Men, you don't control your own pecker, at least in Virginia

June 8, 2005 5:23 PM

Men, you don't control your own pecker, at least in Virginia.A nice young man in a happy, heterosexual marriage discovers that Virginia state law REQUIRES a 30 day waiting period before he can get a vasectomy. All your gonads belong to us?
posted by twsf (81 comments total)

Yet another reason to avoid living in Virginia...
posted by MikeKD at 5:27 PM on June 8, 2005

well, so much for "Virginia is for Lovers"
posted by papercake at 5:28 PM on June 8, 2005

They just don't want any rash, misguided, spur-of-the-moment, decisions.
posted by Balisong at 5:38 PM on June 8, 2005

Isn't this almost standard for childless women requesting sterilization? Maybe not through statute, but in actual practice I've heard again and again that doctors will refuse to do sterilizations at all for childless women, at least within certain races and social classes. (A doctor refused to sterilize my mother in the 70s on the grounds that she only had one child - me - and would want another eventually). The theory is that of course you'll change your mind one day, and the operation is irreversible, and they know what's best for you anyway....
posted by dilettante at 5:43 PM on June 8, 2005

That's funny--in some states, if you were Native American, you didn't have a choice in the matter. You were getting sterilized whether you liked it or not. It was also common for white doctors to sterilize black women against their will.
posted by goatdog at 5:46 PM on June 8, 2005

If someone makes a rash decision, there are always these guys.
posted by brain_drain at 5:53 PM on June 8, 2005

Sure you do, after 30 days. To a libertarian mindset, like mine, this is a stupid law, but in reality it will not make that much difference. Most people will think about this kind of decision much longer than 30 days, and frankly, most doctors will make you wait that long just because of their own schedule. It is still the kind of stupid nanny law I despise - all these do-gooders trying to decide how I should live my life - sheeesh.
posted by caddis at 5:58 PM on June 8, 2005

I think the words that are important in what goatdog commented are "were" and "was".
posted by bigtimes at 5:59 PM on June 8, 2005

It is interesting that the focus of the law is only on those who have not had children.

I have two kids and got a vasectomy here in Virginia and my totally Fundy family practitioner barely batted an eye. Just said "we consider the procedure irreversible, etc" and a week later there I was with him hacking away at the old yam bag.

Life is weird and perhaps more so here in the Commonwealth.
posted by Rawhide at 6:02 PM on June 8, 2005

*puts his knitting away for now*
posted by Balisong at 6:10 PM on June 8, 2005

Oh, I thought you said yarn bag. *picks up knitting again*
posted by Balisong at 6:11 PM on June 8, 2005

bigtimes--I was pointing out the humor in the fact that there are places where today they won't let you get sterilized without a waiting period, when they used to sterilize people without their permission.

Balisong, I saw yarn bag too, and I was trying to figure out how that ended up as a euphemism.
posted by goatdog at 6:17 PM on June 8, 2005

My family doctor didn't want to refer me to an urologist until I was 38. I repeatedly asked, the first time when I was 28, since I *really* didn't want children.
This was not in fundy Virginia, but in the very tolerant Netherlands.
posted by kika at 6:20 PM on June 8, 2005

Dammit! All your gonads ARE belong to us! ARE! Don't you know proper Engrish?
posted by magodesky at 6:42 PM on June 8, 2005

Main nad turn off.
posted by Balisong at 6:45 PM on June 8, 2005

That's funny--in some states, if you were Native American, you didn't have a choice in the matter. You were getting sterilized whether you liked it or not. It was also common for white doctors to sterilize black women against their will.

It was also common to sterilize the mentally handicapped and mentally ill. And upon reading the law as quoted on the blog page, I got the impression that it was precisely this sort of thing - non-consensual or coerced sterlization - that the statute sought to prevent. I was surprised to read that it had anything to do with some sort of religious objection.
posted by Clay201 at 6:46 PM on June 8, 2005

God... you knobs will whine, cry and outrage over anything. Who cares if you have to wait 30 days? Might do a few guys some good. MikeKD is so upset, he won't even live in Virginia. OK then. Will you be witholding your tourist dollars as well? I mean refusing to live in VA doesn't really "show 'em" much. You can do better, I'm sure. Let's see some quality outrage Mike.
posted by Witty at 6:46 PM on June 8, 2005

From the linked article:

Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design...In an effort to separate the pleasure of sex from the power of procreation, modern Americans think that sex totally free from constraint or conception is their right...Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion.

