Regan Long and the baby her hubs didn't want

[BrownieMomma]

Ran across this today

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/regan-lon ... 90408.html

She says this -

"We finally gave our unknowing future up to the one who has a perfect plan laid out for our family. "

Quick Google search turned up nothing that seems fundie, however...

This article really bothers me, because I see her insistently pursuing a fourth baby when her husband said he didn't want another child the very same as I see a guy not hearing a woman's "no" and really it does look like the same thing to me.

The person wants it - baby or sex.

The other person says no.

Person forces it anyway, confident that the other person didn't really mean no.

Person expects other person to get on board and enthusiastic about it happening after going right on ahead with what person wants.

Yeah, I guess it's better the husband came around and now loves this kid so much deeper than the others or w/e it is Regan Long is trying to convince herself about. Too bad that is not often the same experience as a woman who got her "no" ignored.

Just seems to me that it happened because she wanted it, and never mind about anyone else. And now she's writing a big article and there's a video, which fully justifies it all.

[keen23]

Sounds like a friend of mine (with a different outcome). She wanted a 4th, her husband did not. She told him that all birth control options were now up to him- meaning he needed to wear a condom every time. So he got a vasectomy instead (she didn't think he'd actually do it). She was pissed. Almost divorced him over it. She thought for sure she'd be able to have baby #4 through passive aggressive refusal to get back on the pill or get an IUD.

[polecat]

Sounds like a friend of mine (with a different outcome). She wanted a 4th, her husband did not. She told him that all birth control options were now up to him- meaning he needed to wear a condom every time. So he got a vasectomy instead (she didn't think he'd actually do it). She was pissed. Almost divorced him over it. She thought for sure she'd be able to have baby #4 through passive aggressive refusal to get back on the pill or get an IUD.

Well, to be fair, if you don't want to have a baby, it IS up to you (male OR female) to make sure it doesn't happen. There's nothing innately wrong with expecting your husband to either take control of his own fertility (using condoms or getting a V) if you aren't willing or able to use BC. (ETA: This does not mean that I in any way condone deliberately getting pregnant without the consent of your partner because I absolutely do not.)

That's not meant to sound unfeeling about the situation, but after my last child was born, we neither one of us wanted another one (well, we did, but we could neither afford one nor could my health take another one). But I was unwilling to go on hormonal birth control because they caused me to have daily migraines (I'm a chronic migraineur as it is, so this was incredibly disabling), I was not a candidate for a tubal because I had so much scar tissue already from previous pelvic surgeries, and the doc was even iffy about an IUD. So my husband, knowing that condoms weren't fun and that he was not good about using them, got a V. IOW, I chucked the ball into his court, and he took care of the problem permanently.

Again, I know that your friend was thinking she'd get around his lack of desire to have a kid by not going on birth control, but at the end of the day, HE is the one who ultimately had control of his own fertility -- not her. And by going ahead and getting the V, he completely eliminated the possibility of treachery, i.e., his wife "forgetting" a pill or poking a hole in the condom. And given your story, it sounds like she might just have been the kind of woman who would do this.

[GeoBQn]

My friend and her husband have two small children. She really wanted to have more, but her husband has an autoimmune disorder. He felt like they were extremely lucky to have two healthy children, and he didn't want to role the dice again, so he got a vasectomy. (Thanks to his chronic illness, what should have been a routine procedure had tons of complications.) Her desire for more children couldn't trump his legitimate reasons for not wanting more, and she understood that.

[DGayle]

Well, to be fair, if you don't want to have a baby, it IS up to you (male OR female) to make sure it doesn't happen. There's nothing innately wrong with expecting your husband to either take control of his own fertility (using condoms or getting a V) if you aren't willing or able to use BC.

[snip]

but at the end of the day, HE is the one who ultimately had control of his own fertility -- not her.

Men really need more options than one with a high rate of failure, and one that is meant to be permanent. Because we women do have so many more options of non-permanent birth control that is more reliable than condoms, the ball often does fall to us. You can say it's sexist that we usually are responsible for it, but it's also sexist that men have two options that are either permanent or prone to failure (15%+ is pretty high) even when used right. This is the one area in medicine where we've got more options, and so that does mean more responsibility.

Now when men have birth control pills, we can really expect far more of the weight to fall on men's shoulders. Until then, partners need to work together and decide on how much risk they're willing to take if a woman won't go on birth control, and if 15%+ is too high, then they're going to have to abstain. If men had tons of options, and our own options were tubals or something with a high rate of failure, we'd expect the men to use their privilege of having more options to help us out.

