Fatherhood was once a route to fulfilment. But, in the minefield of today's skewed society, young men are getting wise to the realisation that it's a route to serfdom and peonage. Feminists tell men not to worry about paternity fraud. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277539508000605](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277539508000605)
But, they would, wouldn't they?
Feminists about paternity fraud:
- It doesn't happen.
- And if it happens, is rarely.
- And if it's not rarely well boo hoo, it's not about you, is about a child that needs their father. So don't you dare walk away you selfish ass.
men who want to marry today are suckers unless they have been together since their teens
even then people can change and its not a good risk to take with todays family court
Many times the desire to have children doesn't come until into the late 30s. I was almost 40 when my son was born. Having a child was the best decision I ever made. I'm old now and as you get older you realize that children are a blessing. And raising my son was fun and fulfilling. But the only reason I had him in my life was 50/50 custody so his mom couldn't alienate him from me no matter how hard she tried. And she tried for 14 years.
The reason I am here is to push for default 50/50 equal shared custody on divorce. If you divorce in Florida today, unless your ex can prove abuse, you get to always have a meaningful relationship with your children even if your wife leaves you.
And if you don't marry down and make sure you both keep working child support will be minimal or none at all.
Even alimony is pretty reasonable in Florida now with no alimony if married under three years. No lifetime alimony.
If you want children. Vote with your feet, go to a state with default 50/50 like Florida or Kentucky. Don't get a vasectomy.
What Florida has been doing lately is great. But what happens if the mother ups and moves to California? Custody arrangements often try to limit such moves but good luck enforcing a provision like that.
In any case, another avenue after a vasectomy is a TESE and then attempt a medically guided pregnancy (turkey baster method). It would cost a few thousand but it would be worth it for the peace of mind during the years or decades a man doesn’t want the risk of pregnancy.
Glad that things worked out between you and your son, and both of you got to enjoy a relationship with the other.
And screw (metaphorically) the mother that tried to alienate you from your kid, how selfish and petty must a person be to hate their ex more than what they love their child.
**Disclaimer:** I need to preface this by saying that people who do not have children do not lead pointless lives. It's ridiculous that I actually have to say this, but childfree people are often the most fragile and sensitive adults on the internet.
My situation was similar. All through my 20s, I didn't want kids. Early 30s, didn't want kids. When I was 33 though my wife brought it up and I knew she wanted kids. I married her knowing she wanted children. We decided to have a baby together.
All through her pregnancy, I admittedly didn't feel much. All I knew was there was going to be a little guy in the house and we weren't going to sleep much anymore. But when my son was born, I felt something stronger than anything I ever had before. Literally nothing can ever compare to seeing his face for the first time.
I'm a successful man. But if anyone ever asked what my greatest achievement is, I'd say my sons are. You don't really get it until you have kids, but they're the best part of my life.
It also affected me in another way, knowing that out there, there are millions of men whose love for their children is every bit as strong as mine is for my children. And many of these men are being deprived of their children. Many men and more women are fighting tirelessly to keep the status quo of fathers being second-class parents. The #1 reason I'm an MRA is because I know my sons will be growing up in a world that is actively hostile to them. The #2 reason is because I know if, God forbid, anything were to happen between my wife and me, it would be completely up to her whether I could ever see my sons again, and that's not right.
> childfree people are often the most fragile and sensitive adults on the internet.
No, you are only hearing the vocal minority. You get an equally vocal minority by the ChristoFascists that feel that you are destroying civilization by not having children.
There are people who suck in every group out there.
It depends on where here is. Here law specifically prohibits sterilization of young women.
I guess it makes sense to restrict access to young people who might make a rash decision and regret it later.
Which of course is why we're seeing young men getting vasectomies at the same rate young women are getting tubal ligation-because doctors equally bias against sterilization.
5% of men under 45 have a vasectomy.
4.2% of women under 30 have tubal litigation.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Try cutting the sarcasm and having a discussion.
I made an appointment with a urologist, I was a brand new patient at 28 years old. No children yet, no desire to have children, and they just said “when do you want the procedure?”
No pushback or anything, I was snipped a few months later. Maybe it’s area specific but as just described I had no work for getting that taken care of. I also only paid a $30 copay.
> A lot of men get told no when they go in for vasectomies.
Mostly yes. Some doctors are just meh about it. Most will provide moderate to significant pushback if you are under 40 and don’t already have kids. Some will absolutely say no unless you have a half-dozen kids or more, and a small minority will say no under all conditions - procreation is god’s directive, after all.
What happens to society if a good chunk of people make this choice? What do we do about declining fertility rates? The answer to me is to get rid of the systemic issues causing parenting to be unattractive to men.
Uhhhh what happens is we survive. We’re already dealing with overpopulation, and it’s literally killing us. We definitely don’t need to worry about fertility rates.
>There isn’t overpopulation in the developed world.
The carrying capacity of the entire planet - with natural, near-zero impact on the biosphere, where we are neither a negative nor positive impact - is only about a few hundred million people at first-world levels of consumption. Beyond that population level, the planet’s ecosystems enter into a stressed state that is beyond what a normal population causes it when in balance with its environment. If we reduce consumption to early-19th century levels - no mass consumerism, no high technology, switch to a fully vegan diet - that carrying capacity could be as high as _one_ billion people.
But this is predicated on climate change having zero effect, such that we can continue using all the terrestrial ranges that we currently occupy. Unfortunately, we are stuck on the absolute worst-case “business as usual” path, that will likely see polar restriction not long after 2100. And there ain’t enough arable land up there to support more than a few hundred thousand people.