And my favorite quote:

Others claim that too much tax money and public attention is given to children, and that this is an unfair imposition upon those who choose not to "breed." Of course, the very use of this terminology betrays the rebellion in this argument. Animals breed. Human beings procreate and raise children to the glory of God.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:48 PM on June 8, 2005

Hey, the guy's still got the option of having his wife stomp on his nuts.
posted by Carbolic at 6:49 PM on June 8, 2005

That's right, carbolic, while he repeatedly punches himself too.
posted by id at 6:54 PM on June 8, 2005

If I am gay, and want this, is there still a waiting period ?
posted by R. Mutt at 7:05 PM on June 8, 2005

It seems to me like the poster's train of thought has very little in the way of a foundation supporting it. The political agenda in immediately seeking to blame religious conservatives for a law the guy thinks is an affront to his civil liberties is pretty obvious.

Also, like Clay201 said, there is probably a rather rational explanation for making people wait 30 days to get a vasectomy. Somehow, I think that if people as vehemently opposed to sterilization as Al Mohler were in charge, the procedure wouldn't be legal in the first place.
posted by invitapriore at 7:29 PM on June 8, 2005

If you're gay, why do you want a vasectomy??
posted by BoringPostcards at 7:31 PM on June 8, 2005

Pfft, this is surprising? The childless have always been second-class citizens.
posted by nightchrome at 7:32 PM on June 8, 2005

This was not in fundy Virginia, but in the very tolerant Netherlands.

Odd. Here in the relatively liberal state of Massachusetts I was able to get one at 24 (and childless) with very little fuss at all. I had to justify the decision to my doctor before he'd give me a referral, to my urologist before he'd do the operation, and (for some reason) to the anesthesiologist before he'd assist in the operation, but I was able to do so within two minutes in all three cases. Either I'm very good at communicating my infinite loathing and hatred of all children (save my nephew), or my oh-so-charming personality makes people just want to sterilize me on the spot.
In actuality I just pointed out I was a severe manic depressive to each and would therefore be adopting even if I changed my mind later.
posted by Ryvar at 8:08 PM on June 8, 2005

Balisong, I host that first site you linked to! You'd be amazed how popular it is -- and how common that particular interest is.
posted by glider at 8:09 PM on June 8, 2005

If you're gay, why do you want a vasectomy??
Because you can never be too careful??
posted by R. Mutt at 8:30 PM on June 8, 2005

Well shit, why don't they come over the border to friendly North Carolina, where we offer vasectomies funded by the gummint?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:48 PM on June 8, 2005

BoringPostcards writes "If you're gay, why do you want a vasectomy??"

I was wondering that same thing too!
posted by clevershark at 8:55 PM on June 8, 2005

I happen to run an entire website (and PAC) dedicated to Virginia's stupid sex laws. Believe me, this is par for the course.
posted by waldo at 9:00 PM on June 8, 2005

Of all the stupid shit to get upset about. Yeah, I know, it's a dumb law, and one that should never have been enacted. But does it really stop you from doing anything? I mean, c'mon, 30 days isn't really all that important, is it? I mean, it's not like you can have sex for a couple weeks afterwards anyway, so was there really a window where this guy needed to bareback but was worried about procreation?
I guess this is why people have blogs: to whine about the trivial inconveniences of their lives.
I mean, it's not like he couldn't just shoot himself in the dick. The waiting period for a gun is only five days, and it'll be cheaper.
posted by klangklangston at 9:11 PM on June 8, 2005

No, we have no waiting period for a gun in Virginia. When I got my Mossburg, I walked into a pawn shop, filled out some paperwork, and walked out with it tucked under my arm.

