are not to be taken casually), you must ask, "Is it that I do not want children, ever, or is it that I do not want to have children with her, or even her, right now?"

Horrible thought experiment: Your girlfriend dies, suddenly. You pick up the pieces and move on. You meet the most wonderful woman in the world and she wants kids. She wants kids by you. What do you do?

Until you can answer that question, save your worries about the risk and pain of vasectomy for another day.
posted by adipocere at 10:43 PM on August 6

Have you discussed the risks of a vasectomy with a doctor? While there are risks, side effects, and complications, your doctor can tell you what your personal risks are. I had a tubal ligation because the surgery was less risky for me, but had there not been some specific issues related to my husband's health that made me a better candidate, he would have gotten the snip. And knowing the issue is resolved (barring some tiny chance of the surgery failing) really is a weight off your shoulders if you are really sure you don't want kids at all, ever.

Having said that, I get a vibe off your post that suggests that whether or not you want kids with someone else down the road, you really don't want them with your current partner. I'm usually the last person to suggest therapy, but you and/or both of you might benefit from discussing this issue with an outside party. The fact that you're upset enough about this issue to abstain from sex is a serious red flag that you need to resolve if you're in this relationship for the long haul.
posted by immlass at 10:48 PM on August 6

Just to provide an alternative to all the other answers.. she could take a pregnancy test 48 hours after every time you have sex

...which would tell you nothing. No home pregnancy test is accurate after 48 hours. Do not rely on them to indicate when you need to use emergency contraception.

Home tests rely on the detection of hCG (the pregnancy hormone) in the urine; 6-8 days following conception is the absolute earliest that they can detect this, and really it's more like 10-12 days, depending on how long it takes for the fertilized egg to implant after conception (a process that itself takes at least a couple of days, and can even take up to a week).
posted by scody at 10:50 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

Oh, the big reason I'm a fan of multiple methods - see the 0.1% failure rate quoted above for IUDs? I don't know how accurate that number is, but if you have sex twice a week that's 100 times a year and you're looking at about a 10% chance of a failure during that time.

The failure rates you see for different birth control methods refer to the percentage of women who will become pregnant while using each method per year; they do not refer to the probability that a given method will fail each time it is used.
posted by kitty teeth at 10:55 PM on August 6 [13 favorites]

Am I being ridiculous in acknowledging this decision point and looking for an answer to my question?

I had to re-read to get to the nut of your question. She did give you an answer - you just didn't like it and seem to hope consensus of the hive mind will win her over to your side. Yes, it is worthy of ridicule this idea of yours that it would be normal for a woman to state definitively what her reaction will be to pregnancy over the next 20-30 years and then have you expect to hold her to it. It would be akin to her telling you to never suffer from impotence and just as ridiculous.

I accept that differences on the question of children break many a couple up. I'm just not sure the possibility of children should do so.

Believe me, plenty of women have been dumped for not "putting out" to a boy they knew would not stick around for a pregnancy. Women end relationships all the time because the risk of a pregnancy with a particular boy is not appealing (I know a women whose boyfriend tried to shame her away from getting an abortion by telling family and friends of her plans, another that informed her that any pregnancy was her responsibility to get rid of and never mention). This weighing of risk-cost behaviour is something fertile women have been dealing with for millennia but the recent legalisation of abortion seems to have confused many men into expecting a "get out of pregnancy free" card on demand.
posted by saucysault at 10:56 PM on August 6 [20 favorites]

immlass - where did you get that vibe? he said, very clearly and up front in his question, "I don't want kids."
posted by nadawi at 11:03 PM on August 6

This weighing of risk-cost behaviour is something fertile women have been dealing with for millennia but the recent legalisation of abortion seems to have confused many men into expecting a "get out of pregnancy free" card on demand.

the poster isn't looking for a get out of pregnancy free card on demand. he's stating that he doesn't want children and she responded with, basically, i can't promise you that. if he were looking for an easy way out, he wouldn't have discussed it, and when she got pregnant then he would bail, claiming he never wanted kids.
posted by nadawi at 11:13 PM on August 6 [1 favorite]

Lance Armstrong had testicular cancer, had one ball removed, and only barely survived.