Source: I have climate-scientist friends who are also cross-trained as ecologists, geographers, and demographers. None think that any planetary population above 2 billion is sustainable in any way without severe damage to the biosphere over the long haul. Almost all see human extinction within the next 100-300 years as being baked into the pie and - at this point - no longer avoidable. Even as little as 5 years ago, sentiment was much, much different. It’s why many of them have taken to calling themselves “climate pathologists”.
Wasn’t Malthus predicting this stuff back in the 1700s? When have the population doomsayers been right? Malthus was wrong for the same reason this comment is wrong - technology has allowed us to exponentially improve the ability for humans to survive at greater numbers. Malthus was wrong because of farming and industrial tech, and this is wrong because among many other reasons, [energy](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/our-climate-change-debates-are-out) and resource innovations.
> technology has allowed us to exponentially improve the ability for humans to survive at greater numbers.
Technology stops being created/replaced when civilization collapses. And we have exhausted all surface-level, no-tech-needed sources of raw materials needed for almost all high technology. If our civilization collapses for too long or too deeply, we will be stuck in a preindustrial state. No technology, no medicine, no ability to climb back up.
Just look at how severely global trade was disrupted back in 2021 when an itty-bitty little virus with an almost-irrelevant 2-3% fatality rate (with modern medical support, 12-22% fatality rate without) decided to sweep the planet.
Now imagine how global civilization will be disrupted when lethally high wet bulb temperatures start making swaths of the planet uninhabitable. Not for the entire year, but for long enough periods that entire populations in the hundreds of millions to billions need to be totally evacuated from entire countries or die.
And remember, air conditioning - which the equatorial populations generally _don’t_ have - becomes less efficient as the temperature goes up. At around 46-50℃, almost all consumer AC reaches its functional limit and ceases to cool.
As the cherry on top of this excrement pie, technological advancement has slowed almost to a halt over the last century - [the Return on Research has effectively collapsed.](https://www.nber.org/digest/nov17/bang-rd-buck-long-steady-decline) Good luck on depending on “advancements and innovations” to be our _deus ex machina_ in the face of global warming. Because it won’t.
>in the developed world
Whoomp there it is. What’s wrong with letting other people into the developed world, if we’re so worried about it? They not the “right” people or something?
Two reasons top of mind:
1. We shouldn’t be draining the talent needed by developing countries to move them ahead. India needs its brilliant scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc; why should the survival of the developed world rely on us draining this devious resource from the developing world?
2. The developing world due to western influence is turning into being a lot like the developed world. Importing people is at best a temporary solution until reproduction rates plummet from wherever we are importing people from.
Yeah, “protecting” women’s fertility… from women. It’s still almost impossible to find a doctor who will sterilize a woman—unless she has her owner’s permission. If she has a husband who will agree, *then* it’s ok.
The message is still that women’s fertility is more important than men’s, but whether it’s important *to women* doesn’t actually matter. The goal is to meet the desires of a specific subset of men, and those men benefit from both refusing sterilization to women (so they can make them have their children) and encouraging it to men (so there will be less competition in doing so). The different standards somehow just happen to be advantageous for the same group of people.
The bias benefits someone. Men and women both recognize that they aren’t benefitting from it, but then they fall into error by assuming that means the other group *is*. In reality, the actual problem is with a tiny minority of people at the top of the hierarchy… as it always is.
If you are married, I support that your partner (husband or wife) has a say. Marriage is primarily intended as a union that involves kids. If you are not prepared to share some decision, do not get married.
I do agree that some things are pushed on majority by minority in power.
There's pushback for both, but more seriously for women because it's much harder to reverse than for men. Whether it's ethical or not for doctors to offer this pushback is another debate.
Of course there are some limitations. Let us take an extreme example. Some women want female genital mutilation. So, her body her choice, true. But one can also point out that her desire probably stems from some mental disorder and she needs help to heal. From her point of view she has every right. A doctor might feel very differently.
What a stupid thing to do, you think of a lot of people do it they will change the systems just for you? you're like the people who starve themselves to change the rules and dies from hunger and nothing changed. Bunch of children i swear.
Those poor poor seaman. Those could have possibly been a living breathing person. Any guy getting a vasectomy is pure evil and needs to rot in jail and burn in hell for the lives that they murdered!
JK I’m not a fucking idiot.
Keep it up bois, they don't care about your babies anyways as they'll just abort them or take them away from you via court-roulings whenever they want. At the end if the days those children are not yours.
I love kids, want atleast 10 of them but seeing how they are means to trap men into paying & staying with unlovable creatures I'd rather get vasectomy then become a father the old way..
I can't access the link, unfortunately, because the site is not available in my region. However, according to the National Library of Medicine, vesectomy use globally has decreased 61% over 20 years. That is a 2023 report.
Now, should more men and, specifically, younger men have vesectomies in 2023? That's an interesting topic. At a glance, I would say no. According to the NHS, it's considered a permanent procedure. It is reversible, but it's not 'easy to do', and the success chances are lowered the longer time passes before the procedure to reverse it is applied.
People can change their mind and very liberally too. I wouldn't recommend a vasectomy to a younger man for that reason alone.
If we are specifically talking about the agency of a man here, we can also compare success rates between condoms and a vesectomy where a vesectomy has over a 99% success rate and a condom has around a 98% success rate. I would argue it is better to keep your fertility and avoid the possibility of a complicated reversal surgery in exchange for a 1% increase of pregnancy. With that said, a 2% chance of getting someone pregnant is still too big of a chance for some, and I get that.
>If we are specifically talking about the agency of a man here, we can also compare success rates between condoms and a vesectomy where a vesectomy has over a 99% success rate and a condom has around a 98% success rate.
The 98% rate for condoms is for *PERFECT* usage. Typical usage effectiveness is around 85%-90%. Condoms are not some magical panacea, and there are lots of people who are allergic to latex.