Thirty days for a vasectomy. Zero days for a handgun. Sex, you see, is very, very dangerous.
posted by waldo at 9:14 PM on June 8, 2005

for some reason (probably because i've done some ob/gyn work on the side--hehe...i'm gay so i never get to use that one--but actually, i do medical transcription), i thought the 30-day waiting period for sterilization was standard...in fact, california's consent form for it (here as a .pdf) explicitly states a 30-day waiting period after signing the consent, except in certain circumstances.

if you wanted to make a stink of this, i think a better article might have been found on it. that the demagogue author connects it to the southern baptists with the statement But if you want to know where this sort of law comes from... is rather lame and journalistically lazy, since it's not pointing to where the law itself comes from as much as it is trying to prop up some weak conspiracy.

i believe that sterilization waiting periods are not only intended to give the party time to consider the decision, but also to establish a kind of legal safety zone in the wake of scandals involving many states that allowed or even required sterilization of selected populations without appropriate consent, even as late as the 70s. (In fact, here is a story referencing such forced sterilizations conducted in Virginia as late as 1979, many more articles via a basic google search). i imagine that legally it is a lot harder to consider sterilization forced if it is carried out 30 days after signing consent.
posted by troybob at 9:26 PM on June 8, 2005

duh, what clay201 said like three hours ago, if i had carefully read all the posts like a good boy
posted by troybob at 9:30 PM on June 8, 2005

I used to live in Charlottesville, and this means I know _nothing_ about Virginia.
posted by bardic at 9:40 PM on June 8, 2005

Here in cosmopolitan NYC, the same waiting period (30 days) is in effect by law. Most folks getting a vasectomy have been thinking about the procedure for a long time before the actual event (a decade for me), so 30 more days isn't much.

Furthermore, you are still potentially fertile for a long time (3 months? i can't remember exactly) after the procedure, so there's no way for it to take effect immediately anyway. Add in what troybob and clay201 point out about the waiting period helping to prevent involuntary sterilizations, and it's probably a worthwhile policy overall.
posted by dkg at 9:43 PM on June 8, 2005

Much worse than a 30-day waiting period are unethical doctors who aren't up-front with the patient about their own personal biases about the procedure.

A recent issue of the British Medical Journal has an article about the ethics of sterilization in young people. The authors conclude that as long as the choice for sterilization is fully informed, and the doctor has no principled ethical objection to the procedure itself, performing the operation is completely ethical, regardless of age or childless status. it's interesting reading.

My own experience:

The first urologist i went to about a vasectomy actually made me get a psychiatric evaluation (with the implication that if i was mentally unfit, i should be making lots of babies, i suppose). When i passed the psych eval, the same urologist put me off for another week (this is all before kicking off the gov't mandated 30-day waiting period), and then when i finally forced a response out of his secretary, i was told that he wouldn't do the procedure at all "because of liability reasons". Utter and complete bullshit, and a waste of my time.

The second urologist i spoke to told me that it was completely my decision, he would never have asked me to do a psych eval, and started the 30-countdown the day i spoke to him.

I vastly preferred that 30-day countdown to the week of sorting out the psych eval and the week of being given the runaround.
posted by dkg at 9:45 PM on June 8, 2005

Why would anyone get a vasectomy. It's about as rational as suicide. Whatever community brought the young man to this decision, they should really try to figure out what it is they are promoting.

I would be happy to live somewhere where they had a manditory 60 year waiting period for it.
posted by nervousfritz at 10:08 PM on June 8, 2005

Some people just plain do not want kids, as a fundamental aspect of their personality. Not because of their upbringing or their community or what-have-you.
The sad fact is, most of the people who don't want kids tend to be the people who (in truth) would probably make far better parents than the ones who squirt out a half dozen they can't adequately care for.
posted by nightchrome at 10:34 PM on June 8, 2005

nervousfritz, if you're going to drop a frankly bizarre statement like that, you need to provide a bit more compensation. But let me help you out: men get vasectomies because it allows them to have otherwise unprotected sex with no chance of conceiving an unwanted pregnancy. So, for example, when my father (a Lutheran minister, incidentally) and mother decided after I was born that they did not wish to have any more children, my father had a vasectomy. When my wife and I decide that me do not wish to have any more children, I will have a vasectomy. It is the least invasive, most cost effective, safest and most effective means of permanent sterilization. It prevents unwanted pregnancies. Maybe you are a big proponent of unwanted pregnancies. Like most rational people I'm of the opinion that things that prevent people who don't want to have children from conceiving children are good.
posted by nanojath at 10:37 PM on June 8, 2005

a bit more explanation, that is. I dunno where "compensation" came from.
posted by nanojath at 10:39 PM on June 8, 2005