Have you heard about his new son Max? Unlike his other kids, unplanned.

If testicular cancer isn't a fullproof method of birth control, well... Thing is, if you're actually going to ejaculate into a woman, you're going to have to deal with the potential that, even though you may do everything in your power to prevent it and you might be absolutely sure that nothing could happen, you might make a baby. Slim? Sure. Does it happen? Ask Lance. In that case, you either have to be positive that your girlfriend will get an abortion or you have to be able to own up to the potential for being a dad. Or you could just not ever have sex again.
posted by incessant at 11:26 PM on August 6

I had this same conversation with a boyfriend and, like your girlfriend, I couldn't commit to a course of action I would take should I find myself pregnant. I mean, it's all well and good to say what you *think* you might do in the situation, but you can't really know what you'll do until (and if) you're in that situation. I told my boyfriend as much. It pissed him off, but it was the truth. No one can predict future actions for situations they've never been in.

If you really think you don't want kids and you really think you won't ever want to have kids, get a vasectomy. I'm pretty sure you won't have to get castrated due to complications from vasectomy. Metafilter wouldn't be supporting it as an awesome decision if that was the case. Saying "I can't get a vasectomy cause my balls might hurt" sounds kind of like "Baby, you have to blow me or I'll have blue balls and you don't understand how much that hurts." What's scarier to you -- the infinitesimal chance that you'll have vasectomy-related ball pain or the likelier possibility of being a dad? Also, if you do change your mind in the future, there are other ways of being a father without having a biological relationship. Welcome to the 21st century.

In the meantime, don't forgo sex (unless you want your gf to break up with you -- cause seriously, if I was dating a dude and he wouldn't fuck me cause I might get pregnant, I'd probably drop him. It's one of the risks of being a girl, and doing a girl. Not sleeping with her cause she might get pregnant is unbelievably offensive (unless you think she might be purposefully trying to get pregnant, in which case you have other problems). Wear condoms, pull out before you come, and ask her to use BCP.

You are not going to find an answer to your question "What if birth control fails?" because whatever answer she gives you now could easily change if birth control does, in fact, fail. Honestly, sex is risky. Pregnancy, disease, betrayal . . . these are all risks. We all have to live with them and decide how to navigate them.
posted by Felicity Rilke at 11:27 PM on August 6 [5 favorites]

Afroblanco, if the poster is so convinced he doesn't want children that his sex life grinds to a halt after a discussion about them, then vasectomy is not a bad option.
posted by timoni at 11:47 PM on August 6 [4 favorites]

If you're committed to not fathering a child (which is, obviously, an entirely different kettle of fish than parenting a child), then get a vasectomy AND use condoms as a back-up. Issue settled after you're given the all-clear from your man-parts doctor.

Personally, in instances of "we absolutely, positively do not want to get pregnant and to do so would be a disaster" I would consider condoms + norplant or condoms + bcp or condoms + coil to be a sufficient level of vigilance. I mean I absolutely, positively do not want my house to burn down (and if it did it would be a disaster), but I still run electricity and turn on my stove, with stringent precautions in place.
posted by DarlingBri at 12:15 AM on August 7 [1 favorite]

hal_c_on: that is not how failure rates work. one in 154 is not once in every 154 instances of intercourse, but rather once in every 154 years of using those methods and having intercourse.

Regarding men and consent to fatherhood: there was a case not so long ago where a nurse gave a doctor a blowjob, and unbeknownst to him, she used his ejaculate to inseminate herself. He was found liable for child support. With the current state of U.S. jurisprudence, if you have not had a vasectomy, any sexual act where you ejaculate is a potential 18 year financial liability. Not to assume that most women would do something that venal and sleazy, of course.
posted by idiopath at 12:37 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]

A few points that I didn't see covered above:

- You can get your sperm frozen and stored. Do this *before* your vasectomy. Even though, five years after my own and with a different partner, I still firmly never want to have children, I wish I'd been aware of this option. While my mind hasn't changed, increased maturity has demonstrated to me that my mind *could* change that much in the next couple decades.

