Nice rant. However, presumably you made the choice to go on hormonal BC because to you it was a preferable risk to pregnancy, and despite your worst-case scenario it may be less likely to kill you than either pregnancy or abortion (in which case complaining “This could kill me!” is a logical fallacy), and many women find that they experience fewer mood swings and lighter bleeding than when they leave their hormones to their own devices (and hormonal BC is often prescribed for exactly that reason). It’s something you’re doing for your own benefit, not ours - BC or not, you will have sex when you’re good and ready, and insofar as we benefit, it’s by being the ones you graciously permit to gratify your sexual desires. The money that you lightly speak of us handing over when you demand it is getting on for twenty times likelier to cost our lives to earn it, too. So spare us the menstrual rage and turn your sense of entitlement down a notch.
Actually, a lot of women go on hormonal birth control because they aren’t informed of the alternatives, and doctors really push the pill.
When I was sixteen a doctor, out of the blue, started writing me a script for the pill despite the fact I told him I was still virgin, had no boyfriend, and did not intend to have sex for quite awhile. He said I should be on it anyway. I asked if he had even spoken to my parents about it and he said no, and I shouldn’t tell my parents. I asked him if he was aware of the rampant, early-onset heart disease in my family and he discounted that risk factor. I went to the waiting room and told my mother (who had started having heart problems at 30 and had had to go off the pill for medical reasons) that this doctor was trying to force me onto the pill. Argument ensued, and needless to say we did not return to that doctor.
All through my pre-marriage years doctors kept trying to get me on to the pill, they would not discuss alternatives, and refused to even discuss my concerns about family heart disease or my two cousins who were nearly killed by blood clots while taking the pill. They completely discounted my concerns about being at high risk for cardiovascular complications. I had to do all my own research on alternative methods (and used them)
Post marriage, doctors stil tried to put me on the pill, despite the fact my husband is sterile - for the first 10 years of marriage it was “well, you can never be sure”. He’s been evaluated by a doctor, he’s shooting blanks, m’kay? When I made it clear I didn’t need to worry about birth control in my marriage I got everything from “well, you might want to cheat, after all, your husband is disabled and you might want a normal man” 
:eek::rolleyes: to “it will put your cycles on a more normal interval” - this in reference to my natural cycle being five weeks, not four. Explain to me why I want to bleed more often??? I have never had a problem with emotional roller coaster, extreme cramps, bloating… in fact, my reproductive organs are remarkably UNtroublesome (knock on wood) so why would I want to mess with that? It’s like doctors can’t comprehend that there are perfectly healthy women who either don’t want or shouldn’t be on the pill. It’s become a “good for what ails you” tonic.
Seriously, I don’t think men understand how much the pill is pushed on women.
And a lot of women don’t have extreme mood swings or heavy bleeding on their own. This is exactly my point - it’s held up as a cure-all tonic for everything that ails a woman. It’s not. It’s birth control first and foremost, even if some of the side effects might be side benefits for some women. I see that you’ve taken hook, line, and sinker on the pill being some sort of vitamin pill/cure all for women. Try doing a little more research on the topic - or just shrug and say “not my problem” as you have been doing.
The so-called “non-deciding” partner can make decisions: to use the most effective form of birth control possible, or more than one form, or not to have sex with a woman who doesn’t mind getting pregnant and who won’t abort. No one is forcing him to have sex with the OP, and she has been honest with him, which is not a given. If you’re railing against a man’s lack of rights when a woman is already pregnant, it would seem logical for a man to support that woman when she wants to use birth control that is highly effective in preventing it, not cop an attitude and only agree to pay for the cheaper, less effective kind. Knowing that you’ll be on the hook for child support, you’re kind of shooting yourself in the foot with that reaction.
Incur the small expense now or risk incurring a much larger expense later. If I felt like I was disenfranchised from the later deciding, I would definitely pony up to help prevent that situation in the most foolproof way possible. This is not the area of life in which to be a cheapskate or to passively-aggressively protest abortion rights.
A vote here for getting off the boyfriend’s back. For whatever reason, at the current point in time he’d rather put up with the more inconvenient method to save the money.
And that he’s willing to use condoms seems to indicate that he’s perfectly willing to accept the appropriate responsibility. Perhaps the OP wants to go back to him and explain why (she thinks) condoms are not a viable alternative.
And you using condoms - a gay friend once gave my wife and I a “condom toolbox” that contained a variety of sizes, shapes and styles. Much fun was had trying them all. He got it from some sort of free place - not sure where.
We used condoms for a year or more, and never had even one break - so yes, two breakages in six weeks I think they may well be doing something wrong and need to have a closer look at how they are using the condoms.
Where do you see me railing? Or even using strong language?
And I can point you to tons of threads where a man who is obligated to pay his child support is not doing it and yet nothing is happening to him, so it’s not a guranteed millstone.
Let’s turn this around and say what if he has an STD? Should she then split the cost of condoms with him? Or pay half of his Valtrex prescription?
I’m always impressed by the willingness of people on straightdope to impose the lessons of their own experience on other people’s problems without stopping to think. I mean seriously folks, did you read the thread? What we have here is a guy who is consistently economically over-contributing to the relationship. Yes he’s doing that in the domain of food and dinners out, but I can’t imagine that her share of that stuff (that he’s paying for) amounts to less than his share of BC (which she is paying for). It sounds like the OP realized this a page ago and became much more understanding of his position. Anyone willing to throw a temper tantrum on “principle” in these circumstances is just being silly.
I’m not sure what it is with relationship threads and parenting threads. It’s like people have been emailing around lists of “rules” and somehow people haven’t noticed that real life is more complicated.
You’re making the rather illogical claim that, because you have no control over the situation once she gets pregnant, you shouldn’t have to pay for birth control. I would think, if you’re so against conception, you’d be overjoyed to have found a woman who is willing to use a highly effective method of birth control. $15 a month is not a lot of money to participate in a choice you agree with, if you feel so strongly about your lack of choice in other areas.
If you’re not going to be a deadbeat and you intend to be gainfully employed, you’re on the hook.
Yes, she should split the cost of condoms with him if he asks her to. As for Valtrex, well, that’s not the same thing, is it? Really, the crux of this is that you’re upset because you have no say in what happens after a woman gets pregnant. Well, you have choices before, and the OP offers her boyfriend a very reasonable and reliable one. Instead of being resentful of the very minimal expense because you’re irritated by the injustice of the human reproductive and legal systems, pony up the $15 and be glad that your partner is on the same page with you.
ETA: this whole discussion isn’t really directed at the OP, per se. She and her partner seem to have come to an agreement. It’s directed at crazyjoe, who is saying that, because he has no choice in how a woman handles her pregnancy, he feels justified in not contributing to birth control. That line of reasoning just does not make sense to me.
That’s a pretty interesting point. I think if a guy was on valtrex and hit some wall were he could no longer afford it, then asking to split the cost of the prescription would at least be worth talking about.
I should point out that I don’t know much about non transmission of herpes, I’ve never had to know luckily. But if the only way to prevent transmission is for the infected partner to take valtrex, and cost becomes an issue for them, I think it should be open to discussion. We’re both going to benefit from it in a way.
Wow that’s nice. The fact that I analyzed the situation I’m in and the consequences of actions I engage in means I’m trying to get pregnant?
Hardly. I’m intelligent enough to think past just the immediate effect of unprotected sex - pregnancy. I realize beyond that there’s a small human who needs to be raised, loved and protected. That’s not something I am ready for, on so many levels. But it would be irresponsible of me to say “I don’t want an abortion” and not think about what happens when the kid gets here.
And yet, that somehow means I’m going to intentionally get pregnant :rolleyes:
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
I was probably a little bit over the top when I wrote that, but then again, I was an Angry Lurker 
This is basically exactly what I was saying.
P.S. Cheers Malacandra (bolded to keep Quasimondeo happy :p)
Thanks for that tirade, Broomstick. Damned POS diary didn’t mention it was Scream At Mal Day today so the heads-up came in handy. But this thread was about women who opt for hormonal BC of their own volition, and whether men should subsidise their choices. If you want to start a thread called My 30 Years Of Ob-Gyn Woes (And Why It’s All Stupid Male Doctors’ Fault) I believe you’ll find a suitable forum just two doors to the south of here.
See, I know this is the Dope, where “My exceptional instance invalidates your general principle” is pretty much an article of faith, but it is nevertheless the case that the Pill and similar methods are often prescribed for relief of lady-troubles first, contraception second. As a counter to your tale of woe I can cite Mrs M, who went on Mirena last year and it wasn’t until I did a little research that it dawned on her she had stumbled on a highly effective contraceptive - she went on it for menstrual problems. An ex-gf of mine went on the Pill for contraception, but found that while it changed her natural 5-week cycle to 4 weeks, it greatly reduced the severity of the cramps she got, which formerly meant her taking a day or two off work every time she got her period. A friend of hers was also on the Pill for cramps, and another lady-friend had no problems with it, only complained because she felt it made her feel “sexually available” rather than liberated. So for every scare story like yours or like CCL’s “blood-sweat-tears-you men should feel grateful when you’re asked to just pay for it” lament, it seems like there might be a counterbalancing story where, as I said, it actually helps rather than hinders, as well as the actual contraceptive benefit. As for what the figures might actually be, I’ll accept any reputable peer-reviewed study…
…and it would still be only tangential to the point of this thread which, once again, was about women who choose of their own free will to prefer such a method.
I just cannot understand why a man would have an issue with this choice. The woman is opting for the most effective method of preventing conception. I’d think you’d be relieved to find out that a woman was willing to take such measures, because you certainly couldn’t force her to do it, and it takes the onus of contraception off you. If I were a guy, I’d be a lot more nervous/annoyed by women who refused to use such methods, esp. if they were also against abortion.
Having said that, I have never asked a man to pay for my contraception, but I’ve also always had insurance so the expense was minimal.
Oh, I quite agree, and now we’ve been over the OP’s situ and established that her SO does pay his way in their relationship, I think we’re all generally happy - she is making more than her daily dollar in terms of other expenses, so it’s all working out fair. Brit-side, contraception is free-at-point-of-use on the NHS so it tends not to be much of an issue over here, but if it weren’t I’d be more than happy to help out. It’s just that I’m funny about how I’m asked, and if it were a “cough up or be cut off or dumped” ultimatum like has been propounded several times in this thread even after it’s been established that the boyf is paying his way already, I’d be kinda like this → :dubious:
Addendum - However, when I’ve been the sole provider of contraception before now, it never occurred to me for an instant to say “Here, you’re getting half the benefit - stump up half the cash, now”.
My bigger problem would be that he didn’t see it as “their” problem rather than “her” problem. In a relatively serious relationship, if I, for whatever reason, felt like I wouldn’t be able to pay for birth control any longer, I’d be livid if my boyfriend weren’t willing to help me out with it, yet didn’t mind taking me out to dinner. For me, it’s about priorities, not sexism; if he felt that me being stressed out about being able to even afford effective contraception was preferable to talking to me about what we could do together to budget for it, I’d be rethinking the relationship… not because he’s getting half the benefit, but because that kind of help is what people who care about you are supposed to do. A relationship where getting help with frigging birth control was a fight would not be a relationship I would be happy with.
Malacandra, I agree that frequently the advice here can be very quick to go to the “Dump him!” I once posted a thread asking about the fairness of household chores, because my husband and I disagreed, and people were telling me to divorce him. Um, no.
However, I also agree with this:
I’d much rather forego dinner out once or twice a month to insure a highly effective means of birth control, and can’t fathom someone who wouldn’t, unless they wanted a baby.
Actually, I haven’t had a period in a few years, but nice try. I give you a 0 for reading comprehension, but 10 for rudeness and condescension.
This kind of stuff is exactly why women tend to get so shirty about a guy flatly refusing to help pay for birth control. Crawl up out of your “anybody who disagrees with me is an entitled, menstrual, man-hating psycho-bitch” mind-set for two goddamn seconds and talk about this rationally.
We’re talking about why women get shirty about a guy refusing to chip in for bc if asked. There absolutely is a sense of disbelief that somebody would let you shoulder all the physical cost and risk, the risk if it fails, and then actually consider himself ill-used at being asked to share the financial cost. Why would a guy do that? Well, he’s either a jackass who feels entitled to sex without having to contribute anything, or he doesn’t realize what he’s doing.
My point was that a lot, maybe most guys, honestly don’t realize that’s what they’re doing. They have no fucking clue what sort of side effects hormonal birth control can have, beyond “my sister went on it to help with her periods.” They are totally ignorant of the fact that birth control can actually make your bleeding heavier (or non-stop, for the progestin-only methods) or your cramps worse, or make you retain so much water it hurts to make a fist. And that’s just the common stuff that will make you miserable, not the rare stuff that will make you dead. Men tend to just not realize how shitty* not getting pregnant can be, so they ask for what seems really massively unfair to someone who does realize how shitty it can be–ie, for us to take all the side effects and risks, and shell out all the money, with no affect on their pocketbooks or flow of sex.
Because let’s look at the names the OP has been called here–if she cuts him off because he won’t shell out for bc, she’s manipulative and whorish, and if she asks him to shell out, she’s entitled and greedy. It looks like the only option that will keep her from getting insulted is to rearrange her budget and keep putting out, no matter what kind of strain that puts her in.
*Yeah, it’s generally less shitty than getting pregnant. Big deal. Being less shitty than Option B doesn’t mean Option A isn’t shitty.
Well, delete “menstrual”, insert “menopausal”, then, if that’s better in accordance with the facts. But as to “anyone who disagrees with me”, then I think a quick look back up the thread should disabuse you of that notion, and you may care to consider more carefully. F’rinstance, you might get more respect back if you, I dunno, handed some out.
Take that broad-brush about guys having no clue beyond some anecdote about their sister. You really think I’ve lived all my life without, say, having read something in, perhaps, one of the more literate women’s magazines, or a health article in a science journal - possibly even written by a woman doctor? You think you’ve got scientific objectivity on your side and all I’ve got is hearsay, and I just pick out whatever piece of it happens to support my position? And I’m the one being dismissive?
I only think the OP is being entitled and greedy if she ignores the rest of the upkeep she’s getting from her SO and focusses only on the extra dollar a day she is having to shell out. You can stick up for her right to do so if you like, but she had a change of heart a while back.
And yeah. If you, of your own free will, pick the option that’s not only better than pregnancy but, for many women if not all, better than the default state of their hormones, you don’t get to whine about how shitty it is in order to guilt us into paying for it. Like I said above, I’ll quite likely pay up if my sense of fairness thinks it’s warranted; I won’t be guilted into it by some sob story about how terrible it makes you feel and no man can hope to understand it and I should be grateful to you for keeping the “flow of sex” going -
And does that really happen? Like I said, in my limited experience sex happens when the woman decides she happens to feel like it, and I really don’t understand why you’d talk as though it was something that women give and men get.
You’re on crack
Typical bloke just doesn’t think like that, mostly because we don’t think so deeply about such nonsense. Going livid fer christs sake!!!