It's somewhat amusing to see people upset about a waiting period before a vasectomy. Sure, it's inconvenient, and it does imply that applicants don't really get what sterilization means - "are you really sure you've thought things through?" But as dilettante says, it's damn near impossible for childless women [particularly those who are under 30 or 35] to get a tubal ligation or any other kind of sterilization. I've heard stories from several people about patronizing doctors telling women "Oh, but you'll change your mind." Obviously, there's no way that a woman could be sure that she doesn't want children, and her biological clock will kick in in a few years and she'll become a happy breeder - men, on the other hand, are taken more seriously, even if they have to wait a few weeks. As far as I know, there aren't even any laws requiring a waiting period for women, let alone laws against voluntary female sterilization, but no one I know has managed to successfully convince a doctor to perform the operation.
posted by ubersturm at 10:45 PM on June 8, 2005

nervousfritz, it is just a vasectomy, not a removal of the testes.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:48 PM on June 8, 2005

I mean, it's not like you can have sex for a couple weeks afterwards anyway, so was there really a window where this guy needed to bareback but was worried about procreation?
--------
Why would anyone get a vasectomy. It's about as rational as suicide. Whatever community brought the young man to this decision, they should really try to figure out what it is they are promoting.

I would be happy to live somewhere where they had a manditory 60 year waiting period for it.

These are typically brilliant and well-planned responses, indeed.

I am planning a vasectomy myself, truthfully. My rationale is that, keeping in mind I bear a genetic legacy including congenital joint issues, high cancer probability, physical traits leading to obstructive apnea, and congenital hypertension, as well as a history of imbalances on my wife's side, I would be irresponsible to have children, as I would be dooming them to a life of physical disability as I have had. On this (unlike so many topics [grin]), my wife and I agree wholeheartedly. So wholeheartedly that she's expressed a strong interest in tubal ligation.

If we want children in our lives, then we can adopt and hopefully improve the life of some other child, as opposing to sentencing one to a life of medical issues.

And just to clarify alternatives, I have an a long history of spectacular failures of more traditional forms of birth control, such as condoms. Only blind luck has kept the results of those from haunting me for the rest of my life.

As I am 38, I doubt a 60 year waiting period would be feasible. In addition, I'm not motivated by a sole urge to "go bareback" either.
posted by Samizdata at 10:50 PM on June 8, 2005

I'm not motivated by a sole urge to "go bareback" either

But ya gotta admit, it's a spectacular motivating factor nonetheless...
posted by nightchrome at 10:59 PM on June 8, 2005

No, we have no waiting period for a gun in Virginia. When I got my Mossburg, I walked into a pawn shop, filled out some paperwork, and walked out with it tucked under my arm.

And? What does that have to do with anything?
posted by Witty at 11:42 PM on June 8, 2005

I'm not motivated by a sole urge to "go bareback" either

But ya gotta admit, it's a spectacular motivating factor nonetheless...

I can neither confirm nor deny that statement.
posted by Samizdata at 11:48 PM on June 8, 2005

Ryvar: "...and (for some reason) to the anesthesiologist before he'd assist in the operation..."

You had an anesthesiologist? All I got was a bag of frozen peas.
posted by SteveInMaine at 4:00 AM on June 9, 2005

As a female who has had a former relationship with a man who had a vasectomy, I much much prefer it....and NOT only for the fact that conception was prevented. I believe other females who have had the opportunity to experience sex with a sterilized male will "know what I mean" and will likely agree with me. There are some other "beneficial" side affects!
posted by SweetIceT at 4:16 AM on June 9, 2005

Doctors are very very reluctant when it comes to voluntary sterilization. Yes, this thirty day waiting period for a man is ridiculous, but it's much harder to get a tubal ligation as a woman. Most doctors I know (and I know lots of OBs, my mother works in a maternity ward) won't perform one at all on a childless woman.

Fact of the matter is that some people do change their minds. I personally know a kid who cost his parents six surgeries (one parent was a doctor himself, incidentally) as they remarried after they had each been sterilized and then decided to have a child together. So, after the tubal ligation and vasectomy, the procedures were reversed... and then after his birth, they were reversed again...

Which is the sort of scenario that doctors would like to avoid.

Also : given the schedules of most doctors, it's going to take at least 30 days to schedule the procedure anyway.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:18 AM on June 9, 2005

Also : given the schedules of most doctors, it's going to take at least 30 days to schedule the procedure anyway.

