Pregnant girlfriend. WTF now?

Magdlyn said:
You don't need to tell me about the risks and benefits of hospital versus homebirth, sagency. I've been in the alternative parenting/birthing biz for over 25 years, as a La Leche League Leader. I've worked with hundreds of mothers who have had homebirths. Rest assured most homebirth outcomes are equal to, if not better than, hospital births. Bad things can happen in hospitals too. Doctors fuck up all the time.

I am glad your wife and child survived.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

We worked hard to find a hospital that allowed us to guide the process (squatting bar, birthing ball, etc.). Maybe it's just a Pacific Northwest thing, but they were super supportive of the idea of a natural, mother-centric process.
 
Thank you for this thread!!! I have found so many things that we had not thought of discussing, that we have now discussed because of these boards.

I have been having some thoughts about what would happen if our gf were to get pregnant. Would she have an abortion because she doesn't want another child? (She has a 5 year old.) Or would that not even be an option for her?

Would she expect us to help her support a child? We would, of course, if it came down to it, because both Hubby and I hate deadbeat dads. But I do know I would be very very upset if part of my husband's good paying job's paycheck went to support a child with a woman that we are no longer even seeing.

Another thing is the reality of NRE, and how everyone talks about how they will be together forever, and we always talk about relationships as if they are definitely going to work out, when in reality, that is not only not always the case, but it is rare that it does really work out. We had always talked about, "What do you mean 'if this doesn't work out'? Don't you have faith in this relationship? You are being defeatist," and instead it has turned into, "We need to talk about this relationship on the basis of 'this won't work out' when we discuss pregnancy, because it will really truly only be an issue if it happens and we aren't in the relationship anymore."

Hubby and I haven't had much PIV sex in the last 10 years. We have often done oral rather than intercourse, because of sex issues I have since spent 10 years in therapy working on. Then three years ago, I was diagnosed with uterine cancer. For two years before that sex was painful. I didn't tell my husband because, well... honestly, I hate doctors, hate going to them, have a severe fear of them, so I didn't go for regular exams. My cancer only got diagnosed because my hubby made me go to the doctor after I was sick for a long time, and finally admitted that sex was painful. Since being in remission, sex has been very hard for me, because of the changes in the chemical and hormonal systems after chemo and radiation. (I couldn't have a hysterectomy because of other medical issues.) So we haven't had sex even monthly. For a while there, we would go 6 months at a time without intercourse.

He has always used the pull-out method. This has worked, and I have been okay with it, because we are married, and if I got pregnant I would be okay with that, but it wasn't something we were trying for.

I was afraid to talk to gf about this because of fear of hurting her feelings by saying, "I don't want you to have a baby with my husband yet, if ever." But since she is also on here, I was able to show her this thread (which she had already started reading on her own-- DAMN I love this girl!!), and she said, "I will just go get that implant that lasts 3 years. If we are still together in 3 years we can revisit if we are all financially, emotionally and otherwise ready to add another child to our family." I cried, I was sooo touched that she would do that for us. Honestly, having a fear of doctors, I would never be willing to have an implant done, even for my husband. LOL

I have come to find that most, if not all, of the issues I have had in this relationship are related to the relationships in which we wanted a woman to share our lives with, and the women wanted my husband, and were tolerating me, or even worse, hating me, and telling my husband they didn't, because they knew they had to say that to keep him, because he is and has always been clear about the fact he would immediately dump any relationship that tried to break up our primary marriage. Having had these experiences, I was looking for and turning every single little thing I could into "She is trying to take your husband." I haven't had a woman that has truly loved me, and I have been very skittish about this.
 
I'm glad the forums are helping. It's always interesting how the similar experiences of others help us with our own seemingly major things.

If you and hubby are really not interested in kids, he might consider getting snipped. The procedure now is much simpler than before--easier than a dentist's visit with soreness for about two or three days. In my case it was ibuprofen level sore, nothing worse.
 