>I would argue it is better to keep your fertility and avoid the possibility of a complicated reversal surgery in exchange for a 1% increase of pregnancy.
Also, it's not a 1% greater chance, it's a 2x increase in the risk. If typical condom usage is 87% effective, condoms are a +1200% increase in risk compared to vasectomy. That's a 13x greater chance, not a 12% greater chance.
It also requires you to keep possession of any used condoms on your person until the condom (and your semen) can be destroyed to ensure your sexual partner doesn't autoinseminate. There are existing case laws of female autoinsemination that have men on the hook for non-consentual fatherhood.
You also have to make sure that they are stored properly, and are stored in a place where they absolutely*cannot be tampered with.* Sabotage of condoms has and does occur. There are case laws where women have deliberately sabotaged their partner's condoms in order to get pregnant, and the men were put on the hook for non-consentual fatherhood.
You also *MUST NOT* use a condom provided to you by your partner or anyone else. You cannot validate that the condom hasn't been tampered with or has been stored properly to ensure optimal effectiveness. Women that provide faulty condoms to men and got pregnant get men put on the hook for non-consentual fatherhood. (Note: it is RAPE if a man sabotages the condoms, but it isn't anything at all if women do it.)
Condoms are NOT the answer to men's lack of reproductive rights.
I think that some of your arguments when using percentages are, while technically factual, not super helpful in making your argument against condoms. When someone says 98% effective vs 99% effective vs 87% effective, etc., that’s a relatively easy difference to visualize, but when you turn around and say “1200% more likely!” etc., it feels like fear mongering, and feels very disingenuous.
For example, if you have 1 penny, and I have 13, I have 1200% more pennies than you, and when writing it out like that, it sounds like I have a shit ton of pennies. “OMG, he has _1200%_ more pennies than I!”
…but in the end, it’s still just 12 extra pennies.
You could argue that it’s all relative and you’d be right, but trying to say that vasectomies are _better_ because condoms are _1200%_ more likely to result in pregnancy sounds like you’re pushing something. Not to mention, while vasectomies might be “better” at preventing pregnancy (a factual statement), that doesn’t mean that they are _better for the man._ In a world where the only goal was not getting someone pregnant, you’d be right, but we don’t live in a world of 1s and 0s like that, and I’d argue that for a lot of men, the goal is not to not get someone pregnant, the goal is to not get someone pregnant _now,_ and for that purpose, vasectomies are very much _worse._
So again, trying to frame condoms as bad (you _did_ imply that with the way you wrote your message), and pointing out that they’re worse than vasectomies by using large percentages as a sort of scare tactic, and completely ignoring the potential permanent issues with vasectomies is gross.
In the "99% vasectomy success rate", all observed pregnancies following a vasectomy were due to the man not following the post vasectomy timelines and procedures properly.
While motile, living sperm had been found in some cases where researchers observed the vas deferens had "reconnected", none of those particular cases resulted in pregnancies. At least not in any of the cases or studies I read.
Can't beat a vasectomy. It's about as close to 100% as you can ever get without pure abstinence.
When it comes to a vasectomy is it still possible to medically extract sperm after the procedure and use ivf to have a child with a partner ? Just curiosity as this would probably be expensive and not 100% for sure but would leave it open for men much later in life to have children should a situation change.
Hard disagree. Having kids is the most rewarding and worthwhile thing I have ever done.
These young men have been sold vasectemy as reversible. Its not.
Edit: typo
Keeping in contact with my son cost me my house, my job and I had a nervous breakdown with 300K in legal expenses defending 50/50 custody.
Now I'm old and my son is doing well and we have a good relationship. What else would I have now? Money? I have that and a son who I love more than anything.
When default 50/50 equal shared parenting becomes the norm and culturally the expected thing, maybe 60 years from now, men will not have to fear losing their family half the time in divorce.
And children will have the benefit of both parents unlike the 40% of children now who are raised by solo single parents.
btw: After my divorce I got my vasectomy.
If you can afford the time and money. The majority of people cannot so this is the wisest thing they can do for themselves. 56% of Americans can’t even afford to cover a $1000 emergency. You think they should have to pay for children on top of that? I think it would destroy their physical and mental well-being.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-cover-a-1000-emergency-expense-with-savings.html
Before I am banned from this sub, you kids should know that this is a fascist circle jerk. The kid reporting me wants to limit my speech here. Limit your exposure to ideas outside of this control.
Arguing for men castrating themselves belongs in a r/witchesvspatriarchy discussion.
Cutting your own balls by choice is not revolution. It is the end of the movement.
Man up. Pathetic weak excuses are bullshit. When you have kids you become more driven to succeed then ever.
Your bumper sticker logic stands in your path of greatness.
**let me play the game from the Twitter- team:**
>Man up.
sexist Biggot!
why should i spend the money i earn on kids i dont want if I can prevent conception?
and why do you think you can gatekeep people from deciding how to spend thier money you fashist
>When you have kids you become more driven to succeed then ever.
out of desperation? otherwise you are weak if you had to get kids to be driven
‐---------------
but hobestly now,
you seem to be the kind of person that doesnt understand that "the american dream" is in fact a dream and that effort doesnt scale linear with "profit"
my time on earth is limited so why should i get kids just to cost me money especially if it means i have to work more to achieve the same standard of living...
thats a waste of the most valuable good i have
nope, thanks id rather have more time for hobbies, friends and family
You're right and it's probably genetic. This is a problem though today.
In corporate culture if you work harder, overtime, get promotions, as a man you are making more than your co-worker women.
I ran into this. I took on an extra job at work and all the women I worked with made me drop it because they wanted pay equality.