That was the first thing that came to my mind. When I had my wisdom teeth removed, there was a three-month "waiting period." Surgery to correct a deviated septum? Nearly a year between the diagnosis and the actual operation. If a doctor told me I could get a vasectomy in thirty days, I'd think, "Only thirty days from now? Great! See you then." It's runarounds like dkg experienced that are the problem, not waiting periods.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:18 AM on June 9, 2005

It is interesting that the focus of the law is only on those who have not had children.

Just wanted to see that again.
posted by mediareport at 5:18 AM on June 9, 2005

SweetIceT : There are some other "beneficial" side affects!

Huu? Dang, forgive my ignorance, but I'm curious - any chance of a hint as to these mysterious side-effects? The imagination races! Google is just tantalisingly empty, although it did show me some squirm-inducing vasectomy horror stories.
posted by Drexen at 5:45 AM on June 9, 2005

This really doesn't seem that objectionable to me. As others have pointed out, 30 days is not long to wait for an elective medical procedure. And as for this being a nanny law, rules are for fools, but fools need rules. A friend's father-in-law got really drunk, went to the dentist and ordered him to take out all his teeth. And the dentist did it. I wouldn't be surprised if a law like this prevented similar scenarios with vasectomies.
posted by orange swan at 6:28 AM on June 9, 2005

"rules are for fools, but fools need rules."

orange swan, are you channeling Mr. T?
posted by emjaybee at 6:36 AM on June 9, 2005

Samizdat: Yeah, but again, is waiting an extra month REALLY a hardship? My comment wasn't against getting a vasectomy at all, but rather questioning the urgency.
But hey, you read what you like outta what I said. Don't let the words stop you.
posted by klangklangston at 6:41 AM on June 9, 2005

I don't think that the issue is the waiting period. I think the issue is that the waiting period is waived if the person requesting the procedure has already procreated. The implication here is that this law is discriminating against non-breeders. It seems like it would only be fair to either require all applicants to wait, or to require no waiting period whatsoever across the board. The fact that only a non-breeder has to wait 30 days is the point that frustrated the blogger in question - and probably the reason that he ended up attributing the wait period to the religious ideals quoted in the linked article. You don't have kids, you aren't glorying God. You definitely need some time to think this over before we'll let you get snipped. Come back next month. Oh - you've had some kids? Fine, get your nuts cut. Line forms here.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:42 AM on June 9, 2005

Why would anyone get a vasectomy. It's about as rational as suicide.

Really? I must be suicidally irrational then. Why did I get my vasectomy? Because I have one son, who is autistic. Number one, he takes all of my time and energy to raise and will continue to do so most likely until the day I die, given that he may well never be able to live independently. Having another child would both rob my son of the time and attention he needs, and rob the new child of the kind of time and attention they deserve as well. I have seen it happen to other families with one autistic child and one "normal" child - nobody comes out ahead. Number two, all of the research points to autism having a strong genetic factor, meaning if I had another child (and particularly if that second child was also a boy), said child would be at high risk for being autistic as well. What rational person would knowingly set a child up for that kind of life?

In parting: you, sir, are an ignorant jackass.
posted by Lokheed at 7:04 AM on June 9, 2005

No waiting period in Connecticut. My husband had an appointment about a week after he talked to the doctor about it. I don't think anybody asked him about me or my consent; not sure if they asked if he had kids. (He has three--though none with me--and we chose to have no more partially because three is all we could fiscally and emotionally support and because I didn't want any of my own in the first place; I have genetic weight problems and depression and do not intend to pass along these "gifts from God.")

Then he had a hideous healing period during which we discovered he was a type I diabetic when his refusal to heal was attributed to tremendously high blood sugar. Gross, but worth getting the vasectomy just for that, since he now has the diabetes under decent control.
posted by dlugoczaj at 7:46 AM on June 9, 2005

Outrage Meter
+-----------------+
|NOT          VERY|
|    Outrage      |
|     \           |
|      \          |
|       \ _       |
|        (o)      |
+_________________+

Yep barely registering.