- Getting a vasectomy at age 24 was trivial. Anyone saying you can't find a doctor who will perform it before 30 doesn't know what they're talking about. The *usual* rule of thumb is 25 at the earliest, but if you give your doctor a good reason (ie genetic defect in my family that I don't want to pass on) they'll bend it for you without a fuss.

- Vasectomies are reversible! Success rates for reversal are between 50 and 70% depending on vasectomy method, it's expensive and I gather the recovery is extremely unpleasant. But if, after your vasectomy, you suddenly change your mind and ABSOLUTELY MUST BREED you'll still have better than even odds of being able to do so even without the frozen sperm.

Finally, if you're a decent human being you'll talk to her about this first. If she's not into the idea, stress that first point about getting your dudes iced.
posted by Ryvar at 2:05 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]

Oh, let me tell you a story.

I have two children, I was done. My fiance had two children. He was done. We were to get married, I was to immigrate to Canada soon after, and live happily ever after.

I have fertility issues. Nevertheless, we had the birth control talk before having sex and because it was fast and easy and might also have the added benefit of making me have less periods, I got on the pill.

Fast forward about 6 months. Since we have a long distance relationship, we go several weeks without seeing each other or having sex, obviously. My insurance company changes its coverage and so I change birth control pills three weeks before seeing him again. I follow the directions and am diligent about the switchover. I do not miss a pill.

Fast forward about 5 weeks. I find out I'm pregnant. He freaks the fuck out, calls off the wedding, and dumps me. I consider abortion and call planned parenthood. I have no issue with women who decide to abort, but I made the personal choice not to. Part of it might be my infertility background, part of it was that when this all happened, Dr. Tiller was killed and PP was scaring me with their beefed up security and protesters and it was just an awful time to have to be considering getting an abortion.

Fast forward to now. I am 21 weeks pregnant, the babies father and I have worked it out amicably and he will pay child support and visitation. Anything beyond that...I'm not sure. The dumping me when pregnant and a few weeks before the wedding sort of puts a damper on the relationship.

Long story short: yes, you do consent to taking responsibility for the consequences of an accidental pregnancy every time you have sex when you are relying on birth control with any kind of failure rate (all nonpermanant ones).

Moral: Get a vasectomy. I have come to terms with this pregnancy and I value the chance to parent this child, but this is not a road I would have chosen. Learn from our mistakes, we didn't want more kids, we should have gone the vasectomy route.
posted by Bueller at 2:05 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]

To me saying that a man having sex is consenting to fatherhood is the kind of sort-of-true-but-not-really statement like a man that walks in the street is consenting to being hit by a bus. I will take all the precautions to stop myself from getting hit by a bus (looking in the street, not running out in the road) but you never know that in a minute of carelessness, I won't get hit by a bus.

It doesn't stop me from walking in the street though. And I'd rather get someone pregnant, if I cared about her, than get hit by a bus. I'd just do everything I could do to make sure that it didn't happen if I didn't want to. Both things are pretty unlikely if I'm really careful with what I'm doing.
posted by sully75 at 2:50 AM on August 7 [1 favorite]

While I understand what people mean by the statement "sex means consenting to fatherhood", I personally think you're taking it too far / too literally.

I agree with this. I was terrified of getting pregnant before I even had sex - not that it would happen the first time,b ut that it might happen through transmission (I read a lot of teenage magazines.). I am 99.9% sure that I do not want children, and there are also pressing health reasons why children would not be a great idea for me. After discounting condoms as they are too unreliable and finding Depo and the Pill didn't suit me, I got a coil fitted - probably the most drastic step you can take without getting sterlized, yet removable if it doesn't suit me or my circumstances change. It isn;t easy to get sterilized if you are young and have no children (unless you want to do it privately) but somehow, despite my feelings above, it didn't appeal to me at all. I can understand not wanting a vasectomy, even if on paper it seems the best solution.

However, my partner isn't set on having children. If he was, I don't think we'd still be together now - it wouldn';t be fair on either of us. If she got pregnant, would you essentially expect her to have an abortion if you were to stay together? You need to work out whether remaining childless or remaining with your partner is the most important thing to you, and then find out what to do to make either choice work.
posted by mippy at 3:33 AM on August 7

Regardless of the philosophical or moral points, as far as the legal system is concerned, willingly ejaculating fertile sperm equates to full parental responsibility for any resulting child.

