~ archived since 2018 ~

As if you needed another reason to not get married

January 7, 2015

You can't have a vasectomy without your wife's written consent. Source

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/MensRights.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title As if you needed another reason to not get married
Author SgtBrutalisk
Upvotes 41
Comments 26
Date January 7, 2015 2:01 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit /r/MensRights
Archive Link
Original Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

It is up to doctor discretion and that was only his/her policy. Many times a man will have to go to a number of doctors before one will agree to giving him one. If you are under 30 and don't have kids are usually the two key points doctors who won't preform it are looking for.

[–]SgtBrutalisk[S] 31 points32 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but it does bring an interesting point of husband's body being the property of both spouses, while I can see the converse not being true. Meaning, imagine if women were supposed to get husband's consent to get an abortion. Feminists would rage with the hate of a thousand suns.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree with you I think it is absurd that it is even a question. But I do know of doctors that will not tie a woman's tubes under the same criteria with the same reasoning.

[–]chavelah 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My cousin had to get a "permission slip" from her husband to get her tubes tied. She was mighty pissed about it. It goes both ways and it's bullshit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A better analogy would be getting their tubes tied. If this doctor asked their husbands' permission for that, then it isn't really a sexist policy.

[–]danpilon -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

While I agree this is ridiculous, I wouldn't compare it to abortion. Pregnancy is a possibly life-threatening medical condition, so forcing it on someone is worse than forcing someone to be fertile, which by itself has no consequences. The direct comparison would be a woman getting her tubes tied. Does anyone know if there is precedent of a doctor refusing that without her husbands consent?

[–]DavidByron2 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah that's bullshit. Most abortions aren't because your life is threatened, and are you really suggesting if this guy had needed a vasectomy to save his life his doctor would be "oh not without your wife's permission you don't"?

Abortion is mostly used as a form of contraception.

[–]danpilon -4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

None of that matters. Just because the abortion isn't due to the woman's life being threatened at the time doesn't mean the pregnancy doesn't carry life-threatening risks. Also, name one scenario where a vasectomy is a life-saving procedure (that doesn't involve child support leading to suicide or something). What matters is the law has deemed pregnancy to be optional, and since it involves a medical condition of only the pregnant woman, it is entirely her decision. You may disagree with this, but it is a different issue. I only object to the abortion comparison because it is not the direct analogue of the gender-flipped scenario. It is comparing apples and oranges. Getting tubes tied is a direct comparison. In both cases I think it should be the choice of only the individual wanting the surgery, but we should only cry discrimination if it is only not the case for men.

[–]russkov 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It does have the consequences of you not being forced into parenthood.

[–]danpilon -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I said there are no direct consequences. How the man handles contraception other than the vasectomy is a different issue. Like it or not, we have deemed in the US that pregnancy is an optional medical issue. I think a man absolutely should be able to get a vasectomy if he wants, but I also think accurate comparisons are important if you actually want to convince someone of something. The abortion comparison has the added complication of involving a serious medical condition, so it only confuses the issue.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But if a woman has to take an ultrasound to get an abortion that proves we live in a patriarchy that is waging a war on women by removing their reproductive rights even if they can still get that abortion.

/and to be clear I think that's a bullshit policy.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have heard about this before, that and the requirement of being a certain age or having a certain amount of children.

Oddly, it took me one phone call, no questions asked, one 35 dollar co-pay later my balls hurt like a mother fucker.

It was the best thing I ever did for myself, now I fuck worry free!

[–]H2owsome 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You should still probably worry about STD's and false rape allegations

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it trite reply day on reddit?

[–]Bravely_Default 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess "my body my choice" is just a one way street.

[–]Wargame4life 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This must be a US thing as a result of spouses using litigation, if i get a vasectomy in the UK its only the concern of me and my doctor surely

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Since it's not a law (and appears to be the case that the doctors who do it, do it to avoid a law suit) there seems to be only one solution here:

Go to a doctor to have a vasectomy. If the doctor insists on a signed form to do it, refuse, and insist they perform the procedure anyway. If they still don't perform the procedure, get that documented, go home, and get your wife pregnant. Now turn around and sue the doctor for child support.

You might not win, but at least you have actual damages you can prove in court (cost of a child).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It's often said that marriage started out as a form of ownership of women, but that's certainly not how it ended up!

[–]DuusieDos 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Actually it was created in order to protect women.

[–]Ultramegasaurus 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Both. It provided physical, financial/economical and social protection for women.

It provided social prestige, housekeeping and a monogamous partner for men.

[–]DuusieDos 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really. The social prestige is not really boosted by the fact that you might get the currently most attractive women versus you can repeatedly change your late model for a newer even higher status one. Monogamy was easily enforced before the introduction of marriage and housekeeping was not a wife's job rather it was any and all women's job, and usually never done by men as throughout history it has been "outsourced" and at a cheaper price than marriage.

[–]MRSPArchiver 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

[–]gvs77 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, if it works both ways, it would actually make sense!

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter