Anonymous wrote: Has not anyone in this thread ever heard of the diaphgram???

OP, look into it. Surgery on either of you is not the only option other than condoms.

This is what I was thinking.

Diaphragm is a little less effective than other methods, and requires a little more prep and planning than condoms. Diaphragm plus a spermicide is a pretty good method. Again though.. It puts the onus on OP to take care of her fertility problem. You need to put a diaphragm in well before sex, and leave it in for hours after. That being said, it's pretty simple and no hormones.

You can also consider doubling up with diaphragm plus abstinence/ rhythm method.

I can understand the nervousness about a vasectomy, but the no condom thing is baffling to me. And contrary to many PPs, no, not every married couple doesn't want to use condoms. DH and I have used them for years, successfully, with no near misses or problems. Once you get used to using them, you don't even really miss a beat in lovemaking. I'm back on the pill now and sometimes miss the sensation that the new ribbed condoms gave. DH could care either way. Who knows, I'm getting older and outside my super fertility window, so we may go back that way.

OP, you can make your decision. He can make his.

(can anyone say ... maybe there'll be more kids?)

Yea, a man over 45 having a baby is irresponsible and selfish. At 45 you should be helping your kids get ready for prom, not wiping shit out of the folds of baby legs.

Don't say that. Your current DH may drop dead tomorrow (assuming you are a woman) and you may end up remarrying 40-something man who wants to have a baby. You just never know.

Anonymous wrote:OP, yes you are wrong.

Maybe he'll be 60, you'll be dead, and he'll want to remarry and have more children. Who knows? You don't know. And you're not the boss.

He doesn't owe you an explanation. He doesn't need to have a reason.

Then she doesn't need to give up the pussy. Simple.

Anonymous wrote:OP, yes you are wrong.

Maybe he'll be 60, you'll be dead, and he'll want to remarry and have more children. Who knows? You don't know. And you're not the boss.

He doesn't owe you an explanation. He doesn't need to have a reason.

Then he doesn't get any sex without condoms.

Here's an account of getting a vasectomy. It's not entirely minor:
http://boingboing.net/2012/02/20/the-big-v.html

OP here. Wow. I went on a call and all hell broke loose.
My husband is not looking to start a family. I promise.
He is a carrier for a very debilitating neurological disorder and doesn't want to pass it on to a child. We have a good, full life and we don't want to add children to it.
I've done a lot of research and the effectiveness of diaphragms are not high enough.
On my way home, I'm buying a box of Magnums and telling DH tonight that I am going off my BC. The only way he's getting any is by using a condom.
I have a feeling that he'll get tired of the condom game pretty fast. I'm done being 100% responsible for preventing pregnancy.

OP, yes you are wrong.

Maybe he'll be 60, you'll be dead, and he'll want to remarry and have more children. Who knows? You don't know. And you're not the boss.

He doesn't owe you an explanation. He doesn't need to have a reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Has not anyone in this thread ever heard of the diaphgram???

OP, look into it. Surgery on either of you is not the only option other than condoms.

LOL, OP is 33. Dust off the old diaphragm!

That 'old diaphragm' does not have any of the hormone content that is causing her problems from the Pill she is taking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Has not anyone in this thread ever heard of the diaphgram???

OP, look into it. Surgery on either of you is not the only option other than condoms.

Diaphragms have an 80%-94% success rate. I see that as having a 20% chance of getting pregnant. No thank you.

With proper use, they have an 5-6% failure rate-similar to the pill she is currently on.

Anonymous wrote: Has not anyone in this thread ever heard of the diaphgram???

OP, look into it. Surgery on either of you is not the only option other than condoms.

LOL, OP is 33. Dust off the old diaphragm!

Anonymous wrote: Has not anyone in this thread ever heard of the diaphgram???

OP, look into it. Surgery on either of you is not the only option other than condoms.

Diaphragms have an 80%-94% success rate. I see that as having a 20% chance of getting pregnant. No thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yea, a man over 45 having a baby is irresponsible and selfish. At 45 you should be helping your kids get ready for prom, not wiping shit out of the folds of baby legs.

Has not anyone in this thread ever heard of the diaphgram???

OP, look into it. Surgery on either of you is not the only option other than condoms.

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.

Condoms are a solution. If the guy doesn't like condoms, he can get a vasectomy. His choice.