Even if a woman does not seek out child support, if she gets any sort of financial assistance from the state, the state can file a child support claim on her behalf to reimburse that assistance, without needing her co-operation or consent (this happened to a friend in WA, I am not sure how widespread it is).

I don't mean to harp on this issue, but I have seen men ruin their lives by having children they could not afford, and didn't even get to see any more. I have had a co-worker who worked a full time job, slept under an overpass, and walked to work because after child support payments he was making starvation wages.
posted by idiopath at 4:09 AM on August 7 [2 favorites]

Really, I don't see why you're so set on getting an assurance from her when, as you acknowledge, people change their minds. Even if you got the assurance you want, you wouldn't have achieved the absolute control over your future that you seem to seek.

This is a logical question, nothing more. If you believe that "sex is consent to fatherhood" and your highest priority is not to give this consent then you must not have sex.

(The way to break the deadlock is not to make the total elimination of all risk the guiding philosophy of your life, but others have addressed this above.)
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 4:39 AM on August 7

I don't want to give that consent. What do I do now?

I don't understand why you're at a loss? Get a vasectomy. (Or only let your sperm come into contact with women who are unable to conceive. But this is something I imagine you would need to have verified in some way first. And it doesn't give you control of the situation anyway.)

A woman might have every intention of not bearing a child but then change her mind for whatever reason. What people say beforehand is not always how they feel later on. It happens all the time! With everything. (Which makes your reaction seem like nothing more than a vindictive punishment for her having possible views of her own.)

Maybe they'll just let you get a vasectomy if you point out that because your crippling fear of spawning a child and that woman then going ahead with the pregnancy regardless of your wishes has rendered you unable to have sex with a woman. (Unless she gives prior consent to an abortion. Although I hope you understand that could be considered about as reliable as the withdrawal method?)

Meaning that the vasectomy failure rate will actually give you much better odds of procreating than the current chances of that ever happening. So if they really want insist you need to keep your options open - use those same arguments to convince them if these things are so important they'd best make with the snipity-snip then.
posted by mu~ha~ha~ha~har at 6:02 AM on August 7 [1 favorite]

see the 0.1% failure rate quoted above for IUDs? I don't know how accurate that number is, but if you have sex twice a week that's 100 times a year and you're looking at about a 10% chance of a failure during that time.

Nope. That 0.1% failure rate is per year of having regular sex. Effectiveness of contraceptive rates is never listed per act of intercourse. If it were, the rates are all so high many of us would get pregnant every year!
posted by Ery at 6:42 AM on August 7

Let me see if I can understand this --

You had the "what would we do if birth control fails" conversation. You said "I don't want it" and she said "I'm not sure what I'd do."

And you reacted by...deciding you didn't want to have sex with her.

Um.

I don't think that it's outrageous to have had the "what if it fails" conversation. However, I think that your response to her answer was a TIIIIIIINY bit of an overreaction. Yes, birth control fails -- yes, condoms break, yes, there are people who were concieved by accident and managed to dodge contraception.

But -- especially if you use two forms of contraception -- the odds of BOTH failing are SO infinitesimal that despite these examples of "hey, it fails sometimes!" you're still most likely okay. Your odds of having two methods of birth control fail on you AND becoming pregnant is probably the same as your odds of being hit by a car.

It'd good of you to be thinking about these things, but I think your current preference for celibacy is is a TOUCH of an overreaction, there.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:22 AM on August 7 [1 favorite]

If she's on the pill, you use condoms, and you don't ejaculate inside her, the odds of conception are infinitesimally small.

At that point, you need to have the conversation which goes:

You: I am not ready to have kids so if by some remote chance you become pregnant and you choose to keep the child, I am telling you now I will not be performing the role of a traditional father.

Her: I accept that possibility. I am ready to support children and so if I become pregnant I am telling you know I am unlikely to terminate the pregnancy. You need to know that you will be on the hook for child support in such a case.

You: I accept that possibility

Together: Now let's get freaky and do this thing.

