Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think either one of you should do anything permanent. The marriage could end and you could both meet other people and for whatever reason decide that you would like to have children with them.

He's 42. talk about irresponsible.

BTW, my sister is 30 and has no desire to have children ever. Or even get married. Believe it or not, your dream is not universal.

So guy who wants to have a child at age 42 is irresponsible?

He's currently married right now to a woman who does not want a child. Exactly how long do you think it's going to take him to divorce her, find the new woman of his dreams, and have a sudden change of heart, get the broad pregnant, and start a family? Use your brain.

But there are a lot of middle aged men who are trying to have first baby. Do you consider them irresponsible as well? Boy, you will make one fine wife to some lucky sucker. Good thing your sis is not getting married. At least she won't spread your gene pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three choices: Condoms, Vasectomy, Rosie Palm and her five sisters

I think they really have only one choice - condoms - and keep the peace in the family.

She can get a tubal ligation. He can get a vasectomy. Since neither one of them is willing to do that and she needs to stop hormonal birth control (and can't use an IUD), then they are down to condoms or limiting sex to oral sex and hand jobs.

I would go with the condoms, personally.

So really what you are saying is someone needs to get surgery. Any reasonable couple with go with the option that is the least invasive, easiest recovery and lowest risk.

Hmmm, now which would that be?

No, that's not what I am saying. Neither one of them is willing to get surgery. Neither one of them should have to do get surgery if they aren't willing. No one should be pressured into surgery. She can't do hormonal birth control or IUDs.

That leaves non-vaginal sex and condoms. Many people get by just fine with those options. Non-vaginal sex and condoms are the least invasive, no recovery, and lowest risk for both partners.

What planet are you on? No married couple wants to only have non-vaginal sex or use condoms. Stupid ass solution. Non vaginal sex is called foreplay and it is great, but it needs to be followed up with a good pounding.

You lack creativity.

What he needs to understand is that, by having a vasectomy, he can have sex with anyone and not worry about pregnancy. Chuck the condoms too when you are good with your AP on STDs. Smooth, wet and silky all the way ...

That was the upside for me when my wife nagged the shit out of me and I finally relented.

Sex has never been better.

Go off the pill. It is causing you side effects, plus I'm guessing you are getting to the age (over 35) where using it ups your risk of stroke, possibly breast cancer, etc.

It is your body, so you have the right to go off the pill.

It his his body, so he has the right to refuse a vasectomy.

So tell him you are done handling the burden for birth control and that if he wants to have sex with you, he will have to wear a condom every single time. And stick to it.

This may change his mind about the vasectomy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think either one of you should do anything permanent. The marriage could end and you could both meet other people and for whatever reason decide that you would like to have children with them.

He's 42. talk about irresponsible.

BTW, my sister is 30 and has no desire to have children ever. Or even get married. Believe it or not, your dream is not universal.

So guy who wants to have a child at age 42 is irresponsible?

He's currently married right now to a woman who does not want a child. Exactly how long do you think it's going to take him to divorce her, find the new woman of his dreams, and have a sudden change of heart, get the broad pregnant, and start a family? Use your brain.

If you were my wife, I'd be at the urologist tomorrow. Not really a big deal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is his body, no?

Yes, it is. He shouldn't be pressured into getting a vasectomy if he doesn't want one. DH had a vasectomy and he had some weird grief issues afterwards over the loss of his fertility. He wasn't planning on using it again, but he was still sad when it was gone. That's not an uncommon response. Being able to make a baby (even if you aren't going to do it) is key to a lot of people's sexuality and gender identity.

Plus, I don't think that was a minor surgery. He was sore and swollen for several days.

Well your husband is a giant pussy.

How were the births of your children? Enjoyable?

They were pretty intense, but it was my choice.

I don't think people (husband or wife) should be pressured to get surgical alterations on their bodies for the other partner's convenience.