Just posted this over on my blog, for those of you who were wondering what ever became of my situation:


SvartSvensk said:
Sorry for the long gap between updates, folks.

L says she had the procedure. I offered to take her to the doctor, but she declined numerous times. She told me that she was in the hospital for a couple days because of this, combined with her other issues (cysts, etc.), but that they didn't remove any of the cysts while they were in the neighborhood, which strikes me as very odd. I've had very little contact with her since, and it took numerous calls and texts to get her to respond to me, which I suppose is understandable. Her attitude when I spoke to her suggested that in her mind the only reason she did this was "for me," even though when we originally had this discussion there were a whole host of reasons to get the abortion, most of which had nothing to do with me and my life.

Still, many things do not add up. I feel like I don't actually know anything, just what she told me, and I have no way of verifying any of her statements, which leaves me with the awkward situation of wondering if she really went through with it, if she was ever pregnant at all, if it was actually mine, etc.

I'll readily admit that L and I went bareback far too soon. I know now that she's less than trustworthy, but I didn't at the time. Perhaps I was blinded by NRE, but I also didn't have the facts that I do now with which to draw such conclusions. Condoms will be a must from here on out, for long long periods of time. *sigh*

G won't be having sex with the guy with herpes, or even making out with him anymore. We tried to get tested for it, but the doctors said that it wasn't worth testing for unless there was an outbreak, so he wouldn't order the test.

All this shit almost makes monogamy look attractive...
Click to expand...
 
Derbylicious said:
So hormonal birth control doesn't work for her and condoms don't work for you. There are still a whole host of birth control options out there (other than surgery). Some of the options that immediately spring to mind are an IUD and the diaphragm. If you are both disease-free, either of these would be a good option (and they're both pretty effective at preventing pregnancy too).
Click to expand...

I've used VCF film for 12 years now, with no problems/pregnancies. It's a thin little piece of clear soft material, like Saran Wrap. It's made by the people who make VCF foam. Very convenient, cuz you can put it up, ahead of time, or right before. This at least takes care of birth control, not diseases. They can be purchased at Walmart or a drug store, about $13.00 for 9.

The advice I would give on these is to make sure when inserted, you feel that they are all the way up. I have had them stick to my finger, and come back down. The best way to avoid this is to wet your finger with water first. The man can't feel them. Yeah! And neither can the girl. This is a great method for those who don't like condoms, want fluid bonding, but don't want pregnancy. They also work well for girls who truly don't want to get pregnant. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
I'm about as unpolitically correct as they come. I would opt for "mentally retarded son." Why? Because that's what he is. Developmentally disabled? Really? The body/mind is/was retarded in its growth. It was not "disabled." "Disabled" indicates that it was rendered useless. Obviously, if the person is living and breathing, then that simply is not the case. To "retard" something, indicated that it was not allowed to come to its full maturation, which usually is the case in the instance of "mental retardation." Why call a heart a spade, when it clearly is not?
 
TL4everu2 said:
I'm about as unpolitically correct as they come. I would opt for "mentally retarded son."
Click to expand...

Couple of things here, not getting on your case, just explaining in case anyone is wondering.

I think retard and retarded probably have such negative connotations associated with them, that it's not polite to use them, even in conjunction with the "proper" words. For example, people hear "mentally retarded" and automatically jump to the noun "retard." There was a case in another thread where someone, in passing, referred to poly as a deviant lifestyle. While the deviant part (let's not get into "lifestyle," I think that's been beaten to death! ;)) is technically, dictionary-definition correct, that word is so negatively charged that a number of folks took offense to its use. Same deal with retard/retarded, in my opinion.

Second, it's not polite to put the disability before the person. When you do that, you're defining the person by their disability, when they are really a person first. So, instead of saying "the blind man," it's better to say "the man with a visual impairment." Person, then disability in sentence.

And of course all this goes out the window when you actually meet someone with a disability (notice how I didn't say a disabled person!), if they are able to articulate how they would like to be labelled/defined/etc.