/scene
posted by modernnomad at 7:25 AM on August 7 [2 favorites]

You: I am not ready to have kids so if by some remote chance you become pregnant and you choose to keep the child, I am telling you now I will not be performing the role of a traditional father.

Her: I accept that possibility. I am ready to support children and so if I become pregnant I am telling you know I am unlikely to terminate the pregnancy. You need to know that you will be on the hook for child support in such a case.

Getting her permission to not be a father is sick. Realize that decent men are fathers to their children.
posted by Wood at 7:33 AM on August 7

Getting her permission to not be a father is sick. Realize that decent men are fathers to their children.

Realize that people, especially young people, have sex for pleasure and not just procreation. There's nothing 'sick' about taking as many steps as you can to eliminate the possibility of a pregnancy. But at the end of the day, if it does occur, I believe it is ultimately the woman's right to choose whether or not to continue or abort the pregnancy. Given this, this best and most honest thing a man can do is be forthright at the start of the sexual relationship about his feelings about children. Since he cannot decide whether or not he can abort the pregnancy once it is begun, he can at the very least outline his capacities of being a parent, so the woman can have as many facts as possible before she makes her choice.

Do I think it's a good thing for men to be absent parents? Of course not. But just as I cannot deny the woman the right to choose to be a mother, I cannot deny the same right to a man. Emotionally and intellectually developed couples have these conversations -- "what would we do if?" They sometimes shed important light on the relationship. It's not sick in the slightest.
posted by modernnomad at 7:46 AM on August 7 [9 favorites]

Getting her permission to not be a father is sick. Realize that decent men are fathers to their children.


I totally agree with this, but if he won't ever act like a father, she needs to know that nothing will change his mind. That way, she has the option to find a more supportive partner.
posted by oinopaponton at 7:48 AM on August 7

[few comments removed - don't start that here, thank you.]
posted by jessamyn at 8:09 AM on August 7

Despite whatever MeFites think about whether you consent to fatherhood when you have sex, the court of law thinks you do. And the child that is produced probably would agree.

Secondly, I am assuming that your girlfriend is the one not wanting to have sex rather than you? If so, my guess would be that she is re-evaluating how involved she wants to be with you. You've basically told her that if she gets pregnant, you have no future together if she chooses to keep the baby. It would boil down to choosing between you and her child. Worse, in her mind it likely sounds like you would rather she get rid of it rather than share this baby you created together. Not a happy thought.
posted by i_love_squirrels at 8:24 AM on August 7 [1 favorite]

nadawi - The OP says "I don't want kids" but is not willing to take the step that means he doesn't ever have them. Instead he's stopping sex, which ensures he won't father a baby but also damages his relationship with his partner seriously.

I'm childfree and had a tubal ligation. It was a big deal, but it was a huge load off my mind when I could have sex without worrying about pregnancy ever again. Maybe the OP has some medical issue that makes a vasectomy a bad idea, but his self-described conduct reads to me as though he's dodging the issue of controlling his own fertility in a sexual relationship in favor of controlling his partner's. This is an issue he should resolve regardless of whether he's CF for life or just not ready to have children with this partner.

The OP's self-described behavior doesn't match his self-described intentions and he needs to take a look at the discrepancy. My sense is the relationship is broken somehow (possibly over the CF issue) and that's as big of an issue as whether he's CF or not. YMMV.
posted by immlass at 9:13 AM on August 7 [1 favorite]

I'm sorry, but the response of "Dude, don't be so ridiculous, birth control x 2 almost never fails, totally do her!!!" is completely disrespectful to the origin of the question and not helpful at all.

I do not think you overreacted at all. Not wanting to have children and yet carrying around a... loaded gun, if you will, can be terrifying. I don't want children (I'm a woman) and I'd even be hard pressed to have regular sex with somebody who would want me to keep a pregnancy.

Honestly, and it sort of sucks, your options here are limited. You can have a celibate relationship until it drives one or both of you crazy, you can have a vasectomy, which I know younger guys who have had it and they are still completely secure in their decision, or you can have the realistic conversation that you don't want children and she does and someday that is going to be a problem. Whether that problem has to be confronted "accidentally" or eventually when you start discussing life plans, it seems like it's important enough just to really acknowledge it now.