PS: Is there any way to avoid the blank lines using PRE?
posted by Mitheral at 7:58 AM on June 9, 2005

I just have to share this: the best known vasectomy urologist in Austin is Dr. Richard "Dick" Chopp. Seriously. I visited him myself.
posted by tippiedog at 8:02 AM on June 9, 2005

I have to agree: the waiting period's not the problem - it's the reason for the waiting period. Whenever we have politicians dictating to us what "God's Design" is and whether we're in "moral rebellion", we have reason to fear.
posted by fungible at 8:31 AM on June 9, 2005

I guess this is why people have blogs: to whine about the trivial inconveniences of their lives.

posted by klangklangston at 12:11 AM EST

I see it not as a whining over a trivial inconvenience, but as anger over loss of control over your own body. I know that is my outrage over concerns such as drugs, abortion and suicide as well as the decision to use seat belts, wear a helmet, and practice certain sex acts with consenting partners. Deciding what you can and cannot do to your own body should be the most basic right inalienable by the government.

But sadly mankind has always had plenty of people who like to decide what others can and cannot do.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:22 AM on June 9, 2005

I think it's a good rule. A bit invasive, but certainly not oppressive.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:35 AM on June 9, 2005

I have no direct experience with sterilization, but I would point out that while sexism may play a part in making a tubal ligation harder to obtain than a vasectomy, it is also the case that a vasectomy is much easier to perform and to recover from. So part of the deal may be that doctors are more wary about performing the more serious surgery.

I am not especially outraged about this law, but I doubt that it's really necessary. Are people going out and getting drunk and visiting vasectomy parlors and having the operation done on a whim? Unlikely.

Also, I could say that the sort of person who doesn't think twice before having a vasectomy and later changes his mind might not be a big loss to the gene pool, but I would only be quipping, and that would be wrong.
posted by anapestic at 10:13 AM on June 9, 2005

The thirty days is to give you enough time to build up the courage to challenge your wife who was so infuriated by the pain of childbirth that she insisted you get "fixed like the dog you are"...
posted by fairmettle at 10:44 AM on June 9, 2005

fairmettle : While your statement amuses me, it's a false argument. If your wife has gone through the pain of childbirth, you don't have to wait at all! The waiting period is being questioned solely because it's reserved for childless men.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:20 AM on June 9, 2005

Welcome to the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your body. Women have been undergoing the same nanny state politics for some time. Equally infuriating was the requirement that I obtain a signed permission slip from my (now ex) husband to have my tubes tied.

Because, apparently, I'm still chattel. Or something.

/overstatement
posted by Space Kitty at 12:19 PM on June 9, 2005

Ryvar: "...and (for some reason) to the anesthesiologist before he'd assist in the operation..."

You had an anesthesiologist? All I got was a bag of frozen peas.

I suppose I should explain. This will be painful for some guys to hear, so you may want to skip the next bit.

Since I was sixteen I had what is known as chronic or recurrent testicular torsion. Basically - my balls weren't properly anchored and got twisted very easily. Every time they did so, I wound up doubled-over screaming at the top of my lungs and pounding the floor with my fist as I desperately tried not to black out from the pain. When this happens you're supposed to go to the emergency room. I did not know this, nor did my parents, so I wound up having to fiddle around with my gonads (which actually did make me pass out from pain on at least one occasion) until I got it right. After the third or fourth time (I was getting it about every six months starting when I was sixteen) I discovered that taking a hot bath worked wonders - it provided a bouyant, relaxing environment that loosened everything up enough that I could manipulate my testicles relatively painlessly until I got it right.

This continued for years. About two years back I discovered that this condition, if not treated within several hours can lead to testicular neckrosis (your balls die) and that you're supposed to go to the emergency room more or less immediately. Then, a few months ago, I started getting it WEEKLY in instead of twice a year.

I went to my doctor about all this about a month ago. Explained that I wanted to get my balls fixed, and that while I was at it I wanted to get a vasectomy as well. As I said above, he and everyone else signed off on the operation after making me justify it.

The point, in any case, was that I didn't just get the simple local anesthetic, small incision in the back you're out of the doctor's office in 45 minutes job.

I had full-blown surgery in an OR under general anesthesia, morphine after the operation for pain reduction, the works. Fortunately for me the pre-op sedative knocked me out before I was even wheeled into the OR. Several incisions were made to my scrotum - including two very large ones to the front through which each testicle was physically removed from the scrotum, observed for general health and detangled, then reinserted and physically sewn to the inside of the scrotal sack.