What Keen's friend tried doing was manipulative, and it was unfair. She wanted a major life addition without care whether or not the intended father wanted it to happen, and so she told him his choices are high rate of failure, or permanently killing his fertility good bye. It wasn't even so much a lack of communication, as a lack of respect for her partner. You and your husband had the communication AND respect to come up with the best option for both of you instead of one of you giving the other the middle finger.

[Firiel]

Men really need more options than one with a high rate of failure, and one that is meant to be permanent. Because we women do have so many more options of non-permanent birth control that is more reliable than condoms, the ball often does fall to us. You can say it's sexist that we usually are responsible for it, but it's also sexist that men have two options that are either permanent or prone to failure (15%+ is pretty high) even when used right. This is the one area in medicine where we've got more options, and so that does mean more responsibility.

Now when men have birth control pills, we can really expect far more of the weight to fall on men's shoulders. Until then, partners need to work together and decide on how much risk they're willing to take if a woman won't go on birth control, and if 15%+ is too high, then they're going to have to abstain. If men had tons of options, and our own options were tubals or something with a high rate of failure, we'd expect the men to use their privilege of having more options to help us out.

In the same vein, I think it often appears that women have more options than they do. There a million different types of hormonal birth control, but they are all hormonal.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

And that really sucks for people like me who don't do well with hormonal birth control. I did due diligence and tried 3-4 types before giving up after the last one gave me nearly unbearable emotional and anxiety issues. So I went with the only other highly reliable, non-permanent option (the copper IUD) which gives me 8-19 day periods. It really sucks. A more reliable, non-permanent option for men would actually give more choice to women as well (especially in long-term relationships). Right now, I'm kind of choosing between the lesser of two evils, and if men had more options, I could potentially have the option of not having to make that choice.

[DGayle]

I just read that article, and it ticked me off. Regan conveniently left out mentioning what birth control they were using, leading me to believe either she oopsed him (interesting how she doesn't make it clear whether or not she had the tubal done, and yes, tubals can be done as a minimally invasive procedure that could be easy to conceal in the months following birth), or the condoms failed. Since she claims there was no deception, I suspect this means condoms failed. If she tricked him instead, it just as easily could have gone the other way with him rejecting the baby and filing for divorce. If condoms failed, then he shouldn't be seen as someone who wasn't taking charge of what he could. But regardless, she always had in it mind that they WOULD have another baby, even though she new he didn't want another, and they both knew they were just barely getting by as it was and had no money or time for another baby. If you're just barely keeping your nose above water, then it's irresponsible to aim to have another as soon as you can. I know she has as much legal right as Octomom has legal rights to keep having more kids despite not doing a damned thing to support the ones she already have before having a dozen embryos shot up into her uterus, but that doesn't mean it's morally right to bring another kid, on purpose, into a home where ends are being stretched to make them meet, and another baby can just as easily mean the existing kids have to start sacrificing for the wants of one of the parents. And the way she glossed over the months of fighting and talking about HER wants and HER needs shows she thinks about only 1 person in that family.

[DGayle]

In the same vein, I think it often appears that women have more options than they do. There a million different types of hormonal birth control, but they are all hormonal.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

And that really sucks for people like me who don't do well with hormonal birth control. I did due diligence and tried 3-4 types before giving up after the last one gave me nearly unbearable emotional and anxiety issues. So I went with the only other highly reliable, non-permanent option (the copper IUD) which gives me 8-19 day periods. It really sucks. A more reliable, non-permanent option for men would actually give more choice to women as well (especially in long-term relationships). Right now, I'm kind of choosing between the lesser of two evils, and if men had more options, I could potentially have the option of not having to make that choice.

In addition to lots of different hormones, we also have non-hormonal IUDs that can be used with diaphragms or cervical caps with spermicide.

I'm not blaming our own men here. I think the medical industry was trying to give women sexual freedom, and this freedom inadvertently meant more of the burden was going to fall onto us. I think a lot of men would love to have options other than permanently infertility or high failure with condoms. But the points stands that we have options men don't, and worse comes to worst, we have the option of abortions. Men don't.

[micatite]

Men really need more options than one with a high rate of failure, and one that is meant to be permanent. Because we women do have so many more options of non-permanent birth control that is more reliable than condoms, the ball often does fall to us.