Also, while it would be nice for the two of you to make the decision and discuss it and get her opinion, in the end, it is YOUR decision whether or not you want a vasectomy. Not a decision that you necessarily have to make together. Sorry. Same way I feel about my uterus. You can give me your opinion all you want, but it's mine, so at the end of the day, I'm going to choose what I'm doing with it. It would be hypocritical of any woman who feels that way to not treat a man's choice with the same level of respect.
posted by dithmer at 9:29 AM on August 7 [1 favorite]

I know of several men who have had vasectomies with no complications. This is a really common procedure. It takes all of 30 minutes. The Mayo Clinic has a decent article about it. If you're that certain that you don't ever want kids, a vasectomy is the logical solution. Then you don't have to worry at all.

Also, it seems like you want your girlfriend to change her mind over to your opinion. That's probably not going to happen and she's right to be honest about her openness to having children. Trying to get assurances she would abort in the event of b.c. failure strikes me as kind of manipulative.

You're the one who really, really, really doesn't want to father children, so it's your responsibility to ensure that or live with the risks of potentially being responsible for a child.
posted by Kurichina at 9:31 AM on August 7

Regarding the vasectomy option:

Anyone over 20 should be able to get one pretty easily in the US. The doctor will say no at first. Tell him you are sure you want one (if you are). There is usually a "waiting period" to make certain you are not rushing in to the decision.

The pain lasts for a couple weeks but really isn't that bad (unless you have some very rare complications). It doesn't really change the consistency of jizz very much, and it won't physically effect your sex drive or ability to orgasm at all. Some guys feel that it is emasculating and that can effect the sex drive, but this is entirely psychological.

Be prepared for men to make insensitive, insulting or ignorant comments about it (implying you are less of a man etc.) if you bring it up. This is just their own insecurity and vulnerability talking. If you really don't want kids, the ease of mind totally outweighs the inconvenience of the procedure and the ignorant attitudes (it isn't even like they have to know if you don't volunteer it, anyway). Regarding your fears of the complications, these are very rare complications and if you took a good hard look at how you feel about it they are probably more about an irrational castration anxiety than any realistic appraisal of the procedure.

Remember that adoption is always an option, also, so it does not rule out the decision to raise a child at some future time.
posted by idiopath at 9:34 AM on August 7

Some extra information:
-While the estimated failure numbers of methods vary (I'd put paranoid people a bit closer to the "perfect use" end anyway), if you had 25 fertile years left and combined condoms and hormones you'd end up with a 1-15% chance of at least one child. The range is perfect of both to first-year-typical of both.
-You definitely can bank sperm. This is much preferable in my mind to hoping on a reversal. It's somewhat expensive (I saw $600 to start and $140/year after the first year). Cheaper than a baby and not much more expensive than brand-name oral contraceptives.
-There are non-abortion options. There's an infertile couple in my family that wishes they could get somebody's extra.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 10:15 AM on August 7

> see the 0.1% failure rate quoted above for IUDs? I don't know how accurate that number is, but if you have sex twice a week that's 100 times a year and you're looking at about a 10% chance of a failure during that time.

Nope. That 0.1% failure rate is per year of having regular sex. Effectiveness of contraceptive rates is never listed per act of intercourse. If it were, the rates are all so high many of us would get pregnant every year!

Not only that, but even if it was a per-act-of-intercourse rate Lady Li's math is completely off. An 0.1% (per-cent = per-one-hundred) failure rate would result in an 0.1% chance of becoming pregnant after having sex 100 times. To reach a 10% chance of pregnancy you'd have to have sex 10,000 times. Or, if as Ery says the 0.1% is a yearly rate, a pregnancy APR if you will, it's even less likely and you'd need to have sex for 100 years to reach 10%.

That said, I completely agree with Lady Li that a diversified contraception portfolio is the best way to manage risk in this sperm-laden economy.
posted by XMLicious at 10:30 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]

"Am I being ridiculous in acknowledging this decision point and looking for an answer to my question?"