Anyway, that's my politically-correct speech for the month. I now return you to TruckerPete.
 
It's common to see scientific language shift when a term used in popular culture becomes identified with insult. "Retard", "retarded", "deviant", all perfect examples of this. Often this is part of humane treatment of their subjects/patients, but it can also be to remove negative stigma from a field, or separate the academic study of something from its base nature (which is inherently pretentious), i.e., "Human Sexuality," rather than "fuckology."

The battle then becomes one between those who are inherently uncompromisingly opposed to pretense, and those who value the separation of academia from human baseness (or the humane treatment of their patients) more than they are opposed to being pretentious. Some people are willing to shift terminology, realizing that it's ultimately semantic, so it's best to be humane, whereas others are attached to it and will fight for the perceived sacredness of a word, despite widespread negative stigma attached to it.

As for myself, I entirely understand both sides, and am always annoyed when the scientific community feels obligated to change its terminology because of something the masses have latched onto, or even when a word in common usage becomes so negatively charged that an entirely new term must be used lest one inflict emotional pain on another. As annoying and inconvenient as this is (especially given some of the PC terms floating around these days, eesh), I will typically guard my tongue to spare the feelings of others, because hurting peoples' feelings to avoid an expansion of vocabulary is simply counterproductive.

I am also not terribly in favor of pretentious BS, and never understood calling someone with a degree and a welding torch an "engineer" vs calling someone without a degree, but with the same torch a "welder" or "fabricator."

That being said, I also understand that it's nearly impossible to have a serious discussion about something when the mention of a word makes an entire room full of people giggle, or riles the emotions of one or more participants. You can't have a scientific discussion of farts, but you can about flatulence (though perhaps barely).
 
TL4everu2 said:
I'm about as unpolitically correct as they come. I would opt for "mentally retarded son." Why? Because that's what he is. Developmentally disabled? really? The body/mind is/was retarded in its growth. It was not "disabled."
Click to expand...
TruckerPete said:
For example, people hear "mentally retarded" and automatically jump to the noun "retard."

Second, it's not polite to put the disability before the person. When you do that, you're defining the person by their disability, when they are really a person first.

And of course all this goes out the window when you actually meet someone with a disability (notice how I didn't say a disabled person!), if they are able to articulate how they would like to be labelled/defined/etc.
Click to expand...
SvartSvensk said:
the scientific community feels obligated to change its terminology because of something the masses have latched onto, or even when a word in common usage becomes so negatively charged that an entirely new term must be used lest one inflict emotional pain on another.

I will typically guard my tongue to spare the feelings of others, because hurting peoples' feelings to avoid an expansion of vocabulary is simply counterproductive.
Click to expand...

This! :)

There isn't always a "retardation" of the brain. So that is not valid for a whole population. There are chromosome differences, different syndromes that occur due to genetics. Actually, most of the people I serve suffer from different mental illnesses too, not to mention physical disabilities, hearing, seeing, and verbal impairments. It's not always evident in meeting someone what they are dealing with. I work with a few who were beaten as children until they became disabled, and one that I know of that had a really bad fever. There is little to no "retardation" about it. Back in the day, they thought that, but now it is known that there are other things at play. So they abandoned ship on that one, as much as it became a word to call someone stupid and with a lower IQ so much so that they couldn't achieve things.

The other thing is what TuckerPete pointed out. It's important to put the person before the disability so as to inspire continued learning and growing in them. There is no reason to cause concern in them that they are in some way not capable, because in actual fact, persons dealing with cognitive/developmental disabilities have taught me more about living than any "normal"-brained people. They are often "smarter" about things that others aren't. They are more themselves, more caring and giving most of the time, and have made me the patient and loving person I am, just because they have conjured up my realization that I need to care about others as much as I do myself.

In this case, I think that a heart is a heart, and a spade is a spade, they just are not evidently so. Thanks for being honest about your ignorance in this, TL4. I hope this helps you understand more.