As if having a baby wouldn't inconvenience the DH too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think either one of you should do anything permanent. The marriage could end and you could both meet other people and for whatever reason decide that you would like to have children with them.

He's 42. talk about irresponsible.

BTW, my sister is 30 and has no desire to have children ever. Or even get married. Believe it or not, your dream is not universal.

So guy who wants to have a child at age 42 is irresponsible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three choices: Condoms, Vasectomy, Rosie Palm and her five sisters

I think they really have only one choice - condoms - and keep the peace in the family.

She can get a tubal ligation. He can get a vasectomy. Since neither one of them is willing to do that and she needs to stop hormonal birth control (and can't use an IUD), then they are down to condoms or limiting sex to oral sex and hand jobs.

I would go with the condoms, personally.

So really what you are saying is someone needs to get surgery. Any reasonable couple with go with the option that is the least invasive, easiest recovery and lowest risk.

Hmmm, now which would that be?

No, that's not what I am saying. Neither one of them is willing to get surgery. Neither one of them should have to do get surgery if they aren't willing. No one should be pressured into surgery. She can't do hormonal birth control or IUDs.

That leaves non-vaginal sex and condoms. Many people get by just fine with those options. Non-vaginal sex and condoms are the least invasive, no recovery, and lowest risk for both partners.

What planet are you on? No married couple wants to only have non-vaginal sex or use condoms. Stupid ass solution. Non vaginal sex is called foreplay and it is great, but it needs to be followed up with a good pounding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three choices: Condoms, Vasectomy, Rosie Palm and her five sisters

I think they really have only one choice - condoms - and keep the peace in the family.

She can get a tubal ligation. He can get a vasectomy. Since neither one of them is willing to do that and she needs to stop hormonal birth control (and can't use an IUD), then they are down to condoms or limiting sex to oral sex and hand jobs.

I would go with the condoms, personally.

So really what you are saying is someone needs to get surgery. Any reasonable couple with go with the option that is the least invasive, easiest recovery and lowest risk.

Hmmm, now which would that be?

No, that's not what I am saying. Neither one of them is willing to get surgery. Neither one of them should have to do get surgery if they aren't willing. No one should be pressured into surgery. She can't do hormonal birth control or IUDs.

That leaves non-vaginal sex and condoms. Many people get by just fine with those options. Non-vaginal sex and condoms are the least invasive, no recovery, and lowest risk for both partners.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think either one of you should do anything permanent. The marriage could end and you could both meet other people and for whatever reason decide that you would like to have children with them.

He's 42. talk about irresponsible.

BTW, my sister is 30 and has no desire to have children ever. Or even get married. Believe it or not, your dream is not universal.

I don't think either one of you should do anything permanent. The marriage could end and you could both meet other people and for whatever reason decide that you would like to have children with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three choices: Condoms, Vasectomy, Rosie Palm and her five sisters

I think they really have only one choice - condoms - and keep the peace in the family.

She can get a tubal ligation. He can get a vasectomy. Since neither one of them is willing to do that and she needs to stop hormonal birth control (and can't use an IUD), then they are down to condoms or limiting sex to oral sex and hand jobs.

I would go with the condoms, personally.

So really what you are saying is someone needs to get surgery. Any reasonable couple with go with the option that is the least invasive, easiest recovery and lowest risk.

Hmmm, now which would that be?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three choices: Condoms, Vasectomy, Rosie Palm and her five sisters

I think they really have only one choice - condoms - and keep the peace in the family.

She can get a tubal ligation. He can get a vasectomy. Since neither one of them is willing to do that and she needs to stop hormonal birth control (and can't use an IUD), then they are down to condoms or limiting sex to oral sex and hand jobs.

I would go with the condoms, personally.

Follow-up stories to this one:

1. "We quit having sex because my husband couldn't stand my constant, shrill nagging to get a vasectomy."

2. "My husband knocked up a younger coworker."

3. "My ex-husband now has a family, and all I have are cats."