Nope it is the smart thing to do. However a person may honestly not know what they'd do and that's an OK response.
posted by Mitheral at 11:07 AM on August 7

I'm bio-child free and had no problem getting my vasectomy at age 22. My doc said that he'd done over 2200 vasectomies (about 70 a year I guess), so there's definitely experienced people out there. After two days there wasn't any pain at all for me. Plus, since the cautery iron had a plastic casing and couldn't be autoclaved I got to keep it! :)

re: potential side effects, compare the statistical liklihood with the statistical liklihood of equally bad side effects occuring with various abortion methods. If you aren't willing to risk it, why should she (for now we'll pretend that pregnancy itself carries no complications)? On the plus side, knowing that you showed enough conviction to get the vasectomy might help inspire her to abort if the odds are really out of your favor.

If you're that sure that you never want to have kids, go for the vasectomy (wait to have sex until you get the all-clear with your sperm count 30 days after) and condoms, and be happy with an all-but zero chance of kids. Better yet, encourage her to add some additional birth control methods.

Also, keep in mind that non-PIV sex can still lead to kids, if one of you gets some come or pre-come on your hands which later get near her vulva if you don't have the vasectomy. Sure, it's less likely, but you're already talking about low-liklihood stats.

But one thing that I'd encourage is if you go for the operation to go into it believing it to be 100% irreversible. Sure, it's become increasingly more effective to reverse these days (I was told a 33% chance of success a decade ago when I had mine done), but that's not always 100% (or even 99%), and I'd hate to have people out there bad-mouthing vasectomies. I really wanted to not breed, and I have peace of mind in that sex to me is just sex; not baby makin'.

If you're not that sure that you don't want to have kids ever, but are shaken enough to not want sex, then I think you need to do some introspection outside of your relationship.
posted by nobeagle at 11:23 AM on August 7

I know someone that said she'd probably get an abortion if she got pregnant with her boyfriend. She did get pregnant, and at that point, she changed her mind and had the kid. The boyfriend didn't want to be a father and didn't want to pay child support, but it was out of his hands. So yes, people do change their minds, and of course, they're entitled to do so.

If you can determine that this equation is probably true -

Chance of birth control measures failing * Chance of one of your dudes getting through the royal jelly * Emotional and personal cost of having a child < value of sexual pleasure.

- you should go ahead and have sex. Otherwise, keep on doing what you're doing in the short term, and possibly in the long term, consider finding someone that is more certain about not wanting children.
posted by ignignokt at 11:24 AM on August 7

It is completely possibly to have years and years of protected, responsible sex without getting pregnant. You guys need to be responsible and keep talking about this issue. Also, my doctor would gladly prescribe me the "morning after" pill at any of my appointments to keep in my medicine cabinet as a backup. Really not a bad idea when a condom is your primary form of birth control. You will know when the condom has failed. She can ask at her next appointment or make an appointment to discuss this.

But, really, keep talking about it with your partner. I mean, what if she got pregnant and YOU changed your mind?! Anyway, sex is not just for the making of babies. Despite what some right-wing (philandering, cross-dressing, bondage enthusiast, bathroom hijinks seeking) nutjobs might try to tell you.
posted by amanda at 1:31 PM on August 7

Honestly, this sounds like the ol' "time to break up over the Ultimate Dealbreaker" conversation every childfree guy or girl has (probably many times over) in their lifetime.

Given that you're a guy and your options for preventing kids are kind of shitty (I am going to not even bother with the various arguments in this thread over whether or not you'll be able to get a vasectomy like falling off a log since you're a guy, since I don't know if you are at that point or not, or how the doctors in your area are), it seems pretty reasonable to me that if your girlfriend is at least somewhat okay with having a kid and you are not, uh...relationship is kinda doomed as is, period.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:42 PM on August 7

[comments removed - please answer the question without the eye-rolly hand wringing stuff thanks]
posted by jessamyn at 8:07 PM on August 7

just to reassure you about having this discussion:

I'm 20 years old. I recently dated a girl and was her first boyfriend (not just first "real" boyfriend, but first boyfriend). We had the "what if contraception fails" discussion (within a hypothetical "what if we were having sex" conversation). Both of us thought the "what if contraception fails" bit was necessary and proper for all sexual relationships. It didn't even cross my mind that the conversation was unwarranted, unusual, or ridiculous. In fact, we were both independently encouraged by our respective parents during our early teens (during "the talk") to have this exact conversation with potential sexual partners.