Man, this thread is off topic, isn't it? :p I am finding it rather humorous, at this point.
 
Esperanza said:
I can't use an IUD because I've never had a baby.
Click to expand...

I've never been pregnant, and I've had an IUD for three years. I know a girl who got one when she was fifteen (never had a kid either). Actually the one I have is smaller especially to be more practical for women who have never had kids and have a smaller womb (as a result it lasts 5 years instead of 10).

But unless your gynecologist tells you, "Your uterus is tiny. There's no way you, personally, could wear a regular IUD. You need the smaller type," you can just wear the exact same one as women who've had kids, too.

So, don't let anyone use it as an excuse. Many doctors aren't used to IUDs because they're not used as often as birth control, and mostly used by women who have had kids and don't want more, but it's certainly not a requirement. If your doctor says "can't give you one, you've never had kids", look for another doctor.

EDIT: from wikipedia:

While nulliparous women (women who have never given birth) are somewhat more likely to have side effects, this is not a contraindication for IUD use. Overall, IUDs are safe and acceptable also in young nulliparous women.[29] The same is likely the case for virgin women, unless there is a microperforate hymen that obstructs any insertion of the IUD.
Click to expand...

The increased risks include a higher risk of expelling it (which is also the case for women who have just given birth or had an abortion). I personally have had no problems, and when I replace it I'm planning to go for a model that lasts ten years instead.
 
Last edited:
Esperanza said:
Of course, I could stay away from him, and stick with the women instead. Does anyone know any other options?
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of males that have decided they're done having kids getting snipped.

Let's see, birth control methods: male condoms, female condoms, films, foams, IUDs, diaphragms, pills, subdural implants, birth control patches, abortion, withdrawal (really? um, ok...), crocodile dung (ancient Egyptian tech, yo--probably more effective than withdrawal), crossing fingers, crossing legs, vaginal rings, abstinence (what?), lactational amenorrhea, the rhythm method, hearing Diane Rehm's voice in your head until your erection is useless... I think that's pretty much all of your options.
 
redpepper said:
Man this thread is off topic, isn't it!? :p I am finding it rather humorous at this point.
Click to expand...

Sometimes using a universally understood, though universally inaccurate term gets the point across. Thanks for the unending waves of clarification, education, and loving derision.

That said, if folks here have not read anything by Temple Grandin, she's a high-functioning autistic... dammit... If I don't include the word "person" at all does it count for the word order folks? She's a person who functions highly while living with autism. Person. Better? (Not really, it sounds like Temple has a roommate named Autism. Oh, academics, what have you done to our pitiful language?) Anyway, Temple Grandin's books are fascinating, as well as insightful. The HBO movie, while interesting, doesn't convey much of how she can help us understand the world better.

Thanking In Pictures or Emergence would be the top of the recommended reading list, if interested.
 
sagency said:
I'm a big fan of males that have decided they're done having kids getting snipped.
Click to expand...

For that matter, although more intrusive and harder to get a doctor to agree too, female sterilisation is an option too for women who don't want (more) kids. You have surgical versions (getting your tubes tied) and non-surgical ones (Essure and equivalent, going through the vagina to block the tubes).
I guess a hysterectomy would qualify as well but I doubt doctors would agree to it in the absence of something such as cancer.
 
Esperanza said:
Thank you for the info. My friend tried to have an IUD inside her for several months and she loved it but then she had serious issues with it and she had to have it removed, and afterwards she was told by a doctor she wasn't supposed to have an IUD in unless she'd had a recent full term pregnancy/birth. But I guess that's just an individual experience, apparently, and it was the 5 years IUD. Anyway, that was where I got my inaccurate info from. Thanks for setting me straight.
Click to expand...

No worries. If you want to try an IUD but are worried about such things happening with you, you can have a doctor measure your womb to see which size would work for you, or if it is too small for IUDs altogether. Which is possible (and possibly what happened to your friend), but not the norm for women who haven't had children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top