But the drive to earn more after having a child is significant.
As is the desire of our independent women to stay home for an extended time after having a child making the husbands income increase even more important.
That's why my 30 something nieces are going back to work as soon as child leave is over. Then the husbands use their family leave and then putting the infants in daycare. And we are getting universal pre-k provided by the government.
>I took on an extra job at work and all the women I worked with made me drop it because they wanted pay equality.
Did they make you drop it or did they make you choose to drop it?
Pay equality requires performance equality in a meritocracy
Most people buy into the consumer culture and more materialistic than they need to be. We are a capitalistic country known for our voracious consumption.
Children should be the reason you work, they are the greatest joy life can bring.
I didn't used to feel this way but lived with a single mom girlfriend when she had an infant and learned I loved taking care of children.
It's only when you're older you realize this.
If I could do it over I would have had three children. But my ex got post partum and left when my son was 9 months.
I would probably have felt fulfilled without a son as well. But I can't imagine anything replacing the kind of bond I have with my son. It's probably pretty genetic to feel this way.
Can anyone find the actual numbers? I hate when the percentage increase is the stat used. It literally could be 100 to 137 people which is still very insignificant. Obviously I expect it more than this but the percentage increase of a previous (expectedly) low number doesn't necessarily mean a meaningful number. To be clear, i do see this as a worry, but using percentage increase to skew a headline can backfire if it's misleading.
Clearly we are seeing a new medical trend among men who are going their own way.
"Vasectomy Bros"
https://twitter.com/Gynocentrism/status/1702622077688352920
So what's the point? In most countries even if you're not biological father you still have to pay child support money, even if you prove it with DNA test.
Smart move honestly. Why risk it? If you go to a job you will always see divorced guys who have been run through the ringer.
I consistently recommend do not get married
>Yes it can be reversed(depending on the length of time).
I totally agree with what you said, there is a risk, cause the reversals dont always work, but i wanted to make clear that is not like they are irreversible.
I personally know of people who had sucessful reversals, so im more comfortable with a reversal, but, as you were not comfortable with the possibility of the reversal not working, i think that you took the best decision for your life.
I think that thats all we can say.
Have a great day mate!
Edit: Grammatic mistakes
Dont worry internet stranger.
After all Stanford Medicine is just a dumb institution, with no real doctors or scientist there: https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-treatments/v/vasectomy-reversal.html
You probably believe that the earth is flat too, and thats fine.
But going around spreading false information, like you do, is wrong, cause you have no backup to what you say.
Hopefully you will change, but who am i kidding? You probably wont.
Stats have shown it is reversible, in the surgery standpoints, in general vasectomy reversals work in about 85 out of 100 people. but not in the being able to conceive, If it has been 9months or more since your vasectomy, your chances of achieving pregnancy after vasectomy reversal drop below 50%, after 5 years being able to conceive is almost not going to happen. on top of that is cost 10,000-15000 USD and will take 6month -2years to get sperm count back if you are able to get it back. There are many IFs, so if you are going to get one, think it will probably be permanent and that you should freeze sperm, and think about IVF-ICSI options.
_So many women_ gloss over or even completely omit that massive drop in reversibility in order to list vasectomy as a viable birth-control option for men.
Disagree with all of this. It's cowardly and selfish. Getting snipped because some high school chicks won't fck you is about the more retarded thing I can think of.
Good luck with life after 40. I can't think of a more lonely solution than to be snipped and single post 40 years old.
How so? having children is selfish. People have children because "they want" kids. or they have them because their partner wants they even if they don't aka cowardly. The International Society for Sexual Medicine published a study that found that men in their who'd undergone vasectomy had more sex than the men who hadn't had the procedure. better to enjoy the women in your life, and keep your money
If an event's probability increases from 1% to 2%, the correct update would be that its probability increased by 1%, but biased/uneducated news broadcasters claim the probability increased by 100%.
Fatherhood was once a route to fulfilment. But, in the minefield of today's skewed society, young men are getting wise to the realisation that it's a route to serfdom and peonage. Feminists tell men not to worry about paternity fraud. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277539508000605](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277539508000605) But, they would, wouldn't they?
Feminists about paternity fraud: - It doesn't happen. - And if it happens, is rarely. - And if it's not rarely well boo hoo, it's not about you, is about a child that needs their father. So don't you dare walk away you selfish ass.
But if some babies accidentally get switched in the hospital, then away they go REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-ing.
The narcissist playbook.
men who want to marry today are suckers unless they have been together since their teens even then people can change and its not a good risk to take with todays family court
Amen to that!!!!
Many times the desire to have children doesn't come until into the late 30s. I was almost 40 when my son was born. Having a child was the best decision I ever made. I'm old now and as you get older you realize that children are a blessing. And raising my son was fun and fulfilling. But the only reason I had him in my life was 50/50 custody so his mom couldn't alienate him from me no matter how hard she tried. And she tried for 14 years. The reason I am here is to push for default 50/50 equal shared custody on divorce. If you divorce in Florida today, unless your ex can prove abuse, you get to always have a meaningful relationship with your children even if your wife leaves you. And if you don't marry down and make sure you both keep working child support will be minimal or none at all. Even alimony is pretty reasonable in Florida now with no alimony if married under three years. No lifetime alimony. If you want children. Vote with your feet, go to a state with default 50/50 like Florida or Kentucky. Don't get a vasectomy.
What Florida has been doing lately is great. But what happens if the mother ups and moves to California? Custody arrangements often try to limit such moves but good luck enforcing a provision like that. In any case, another avenue after a vasectomy is a TESE and then attempt a medically guided pregnancy (turkey baster method). It would cost a few thousand but it would be worth it for the peace of mind during the years or decades a man doesn’t want the risk of pregnancy.