All that just to say I think you're right to have this conversation and, in your circumstance, to give the it great importance.
posted by cmchap at 8:15 PM on August 8 [2 favorites]

I'm in the vasectomy camp. If you're as certain as you can possibly be that you never want children, it is an excellent way to shore up your chances of not having them in the way you can control best. You could also always use condoms as well, and additional methods if it comforts you more. I applaud your taking this seriously and contest the idea that it should be minimzed: There's not a woman on earth who doesn't have to grapple with this question when deciding to be sexually active (and many of them also choose abstinence or sterilization, of course) and I am very glad to see that the ethical and pragmatic considerations related to sex are now being undertaken by more men as well.

I also agree with those who say that this is revealing a fissure in your relationship, and your partner is probably thinking hard about what this means as well.

All that aside, there is an element to your question which is not about sex or relationships at all, but about the acceptance of risk. The older I get, the more I realize how much of life is outside of our control. People drawing analogies to car and bus accidents are worth paying attention to here. I understand and respect that you've decided you don't want children. But if you have sex, you might father children. That fact is, at present, not debatable. All you can do if you choose to have the sex is control the pregnancy risk - you can not fully eliminate it. Similarly, I understand and respect that people don't want to get into car accidents. They don't want to get cancer. They don't want to have to use a wheelchair or a colostomy bag. They sometimes don't even want to live in certain states, do certain jobs, go through divorces, watch a partner die or suffer from a disease, have root canals, go on medications that have bad side effects. Now, all those things are negative (unlike many aspects of having children) but they are all risks of being alive. No human being ever has full control over the events that may take place which utterly change the shape of their lives. All we can do is minimize the risks - wear seat belts, don't dive in water when we don't know its depth, eat as well as we can, and maintain our dignity in the face of personal challenges. You have a strong preference that you don't want to have children, but if you are in a sexual relationship, the possibility will always exist. So if you want to have sex, you have to manage the risk as best you can, perhaps with a vasectomy or other strategies, and at the same time, work on your ability to accept the parts of life that are outside your control. Because that's at the heart of your question and that is what's causing you such struggle.

If you're not willing to both use those strategies and work on that acceptance than you are definitely better off never having intercourse with a fertile woman again.
posted by Miko at 7:55 AM on August 10 [3 favorites]

Don't get a vasectomy because you are pretty sure you don't want kids (especially if you are under 30). Just use a condom and stop overthinking everything.

Opinions change--if you can avoid making your current set of beliefs about who you are and what you want physically permanent then go that route instead. The most important thing is that you and your girl love each-other and get along. Who knows what the actual fact of a pregnancy would do to either one of your beliefs?

Relax. Have sex. Everything will work out, unless it doesn't, and then it won't. Don't ruin a perfectly good relationship over an unlikely hypothetical situation.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:15 PM on August 10

Relax. Have sex. Everything will work out, unless it doesn't, and then it won't. Don't ruin a perfectly good relationship over an unlikely hypothetical situation.

With all due respect, this is akin to saying "bury your head in the sand and just hope nothing bad happens."

The OP is trying to be responsible by having had this discussion, and as a result, he has perhaps gone overboard in choosing celibacy rather than even the possibility of fatherhood.

Yes, that is extreme. But according to the OP, his girlfriend is not as anti-children as he is, and perhaps even open to the possibility of pregnancy, to the point of saying, "Well, I could support a child right now."

That would have set up some alarms for me as well.

I have met men who didn't want children who now have them as a result of NOT taking this answer from their SO seriously.

So the responsible answers are: either consider the permanent solution of a vasectomy, or find another partner whose views more closely mirror your own.

Otherwise, yes, you are running the risk of becoming a father.
posted by misha at 2:26 PM on August 10

There's not a woman on earth who doesn't have to grapple with this question when deciding to be sexually active

Erm, sorry for embedded hetero-ism there
posted by Miko at 12:27 PM on August 11