Now when men have birth control pills, we can really expect far more of the weight to fall on men's shoulders. Until then, partners need to work together and decide on how much risk they're willing to take if a woman won't go on birth control, and if 15%+ is too high, then they're going to have to abstain. If men had tons of options, and our own options were tubals or something with a high rate of failure, we'd expect the men to use their privilege of having more options to help us out.

Not all that long ago I read about a nearly foolproof method of MALE birth control that was doing well in live testing. It involved injecting a substance (not sure what) that, I believe, essentially glued shut the sperm ducts or whatever. It was said to be extremely effective and was 100% reversible. However, it did involve an injection into a very sensitive area, so even if it gains full approval, I'm not sure how eager men would be for it. In any case, I haven't heard anything more about it, so I have to wonder how the testing was going.

[Firiel]

In addition to lots of different hormones, we also have non-hormonal IUDs that can be used with diaphragms or cervical caps with spermicide.

I'm not blaming our own men here. I think the medical industry was trying to give women sexual freedom, and this freedom inadvertently meant more of the burden was going to fall onto us. I think a lot of men would love to have options other than permanently infertility or high failure with condoms. But the points stands that we have options men don't, and worse comes to worst, we have the option of abortions. Men don't.

Oh, I totally agree with you. I was just adding that a reliable, non-permanent option for men would also help women like me, for whom neither of the 99%+ effective birth control options (hormonal pills/patches/IUD/etc. and non-hormonal IUD) are ideal. When it comes to birth control, more options help everyone.

[Georgiana]

We have to also remember the free market here.

Many female methods of BC have been developed because demand is high. Very high, even. This means that there is a lot of money out there for people to research and develop female-centered BC.

Male oriented methods of BC have traditionally showed less demand, so there has been less money to develop them. Patriarchal attitudes in society mean that BC is largely seen as a women's issue/responsibility, pregnancy is more impactful to females than males (so men are less invested in taking charge of their fertility as the stakes are lower), and there is a machismo/psychological aversion to "shooting blanks". All of these have contributed to low demand for male-oriented BC.

These are changing, but we probably wont see a plethora of male options until demand is there. And demand wont be there until attitudes about BC/Fertility are different.

[polecat]

Men really need more options than one with a high rate of failure, and one that is meant to be permanent. Because we women do have so many more options of non-permanent birth control that is more reliable than condoms, the ball often does fall to us. You can say it's sexist that we usually are responsible for it ...

(snipped because I can creatively edit, too)

What Keen's friend tried doing was manipulative, and it was unfair.

1. Women most certainly don't have all that many options. I had the option of hormonal birth control (which I can't use), IUD (which I also was advised to not use) and tubal ligation (which my doctor refused to do). So yeah, that's ONE more option than men have. Wooohooo! at all my sexual freedom! :shifty:

2. I never said ANYWHERE that this was sexist. That's utter nonsense.

3. Nowhere -- not once in any of my long response, did I EVER say she wasn't being manipulative AND I stated EXTREMELY clearly what I DID think: that he was better off being sterilized than forced into pregnancy by a lying woman (ala Lori Alexander) -- and given the OP's description, I have few doubts in my mind that that's what would have happened.

But feel free to creatively edit this, too, to make it look like I support women conniving pregnancies out of unwilling partners.

[Eternalbluepearl]

I just read the article. I don't like how she was saying that but now he looks at her like she's never seen him look at a baby, and she is his princess, blah blah. It came across as Kind of forced.

[Deist woman]

Men really need more options than one with a high rate of failure, and one that is meant to be permanent. Because we women do have so many more options of non-permanent birth control that is more reliable than condoms, the ball often does fall to us. You can say it's sexist that we usually are responsible for it, but it's also sexist that men have two options that are either permanent or prone to failure (15%+ is pretty high) even when used right. This is the one area in medicine where we've got more options, and so that does mean more responsibility.

Now when men have birth control pills, we can really expect far more of the weight to fall on men's shoulders. Until then, partners need to work together and decide on how much risk they're willing to take if a woman won't go on birth control, and if 15%+ is too high, then they're going to have to abstain. If men had tons of options, and our own options were tubals or something with a high rate of failure, we'd expect the men to use their privilege of having more options to help us out.

What Keen's friend tried doing was manipulative, and it was unfair. She wanted a major life addition without care whether or not the intended father wanted it to happen, and so she told him his choices are high rate of failure, or permanently killing his fertility good bye. It wasn't even so much a lack of communication, as a lack of respect for her partner. You and your husband had the communication AND respect to come up with the best option for both of you instead of one of you giving the other the middle finger.