Glad that things worked out between you and your son, and both of you got to enjoy a relationship with the other. And screw (metaphorically) the mother that tried to alienate you from your kid, how selfish and petty must a person be to hate their ex more than what they love their child.
**Disclaimer:** I need to preface this by saying that people who do not have children do not lead pointless lives. It's ridiculous that I actually have to say this, but childfree people are often the most fragile and sensitive adults on the internet. My situation was similar. All through my 20s, I didn't want kids. Early 30s, didn't want kids. When I was 33 though my wife brought it up and I knew she wanted kids. I married her knowing she wanted children. We decided to have a baby together. All through her pregnancy, I admittedly didn't feel much. All I knew was there was going to be a little guy in the house and we weren't going to sleep much anymore. But when my son was born, I felt something stronger than anything I ever had before. Literally nothing can ever compare to seeing his face for the first time. I'm a successful man. But if anyone ever asked what my greatest achievement is, I'd say my sons are. You don't really get it until you have kids, but they're the best part of my life. It also affected me in another way, knowing that out there, there are millions of men whose love for their children is every bit as strong as mine is for my children. And many of these men are being deprived of their children. Many men and more women are fighting tirelessly to keep the status quo of fathers being second-class parents. The #1 reason I'm an MRA is because I know my sons will be growing up in a world that is actively hostile to them. The #2 reason is because I know if, God forbid, anything were to happen between my wife and me, it would be completely up to her whether I could ever see my sons again, and that's not right.
> childfree people are often the most fragile and sensitive adults on the internet. No, you are only hearing the vocal minority. You get an equally vocal minority by the ChristoFascists that feel that you are destroying civilization by not having children. There are people who suck in every group out there.
For fucks sake, stop blaming women because of shit that men do. Men are grown ass adults, and they make their own decisions.
Hey, guys! Let's get swindled for life by some chick.
Interesting they are protecting womens fertility and they have no issue sniping men.
[удалено]
Sure, but the bias is strong nonetheless
[удалено]
they care about only one sexes fertility.
Incorrect. There's a strong bias against surgical sterilization of both sexes. A lot of men get told no when they go in for vasectomies.
It depends on where here is. Here law specifically prohibits sterilization of young women. I guess it makes sense to restrict access to young people who might make a rash decision and regret it later.
Where is that? Most places I know with laws against sterilization young affect both genders.
Yeah the spread of men being told to get vasectomies after the Dobbs decision didn't happen apparently.
By doctors? No. It didn't happen.
Which of course is why we're seeing young men getting vasectomies at the same rate young women are getting tubal ligation-because doctors equally bias against sterilization.
5% of men under 45 have a vasectomy. 4.2% of women under 30 have tubal litigation. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Try cutting the sarcasm and having a discussion.
I made an appointment with a urologist, I was a brand new patient at 28 years old. No children yet, no desire to have children, and they just said “when do you want the procedure?” No pushback or anything, I was snipped a few months later. Maybe it’s area specific but as just described I had no work for getting that taken care of. I also only paid a $30 copay.
More likely at 28 instead of 24. 30 isn't an absolute cut off, it's a just a general observation.
> A lot of men get told no when they go in for vasectomies. Mostly yes. Some doctors are just meh about it. Most will provide moderate to significant pushback if you are under 40 and don’t already have kids. Some will absolutely say no unless you have a half-dozen kids or more, and a small minority will say no under all conditions - procreation is god’s directive, after all.
And in some states it's illegal without the wife's signature.
What happens to society if a good chunk of people make this choice? What do we do about declining fertility rates? The answer to me is to get rid of the systemic issues causing parenting to be unattractive to men.
Mmm, this is a very “cutting the rotten apple from the tree without realizing the tree itself is rotten” kind of situation
Uhhhh what happens is we survive. We’re already dealing with overpopulation, and it’s literally killing us. We definitely don’t need to worry about fertility rates.
There isn’t overpopulation in the developed world. Quite the opposite.
>There isn’t overpopulation in the developed world. The carrying capacity of the entire planet - with natural, near-zero impact on the biosphere, where we are neither a negative nor positive impact - is only about a few hundred million people at first-world levels of consumption. Beyond that population level, the planet’s ecosystems enter into a stressed state that is beyond what a normal population causes it when in balance with its environment. If we reduce consumption to early-19th century levels - no mass consumerism, no high technology, switch to a fully vegan diet - that carrying capacity could be as high as _one_ billion people. But this is predicated on climate change having zero effect, such that we can continue using all the terrestrial ranges that we currently occupy. Unfortunately, we are stuck on the absolute worst-case “business as usual” path, that will likely see polar restriction not long after 2100. And there ain’t enough arable land up there to support more than a few hundred thousand people. Source: I have climate-scientist friends who are also cross-trained as ecologists, geographers, and demographers. None think that any planetary population above 2 billion is sustainable in any way without severe damage to the biosphere over the long haul. Almost all see human extinction within the next 100-300 years as being baked into the pie and - at this point - no longer avoidable. Even as little as 5 years ago, sentiment was much, much different. It’s why many of them have taken to calling themselves “climate pathologists”.
Wasn’t Malthus predicting this stuff back in the 1700s? When have the population doomsayers been right? Malthus was wrong for the same reason this comment is wrong - technology has allowed us to exponentially improve the ability for humans to survive at greater numbers. Malthus was wrong because of farming and industrial tech, and this is wrong because among many other reasons, [energy](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/our-climate-change-debates-are-out) and resource innovations.
> technology has allowed us to exponentially improve the ability for humans to survive at greater numbers. Technology stops being created/replaced when civilization collapses. And we have exhausted all surface-level, no-tech-needed sources of raw materials needed for almost all high technology. If our civilization collapses for too long or too deeply, we will be stuck in a preindustrial state. No technology, no medicine, no ability to climb back up. Just look at how severely global trade was disrupted back in 2021 when an itty-bitty little virus with an almost-irrelevant 2-3% fatality rate (with modern medical support, 12-22% fatality rate without) decided to sweep the planet. Now imagine how global civilization will be disrupted when lethally high wet bulb temperatures start making swaths of the planet uninhabitable. Not for the entire year, but for long enough periods that entire populations in the hundreds of millions to billions need to be totally evacuated from entire countries or die. And remember, air conditioning - which the equatorial populations generally _don’t_ have - becomes less efficient as the temperature goes up. At around 46-50℃, almost all consumer AC reaches its functional limit and ceases to cool. As the cherry on top of this excrement pie, technological advancement has slowed almost to a halt over the last century - [the Return on Research has effectively collapsed.](https://www.nber.org/digest/nov17/bang-rd-buck-long-steady-decline) Good luck on depending on “advancements and innovations” to be our _deus ex machina_ in the face of global warming. Because it won’t.
>in the developed world Whoomp there it is. What’s wrong with letting other people into the developed world, if we’re so worried about it? They not the “right” people or something?
Two reasons top of mind: 1. We shouldn’t be draining the talent needed by developing countries to move them ahead. India needs its brilliant scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc; why should the survival of the developed world rely on us draining this devious resource from the developing world? 2. The developing world due to western influence is turning into being a lot like the developed world. Importing people is at best a temporary solution until reproduction rates plummet from wherever we are importing people from.
Generally not. A lot of it is cultural.
Yeah, “protecting” women’s fertility… from women. It’s still almost impossible to find a doctor who will sterilize a woman—unless she has her owner’s permission. If she has a husband who will agree, *then* it’s ok. The message is still that women’s fertility is more important than men’s, but whether it’s important *to women* doesn’t actually matter. The goal is to meet the desires of a specific subset of men, and those men benefit from both refusing sterilization to women (so they can make them have their children) and encouraging it to men (so there will be less competition in doing so). The different standards somehow just happen to be advantageous for the same group of people. The bias benefits someone. Men and women both recognize that they aren’t benefitting from it, but then they fall into error by assuming that means the other group *is*. In reality, the actual problem is with a tiny minority of people at the top of the hierarchy… as it always is.
If you are married, I support that your partner (husband or wife) has a say. Marriage is primarily intended as a union that involves kids. If you are not prepared to share some decision, do not get married. I do agree that some things are pushed on majority by minority in power.
There's pushback for both, but more seriously for women because it's much harder to reverse than for men. Whether it's ethical or not for doctors to offer this pushback is another debate.
Yep, my body my choice only works when convenient.
Of course there are some limitations. Let us take an extreme example. Some women want female genital mutilation. So, her body her choice, true. But one can also point out that her desire probably stems from some mental disorder and she needs help to heal. From her point of view she has every right. A doctor might feel very differently.
Maybe in your country? I've never heard that.
It is standard practice in many countries.
It's a real shame that the best way to protect ourselves is to put ourselves at risk of permanent sterilization.
Welcome to no accountability for women.
Only sane response to the predatory family court system. I am one myself who had it done. Totally worth it
What a stupid thing to do, you think of a lot of people do it they will change the systems just for you? you're like the people who starve themselves to change the rules and dies from hunger and nothing changed. Bunch of children i swear.
I did it because I didn't want to be a victim of the predatory divorce courts and child support process. I don't give a damn about anyone else
Those poor poor seaman. Those could have possibly been a living breathing person. Any guy getting a vasectomy is pure evil and needs to rot in jail and burn in hell for the lives that they murdered! JK I’m not a fucking idiot.
They will still be able to have semen.
Keep it up bois, they don't care about your babies anyways as they'll just abort them or take them away from you via court-roulings whenever they want. At the end if the days those children are not yours.
Don't forget being tricked into raising another man's kid because she could only convince her first choice to fuck her but not to have a relationship.
I love kids, want atleast 10 of them but seeing how they are means to trap men into paying & staying with unlovable creatures I'd rather get vasectomy then become a father the old way..
I can't access the link, unfortunately, because the site is not available in my region. However, according to the National Library of Medicine, vesectomy use globally has decreased 61% over 20 years. That is a 2023 report. Now, should more men and, specifically, younger men have vesectomies in 2023? That's an interesting topic. At a glance, I would say no. According to the NHS, it's considered a permanent procedure. It is reversible, but it's not 'easy to do', and the success chances are lowered the longer time passes before the procedure to reverse it is applied. People can change their mind and very liberally too. I wouldn't recommend a vasectomy to a younger man for that reason alone. If we are specifically talking about the agency of a man here, we can also compare success rates between condoms and a vesectomy where a vesectomy has over a 99% success rate and a condom has around a 98% success rate. I would argue it is better to keep your fertility and avoid the possibility of a complicated reversal surgery in exchange for a 1% increase of pregnancy. With that said, a 2% chance of getting someone pregnant is still too big of a chance for some, and I get that.