Needless to say, an ice pack wasn't really going to cut it. I've been on a pretty heavy dosage of prescription painkillers (oxycontin) and standard ibuprofen junk beginning the minute the morphine started to wear off. The good news is that as of tomorrow I shouldn't be bed-ridden any longer, as it has been a long week.

My waiting period, for whatever it's worth, was about two weeks.
posted by Ryvar at 12:29 PM on June 9, 2005

Missed Space Kitty's post on preview - if it makes you feel any better, I had to have my wife sign off on my vasectomy as well. They do this because of legal liability - they don't want to get caught up in any ugly marital drama.
posted by Ryvar at 12:31 PM on June 9, 2005

I see it not as a whining over a trivial inconvenience, but as anger over loss of control over your own body.

The 30-waiting period is not a restriction on his body, it's a restriction on doctors who perform vasectomies. Big difference.

Suicide is also illegal (which is basically so they can lock you up as crazy), which offends my sense of personal rights more than this.

If he performed a vasectomy on himself, would he be breaking the law? Or just busting his balls?
posted by mrgrimm at 12:39 PM on June 9, 2005

Good christ, Ryvar - not owning testicles is what makes me feel better after reading your post. I'm still cringing on your behalf, and hope you're feeling better soon.

That being said, I still don't find a man requiring his wife's permission as fraught with meaning as a wife requiring her husband's permission due to the historical inequities women have traditionally faced.

While I get that large number of laws are passed to make sure nobody ever gets sued for anything, ever - the idea of consenting adults being compelled to ask their spouse for legal permission to attend to their own medical needs... just gah.
posted by Space Kitty at 1:24 PM on June 9, 2005

As a female who has had a former relationship with a man who had a vasectomy, I much much prefer it....and NOT only for the fact that conception was prevented. I believe other females who have had the opportunity to experience sex with a sterilized male will "know what I mean" and will likely agree with me. There are some other "beneficial" side affects!

I'm not a woman. but. what on earth are you talking about?

---

Personaly, I can't stand the idea of messing with my Junk. It just seems creepy to me. However, if a guy wants to get a vasectomy, more power too 'em. But it shouldn't be a spur of the moment thing.

In some cases, a guy is going to have to think about it for a long time in which case another 30 days won't kill 'em.

In other cases, they'll decide they want it RIGHT NOW in which case, I don't think making them wait 30 days to think it over is a bad idea.
posted by delmoi at 2:17 PM on June 9, 2005

A friend's father-in-law got really drunk, went to the dentist and ordered him to take out all his teeth. And the dentist did it.

WHAAAAAAAT!?

/lil-john.
posted by delmoi at 2:20 PM on June 9, 2005

Wow. I've missed some amazing stuff on this thread.

Ryvar: Holy cow, man. That sounds worse than kidney stones, of which I live in mortal fear. I wish you a speedy recovery.

delmoi: That's even odder than a guy I knew who decided that his toenails were just too much trouble, so he had them removed. What makes this even more interesting is that he's a podiatrist.

Space Kitty: That's awful, having to get your husband's permission. I'd like to think that any decent man, in that situation, would write: To whom it may concern: My wife does not require my permission to do anything she wants to. [Signed]
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:30 PM on June 9, 2005

Faint of Butt, if he were that sort of man, it's likely we'd still be together.


As it is, I like to think I've traded up.
posted by Space Kitty at 2:47 PM on June 9, 2005

My husband's doc's name was Dr Peters.

I'm not joking.
posted by konolia at 6:33 PM on June 9, 2005

Men, you don't control your own pecker

Hence the leather harness and chain.
posted by dreamsign at 7:05 PM on June 9, 2005

Ryvar, best wishes on a speedy recovery.

SweetIceT, what are you talking about? Taste? Inquiring minds want to know.

I had a vasectomy around age 23. They seemed almost certain that I'd change my mind in late middle age and sue the heck out of them. Going on 10 years now, with a lot of friends having children I can honestly say... WoooHooo! I made the right call!
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:13 PM on June 9, 2005

Ryvar - ouch. My condolences and congratulations.
posted by deborah at 10:09 PM on June 9, 2005

Ryvar: If that episode of the Venture Brothers had come out earlier it could have saved you a bunch of trouble.



posted by Iax at 11:37 PM on June 9, 2005