So this article was forwarded to me; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2249144/Vasectomies-60-decade--husbands-refuse-make-ultimate-commitment.html ...and I am quite honestly shocked. I'm going to withhold my current frustrations at the audacity of the writer for the time being and get some sleep.
Vasectomies: A new spin
- Thread starter DevilWithaHalo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can't speak for any other man obviously but I'm actually rather annoyed that, at least in the United States it can be frustratingly difficult to even get the damn procedure done if you haven't already done your patriotic duty and given yourself a couple more mouths to feed.
To be fair, the article is comparatively balanced (I can't believe I just said that about a Daily Fail article), it's just that the title is designed to cause rage.
EDIT:
No need to thank me, helping is it's own reward.
EDIT:
Just smear your nuts in meat paste and go teabag the neighbours dog. Problem solvedDiddy_Mao said:
No need to thank me, helping is it's own reward.
It talks to people on different sides of the issue and doesn't really favour one opinion over the other. Here is an opinion, here is an opposing opinion. That is what balance means, just because you don't agree with what one of the people in the article says doesn't mean it's unbalanced. It's a shitty, leading, headline and a fairly vapid article but it's hardly saying "yeah, men are a bunch of selfish fucks for not getting the snip".Maze1125 said:
I'm sorry, but how does taking a "chiropractor and nutritionist" and implying that they're some expert on vasectomies and their psychological issues, fall under "balanced" rather than "bullshit"?Zykon TheLich said:
Balance in an article isn't just a matter of having equal numbers of quotes from each side, it's also a matter of how those quotes are presented.
Another fun quote from the article: "After years on the Pill they want to come off contraception ? perhaps for fear of its link to cancer ?"
Totally balanced and unmanipulative!
I was about to comment, then I read the source adress. Now I don't think I need to say anything more.
My theory is the OP is not British and as such not informed of the credibility of the Daily Mail. It's basically what happens if you take The Onion and pretend like it's real news.
My theory is the OP is not British and as such not informed of the credibility of the Daily Mail. It's basically what happens if you take The Onion and pretend like it's real news.
Precisely because it is bullshit. It carries no weight. How does it imply he's an expert on vasectomies and their psychological issues? It is a personal opinion that then goes on to say it has screwed up relationships after his marriage broke down.Maze1125 said:
How does that quote unbalance the article? It's the standard shoehorning in of "everything gives you cancer" from the Mail. Saying a woman is coming off the pill does not imply that the man in the relationship must then have a vasectomy.
This is not a point by point academic discussion on the issues, it's a vapid online article, it is not going to be a perfectly balanced piece exploring every single aspect. For what it is it isn't bad.
The pro and neutral explanations of the trend include:It has a guy who regretted it, a woman comparing it to women not wanting to be sterilised, personal issues regarding values of men bringing up and fathering children, people having children later in life, causing problems in future relationships, not being able to reverse it if you change your mind, the high cost of having the surgery privately if you want it reversed.
The only pro "arguments" are it's quick and easy and cheap, "might show a lack of commitment" according to some guy, it might be possible to reverse it and "I don't plan on leaving my family" from some guy.
Holy shit! A guy got dumped by Audrey Hepburn because he couldn't have kids with her. I think that pretty much counters any pro vasectomy bias you want to read into it.
You missed out this:Maze1125 said:
Also thisZykon TheLich said:
EDIT:Maze1125 said:
I shall also add, it is not a good article. It says "this thing is happening". Presents a couple of explanations for why and then adds a couple of opinions and sticks a rage and page view generating headline on it. There's no conclusion, no structured argument, no real direction to it at all.
Vasectomy reversals don't always work. The body can build antibodies towards the sperm (that is still shooting out of the vas defens into empty space) and give reduced male fertility.
As an added bonus it even stops periods.
They're harder to put in woman who haven't had babies though requiring sedation, but for women who have had babies they're done as quickly as a pap smear.
Or a progesterone IUD. Works for 5years. Minimal to no hormonal side effect as it's right at the site.Angie7F said:
As an added bonus it even stops periods.
They're harder to put in woman who haven't had babies though requiring sedation, but for women who have had babies they're done as quickly as a pap smear.
Ha!
Gotta love how everything gets blamed on the men... because we're "selfish" and all that.
We could observe other trends. Take a look at divorce rates, and beyond that, how often it is the women who are the ones petitioning for the divorces(lion share). Then consider how badly the man gets reamed in the divorce process, especially if children are involved.
If you're a man, you gotta be pretty stupid to look at this shit and not be a little concerned. You don't make a lousy offer and then act surprised when people don't happily take you up on it.
Gotta love how everything gets blamed on the men... because we're "selfish" and all that.
We could observe other trends. Take a look at divorce rates, and beyond that, how often it is the women who are the ones petitioning for the divorces(lion share). Then consider how badly the man gets reamed in the divorce process, especially if children are involved.
If you're a man, you gotta be pretty stupid to look at this shit and not be a little concerned. You don't make a lousy offer and then act surprised when people don't happily take you up on it.
Angie7F said:
Condoms aren't all that effective if you're relying on them for years, plus a lot of the intimacy is lost when you're screwing rubber. Plying yourself with hormones over years can wreak havok with your body, my doctors aren't even letting me on pills any more since I got a DVT which they reckon is a side effect of being on the contraceptive pill, and the IUD can be uncomfortable for women (my friend got one recently and says it feels like there are mini chainsaws in her uterus, she's going to stick it out for a bit and then get it removed if it's not calmed down) and also for men (my boyfriend's worried about me getting an IUD 'cause he's been with a girl who had one and apparently the strings stabbed him in the dick).WolfThomas said:
Soooo, unfortunately everything has its problems*. Personally, if they'd let me get my fallopian tubes tied while I'm childless and in my early 20s, I would do it as soon as they'd see me, but then even getting tied or snipped has its problems (despite the whole surgery thing) because your body can heal itself...
*Except homosexuality, which I hear is 100% effective protection against pregnancy with no physical side effects.
It's a choice that no-one should be forced to take, it's a lot easier if the man gets the vasectomy than if the woman gets the surgery so there's that aspect to it. There are pills and condoms, but those can fail (vasectomy might too).
It's a decision that should be made as a couple, but the man should have the final word, just like a woman is the one to decide to have an abortion.
The article is pretty stupid though, what did we expect from The Daily Mail anyway?
It's a decision that should be made as a couple, but the man should have the final word, just like a woman is the one to decide to have an abortion.
The article is pretty stupid though, what did we expect from The Daily Mail anyway?
You just blew my mind hole. I'm always surprised how the actual statistics seem to contradict the narrative.Dags90 said:
That may be the standard understanding of balanced, but as far as being factually correct, or even useful, the media needs a higher standard than balanced. If one side is wrong, or has no expertise on the subject, then their information should carry less weight than that of people with actual expertise, and evidence. We really shouldn't need to cite a medical conspiracy theorist and a homeopath as well as a GP and Oncologist to discuss cancer.Zykon TheLich said:
The article has no problem with vaguely stating "Experts" (No reference to who they are, or what amount of their field they make up [Likely they made it up]), and using "Chatrooms full of women" (A poor sample, and one which does not show the attitudes of people in general [Also, likely made up. I severely doubt they went to a random chat room. They would have to have been on one pretty specialised, and I doubt they were counting people]). It's media false balance in action, inventing two sides to an issue, to pretend at debate, to create controversy (The Daily Mail's bread and butter).
They even take this gem of a quote from some accountant or similar about his vasectomy: "And, as Stephen found, it?s not just doctors who question the wisdom of such a permanent solution.
He said: ?People do ask, what would happen if our relationship ended and I wanted another family with someone else. I?m very clear on this ? once you are married and have children, you have a responsibility to those children to stay together.
Besides, I love my wife very much and we are both passionately committed to our family."
This man has no expertise on relationships, yet his views on whether couples should stay together are being presented. Most likely because of the extremely provocative nature of the highly conservative sentiment.
The only purpose this serves is as a counterpoint to the earlier example of the man who got his vasectomy reversed, which again, serves in place of a discussion of actual evidence. They casually mention that many vasectomies can't be reversed, and then focus the discussion on commitments and the like. Because a dispassionate discussion of the evidence would not create and argument, so they go with that.