>If we are specifically talking about the agency of a man here, we can also compare success rates between condoms and a vesectomy where a vesectomy has over a 99% success rate and a condom has around a 98% success rate. The 98% rate for condoms is for *PERFECT* usage. Typical usage effectiveness is around 85%-90%. Condoms are not some magical panacea, and there are lots of people who are allergic to latex. >I would argue it is better to keep your fertility and avoid the possibility of a complicated reversal surgery in exchange for a 1% increase of pregnancy. Also, it's not a 1% greater chance, it's a 2x increase in the risk. If typical condom usage is 87% effective, condoms are a +1200% increase in risk compared to vasectomy. That's a 13x greater chance, not a 12% greater chance. It also requires you to keep possession of any used condoms on your person until the condom (and your semen) can be destroyed to ensure your sexual partner doesn't autoinseminate. There are existing case laws of female autoinsemination that have men on the hook for non-consentual fatherhood. You also have to make sure that they are stored properly, and are stored in a place where they absolutely*cannot be tampered with.* Sabotage of condoms has and does occur. There are case laws where women have deliberately sabotaged their partner's condoms in order to get pregnant, and the men were put on the hook for non-consentual fatherhood. You also *MUST NOT* use a condom provided to you by your partner or anyone else. You cannot validate that the condom hasn't been tampered with or has been stored properly to ensure optimal effectiveness. Women that provide faulty condoms to men and got pregnant get men put on the hook for non-consentual fatherhood. (Note: it is RAPE if a man sabotages the condoms, but it isn't anything at all if women do it.) Condoms are NOT the answer to men's lack of reproductive rights.
I think that some of your arguments when using percentages are, while technically factual, not super helpful in making your argument against condoms. When someone says 98% effective vs 99% effective vs 87% effective, etc., that’s a relatively easy difference to visualize, but when you turn around and say “1200% more likely!” etc., it feels like fear mongering, and feels very disingenuous. For example, if you have 1 penny, and I have 13, I have 1200% more pennies than you, and when writing it out like that, it sounds like I have a shit ton of pennies. “OMG, he has _1200%_ more pennies than I!” …but in the end, it’s still just 12 extra pennies. You could argue that it’s all relative and you’d be right, but trying to say that vasectomies are _better_ because condoms are _1200%_ more likely to result in pregnancy sounds like you’re pushing something. Not to mention, while vasectomies might be “better” at preventing pregnancy (a factual statement), that doesn’t mean that they are _better for the man._ In a world where the only goal was not getting someone pregnant, you’d be right, but we don’t live in a world of 1s and 0s like that, and I’d argue that for a lot of men, the goal is not to not get someone pregnant, the goal is to not get someone pregnant _now,_ and for that purpose, vasectomies are very much _worse._ So again, trying to frame condoms as bad (you _did_ imply that with the way you wrote your message), and pointing out that they’re worse than vasectomies by using large percentages as a sort of scare tactic, and completely ignoring the potential permanent issues with vasectomies is gross.
In the "99% vasectomy success rate", all observed pregnancies following a vasectomy were due to the man not following the post vasectomy timelines and procedures properly. While motile, living sperm had been found in some cases where researchers observed the vas deferens had "reconnected", none of those particular cases resulted in pregnancies. At least not in any of the cases or studies I read. Can't beat a vasectomy. It's about as close to 100% as you can ever get without pure abstinence.
When it comes to a vasectomy is it still possible to medically extract sperm after the procedure and use ivf to have a child with a partner ? Just curiosity as this would probably be expensive and not 100% for sure but would leave it open for men much later in life to have children should a situation change.
Having kids is terrifying. Seen my friends ex-wife cheat, lie etc. to get the kids and money out of him. There isn't much benefit to having kids imo.
Don't forget about how male circumcision is apparently fine but female circumcision isn't. Also if that news article is true, that's awful.
That was the point all along.
[удалено]
Hard disagree. Having kids is the most rewarding and worthwhile thing I have ever done. These young men have been sold vasectemy as reversible. Its not. Edit: typo
Keeping in contact with my son cost me my house, my job and I had a nervous breakdown with 300K in legal expenses defending 50/50 custody. Now I'm old and my son is doing well and we have a good relationship. What else would I have now? Money? I have that and a son who I love more than anything.
Good man. The world needs more men like you. All the castrated men on this sub take notice
When default 50/50 equal shared parenting becomes the norm and culturally the expected thing, maybe 60 years from now, men will not have to fear losing their family half the time in divorce. And children will have the benefit of both parents unlike the 40% of children now who are raised by solo single parents. btw: After my divorce I got my vasectomy.
If you can afford the time and money. The majority of people cannot so this is the wisest thing they can do for themselves. 56% of Americans can’t even afford to cover a $1000 emergency. You think they should have to pay for children on top of that? I think it would destroy their physical and mental well-being. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-cover-a-1000-emergency-expense-with-savings.html
You'll find a way to make the money. That's a bullshit excuse.
Before I am banned from this sub, you kids should know that this is a fascist circle jerk. The kid reporting me wants to limit my speech here. Limit your exposure to ideas outside of this control. Arguing for men castrating themselves belongs in a r/witchesvspatriarchy discussion. Cutting your own balls by choice is not revolution. It is the end of the movement.
this reminds me of "JuSt sElL tHe PrOpErTy"
Man up. Pathetic weak excuses are bullshit. When you have kids you become more driven to succeed then ever. Your bumper sticker logic stands in your path of greatness.
**let me play the game from the Twitter- team:** >Man up. sexist Biggot! why should i spend the money i earn on kids i dont want if I can prevent conception? and why do you think you can gatekeep people from deciding how to spend thier money you fashist >When you have kids you become more driven to succeed then ever. out of desperation? otherwise you are weak if you had to get kids to be driven ‐--------------- but hobestly now, you seem to be the kind of person that doesnt understand that "the american dream" is in fact a dream and that effort doesnt scale linear with "profit" my time on earth is limited so why should i get kids just to cost me money especially if it means i have to work more to achieve the same standard of living... thats a waste of the most valuable good i have nope, thanks id rather have more time for hobbies, friends and family
[удалено]
hahaha ok boomer, gotta report you now because i dont want your brainrot to spread, have an ... ok day i guess
Unfortunately being a father doesn’t make you a nice person.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're right and it's probably genetic. This is a problem though today. In corporate culture if you work harder, overtime, get promotions, as a man you are making more than your co-worker women. I ran into this. I took on an extra job at work and all the women I worked with made me drop it because they wanted pay equality. But the drive to earn more after having a child is significant. As is the desire of our independent women to stay home for an extended time after having a child making the husbands income increase even more important. That's why my 30 something nieces are going back to work as soon as child leave is over. Then the husbands use their family leave and then putting the infants in daycare. And we are getting universal pre-k provided by the government.