I would never depend on a man to use (non surgical) birth control to keep me from getting pregnant. If he forgets to take his pill.....the woman gets pregnant. If he decides he wants to do an "OOPS"........the woman gets pregnant. If he is a narcissistic bastard like Mr Father of 34 Children who likes siring children for his ego.....she is the one that gets pregnant.

Knowing how bad my hubby is about remembering to take medicine, I shudder to think of what would happen if he was taking the pills for us.

[DGayle]

General "you," Polecat. A lot of women think it's sexist that BC usually falls to women, without considering the reasons.

[DGayle]

Not all that long ago I read about a nearly foolproof method of MALE birth control that was doing well in live testing. It involved injecting a substance (not sure what) that, I believe, essentially glued shut the sperm ducts or whatever. It was said to be extremely effective and was 100% reversible. However, it did involve an injection into a very sensitive area, so even if it gains full approval, I'm not sure how eager men would be for it. In any case, I haven't heard anything more about it, so I have to wonder how the testing was going.

If hubs and I were going to have another at some point, I'd be worried about something that glues anything shut being reversible.

[lawfulevil]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

And that really sucks for people like me who don't do well with hormonal birth control. I did due diligence and tried 3-4 types before giving up after the last one gave me nearly unbearable emotional and anxiety issues. So I went with the only other highly reliable, non-permanent option (the copper IUD) which gives me 8-19 day periods. It really sucks. A more reliable, non-permanent option for men would actually give more choice to women as well (especially in long-term relationships). Right now, I'm kind of choosing between the lesser of two evils, and if men had more options, I could potentially have the option of not having to make that choice.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

I went through my share of hormonal types too, all of them have cruddy side effects. I graduated from high school 5'9 and 125 pounds. Every new antidepressant or BC pill came with 5-10 more pounds despite well-controlled diet and exercise. Wellbutrin fortunately didn't cause weight gain, I lost 30 pounds without trying. I gained THIRTY pounds in four months after starting Implanon, I finally lost it again but my stomach looks like a tiger clawed me. White stripes everywhere. I'm finally under 200 again but it's been a horrible struggle to just not be deathfat when I used to be effortlessly slender. Add to that uncontrollable mood swings, migraines, nausea, some of them made me throw up for months (AND gain weight, how does THAT work), some helped my period but some made it EVEN WORSE, crappy sex drive... and that's just hormones. I even can't try most IUDs because I'm allergic to copper. I put up with all this bullshit because we REALLY were not prepared to have children.

People thinking it's sexist that men get condoms/vasectomy need to consider the real burden of hormonal/IUD BC methods. They are NOT cheap, easy, or enjoyable. And considering the VERY real differences in biological cost between men/women, I really doubt this is about the poor menz being shat on by society. Pregnancy ranges from eugh to fucking death, eats your bones and muscles if necessary, and averages worldwide somewhere in "godawful". Beyond pregnancy, breastfeeding isn't exactly a cakewalk. Infant care is incredibly stressful, and most of that burden falls on women. It doesn't have to, but it usually does, and we have the statistics to back that up.

[lawfulevil]

That said, this woman is awful.

"Freelance photographer and beachbody coach and grad student" = marginally employed student. And who knows if she told her poor husband she hadn't had the tubal? "Never one lie, secret, or trick", my ass.

[LadyBlue]

Not all that long ago I read about a nearly foolproof method of MALE birth control that was doing well in live testing. It involved injecting a substance (not sure what) that, I believe, essentially glued shut the sperm ducts or whatever. It was said to be extremely effective and was 100% reversible. However, it did involve an injection into a very sensitive area, so even if it gains full approval, I'm not sure how eager men would be for it. In any case, I haven't heard anything more about it, so I have to wonder how the testing was going.

It's called Vasalgel. It's currently in baboon trials after successful trials on rabbits. Last I heard (I'm on their mailing list) the baboon trial was going well, none of the females had gotten pregnant. It's relying largely on donations from the public to continue the work required to get approval by the FDA. They hope to start human trials sometime next year. It's based on a procedure called RISUG that was developed in India and has been effective in humans for over 10 years and easily reversed in other men who had it. They expect Vasalgel will be effective for at least 10 years as well.

It doesn't do anything to the ducts, it's a polymer that kills the sperm, then to reverse it a different polymer is injected.

If anyone is interested/wants to donate or learn more: parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/

[nelliebelle1197]

Vasectomies are reversible. Ask the Reversal Kids.

[Jana814]

Vasectomies are reversible. Ask the Reversal Kids.

Haha!! Love this!!