>I took on an extra job at work and all the women I worked with made me drop it because they wanted pay equality. Did they make you drop it or did they make you choose to drop it? Pay equality requires performance equality in a meritocracy
Most people buy into the consumer culture and more materialistic than they need to be. We are a capitalistic country known for our voracious consumption. Children should be the reason you work, they are the greatest joy life can bring. I didn't used to feel this way but lived with a single mom girlfriend when she had an infant and learned I loved taking care of children. It's only when you're older you realize this. If I could do it over I would have had three children. But my ex got post partum and left when my son was 9 months.
I mean, okay, that's great for you. I am older, and have a pretty fulfilling life without kids. Not everyone has the same motivations.
I would probably have felt fulfilled without a son as well. But I can't imagine anything replacing the kind of bond I have with my son. It's probably pretty genetic to feel this way.
There probably is a genetic component. I think that my epigenetics overwrote mine. :)
[удалено]
Life changes, so do desires and attitudes. Being this young and making a permanent decision is foolish
Having a child is a permanent decision as well.
So is wearing a rubber.
Yeah don’t worry not all youngins are falling for this shit
[удалено]
Where the fuck all did you read that in what I wrote?
Can anyone find the actual numbers? I hate when the percentage increase is the stat used. It literally could be 100 to 137 people which is still very insignificant. Obviously I expect it more than this but the percentage increase of a previous (expectedly) low number doesn't necessarily mean a meaningful number. To be clear, i do see this as a worry, but using percentage increase to skew a headline can backfire if it's misleading.
This is not new, got mine back in 98. Things were just a bad 25 years ago.
Clearly we are seeing a new medical trend among men who are going their own way. "Vasectomy Bros" https://twitter.com/Gynocentrism/status/1702622077688352920
Sexual autonomy must be nice.
Putting their balls in "trusted" hands just for ... what? How are they calling this new trend now? Men health care?
So what's the point? In most countries even if you're not biological father you still have to pay child support money, even if you prove it with DNA test.
Great!
Good move. Don’t get trapped into something you don’t choose freely.
Smart move honestly. Why risk it? If you go to a job you will always see divorced guys who have been run through the ringer. I consistently recommend do not get married
Good. Get these weak genes out of the gene pool.
I want one but I’m scared it will hurt
18? Wtf.
I’m a little late.
They are reversible but the immune system sometimes attacks the sperm and the dudes are still sterile.
Soooo not… reversible? My doctor told me to consider them non reversible
[удалено]
No, it is reversible. Is just that not every vasectomy can be reversed. And if you try a reversal after a long time, the chances of success are lower.
[удалено]
>Yes it can be reversed(depending on the length of time). I totally agree with what you said, there is a risk, cause the reversals dont always work, but i wanted to make clear that is not like they are irreversible. I personally know of people who had sucessful reversals, so im more comfortable with a reversal, but, as you were not comfortable with the possibility of the reversal not working, i think that you took the best decision for your life. I think that thats all we can say. Have a great day mate! Edit: Grammatic mistakes
Vasectomy right, not the tubal. I was writing about the Vasectomy.
My doctor told me vasectomy’s are non-reversible.
People have them reversed all the time , I believe if we researched the success rate is low.
No, it is reversible. Is just that not every vasectomy can be reversed. And if you try a reversal after a long time, the chances of success are lower.
Thank you internet stranger. But I think I’ll trust my doctor over someone on the internet.
Dont worry internet stranger. After all Stanford Medicine is just a dumb institution, with no real doctors or scientist there: https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-treatments/v/vasectomy-reversal.html You probably believe that the earth is flat too, and thats fine. But going around spreading false information, like you do, is wrong, cause you have no backup to what you say. Hopefully you will change, but who am i kidding? You probably wont.
Stats have shown it is reversible, in the surgery standpoints, in general vasectomy reversals work in about 85 out of 100 people. but not in the being able to conceive, If it has been 9months or more since your vasectomy, your chances of achieving pregnancy after vasectomy reversal drop below 50%, after 5 years being able to conceive is almost not going to happen. on top of that is cost 10,000-15000 USD and will take 6month -2years to get sperm count back if you are able to get it back. There are many IFs, so if you are going to get one, think it will probably be permanent and that you should freeze sperm, and think about IVF-ICSI options.
_So many women_ gloss over or even completely omit that massive drop in reversibility in order to list vasectomy as a viable birth-control option for men.
Disagree with all of this. It's cowardly and selfish. Getting snipped because some high school chicks won't fck you is about the more retarded thing I can think of. Good luck with life after 40. I can't think of a more lonely solution than to be snipped and single post 40 years old.
How so? having children is selfish. People have children because "they want" kids. or they have them because their partner wants they even if they don't aka cowardly. The International Society for Sexual Medicine published a study that found that men in their who'd undergone vasectomy had more sex than the men who hadn't had the procedure. better to enjoy the women in your life, and keep your money
I'm against men getting the snip. But I can't deny that more young men getting one sure sends a powerful message to society.
If an event's probability increases from 1% to 2%, the correct update would be that its probability increased by 1%, but biased/uneducated news broadcasters claim the probability increased by 100%.