vasectomy recovery time - Page 9 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

01-18-2005, 05:38 PM

"Maggie" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>> A man going under the knife to get neutered is not a man. If the
>pill
>> is not an option (though the side effects are great) they can use the
>> rhythm or withdrawal methods
>> although a real man saying "I'll pull out" is as likely as a real man
>> getting the cut. Teens get knocked up cuz theyre stupid . In the
>40's
>> its also stupidity- look at the calendar can prevent most
>pregnancies.
>> And if people are married who cares if another child comes along?

>How old are you? 12?

Don't feed the troll, Maggie... you'll just encourage him to say other
outrageous things that will get your knickers in a twist (oops, was
that PC?). ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

01-18-2005, 07:32 PM

Bill Baka wrote:
> M. Barbee wrote:
>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>
>>> When my dog was neutered he was fine within a couple of days. Why
>>> would any self respecting MAN get himself fixed? If you are in a
>>> committed relationship it is your duty to tell your woman to get on the
>>> pill. If not you have to bag it anyway to prevent getting skanked and
>>> that will prevent pregancy . Think about how you will feel walking
>>> around knowing you are shooting blanks. You'll probably feel alot like
>>> a fixed dog. They lose something after being fixed. You will too.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps most people no that this is total nonsense, but in case
>> someone doesn't: I lost nothing. In fact, I'm better because I'm
>> more relaxed since there's no worry about "my woman" getting
>> pregnant. No worry about the condom breaking. No worry about her
>> "forgetting" to take the pill or something going wrong with the pill.
>> In fact, if you tell "your woman" to get on the pill, and she agrees,
>> there is a chance for side effects that effect her libido. No need to
>> risk this and other side effects now. Any self respecting MAN, who
>> knows he never wants to have children or never wants to have any more
>> children, would take responsibility for the contraception and not try
>> to shift his responsibility onto "his woman." A condom is one
>> option. A vasectomy is another.
>
>
> I am not 'fixed' since I only had one daughter but I have heard tales of
> accidental pregnancies, so would probably advise the female half to use
> the pill too. My daughter is 26 and tells her mom (not me) about her sex
> life and broken condoms (details left out) so to be as safe as possible
> you would want to use a vasectomy, pill, condom approach. Kind of like
> biking, be prepared for what could go wrong. Since there are nasties
> like AIDs out there, it is better to err on the safe side. Worrying
> about getting my wife pregnant is now a non issue since we are both in
> our 55~60 stage. Only problem is that men never stop being able to start
> off a new life and that could lead to a really hard to explain situation.
> Proceed with caution,
> Bill Baka

I agree no method of contraception is 100% effective. I am aware that
condoms, pills and vasectomies fail, but vasectomy failure is less 1%.
Sometimes the tube grows back together. My doctor in addition to the
usual cutting and cauterizing, bent the tubes away from each other. I
went back for both of my post procedure sperm counts, even though my
doctor said most of his patients disappear after the first count. Some
of the failures associated with other methods like the pill and
contraception are caused by improper use of the contraceptive
(forgetting to take the pill one day, putting the condom on too late or
improperly...). That isn't a concern with a vasectomy. The risk is as
low as possible barring abstinence, and I can live with that level or risk.

On the other hand, STD's are real. I am married, but if I were not, I'd
definitely be using a condom as well with any woman with whom I were
having sexual activity.

01-18-2005, 07:32 PM

Bill Baka wrote:
> M. Barbee wrote:
>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>
>>> When my dog was neutered he was fine within a couple of days. Why
>>> would any self respecting MAN get himself fixed? If you are in a
>>> committed relationship it is your duty to tell your woman to get on the
>>> pill. If not you have to bag it anyway to prevent getting skanked and
>>> that will prevent pregancy . Think about how you will feel walking
>>> around knowing you are shooting blanks. You'll probably feel alot like
>>> a fixed dog. They lose something after being fixed. You will too.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps most people no that this is total nonsense, but in case
>> someone doesn't: I lost nothing. In fact, I'm better because I'm
>> more relaxed since there's no worry about "my woman" getting
>> pregnant. No worry about the condom breaking. No worry about her
>> "forgetting" to take the pill or something going wrong with the pill.
>> In fact, if you tell "your woman" to get on the pill, and she agrees,
>> there is a chance for side effects that effect her libido. No need to
>> risk this and other side effects now. Any self respecting MAN, who
>> knows he never wants to have children or never wants to have any more
>> children, would take responsibility for the contraception and not try
>> to shift his responsibility onto "his woman." A condom is one
>> option. A vasectomy is another.
>
>
> I am not 'fixed' since I only had one daughter but I have heard tales of
> accidental pregnancies, so would probably advise the female half to use
> the pill too. My daughter is 26 and tells her mom (not me) about her sex
> life and broken condoms (details left out) so to be as safe as possible
> you would want to use a vasectomy, pill, condom approach. Kind of like
> biking, be prepared for what could go wrong. Since there are nasties
> like AIDs out there, it is better to err on the safe side. Worrying
> about getting my wife pregnant is now a non issue since we are both in
> our 55~60 stage. Only problem is that men never stop being able to start
> off a new life and that could lead to a really hard to explain situation.
> Proceed with caution,
> Bill Baka

I agree no method of contraception is 100% effective. I am aware that
condoms, pills and vasectomies fail, but vasectomy failure is less 1%.
Sometimes the tube grows back together. My doctor in addition to the
usual cutting and cauterizing, bent the tubes away from each other. I
went back for both of my post procedure sperm counts, even though my
doctor said most of his patients disappear after the first count. Some
of the failures associated with other methods like the pill and
contraception are caused by improper use of the contraceptive
(forgetting to take the pill one day, putting the condom on too late or
improperly...). That isn't a concern with a vasectomy. The risk is as
low as possible barring abstinence, and I can live with that level or risk.

On the other hand, STD's are real. I am married, but if I were not, I'd
definitely be using a condom as well with any woman with whom I were
having sexual activity.

01-18-2005, 07:32 PM

Bill Baka wrote:
> M. Barbee wrote:
>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>
>>> When my dog was neutered he was fine within a couple of days. Why
>>> would any self respecting MAN get himself fixed? If you are in a
>>> committed relationship it is your duty to tell your woman to get on the
>>> pill. If not you have to bag it anyway to prevent getting skanked and
>>> that will prevent pregancy . Think about how you will feel walking
>>> around knowing you are shooting blanks. You'll probably feel alot like
>>> a fixed dog. They lose something after being fixed. You will too.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps most people no that this is total nonsense, but in case
>> someone doesn't: I lost nothing. In fact, I'm better because I'm
>> more relaxed since there's no worry about "my woman" getting
>> pregnant. No worry about the condom breaking. No worry about her
>> "forgetting" to take the pill or something going wrong with the pill.
>> In fact, if you tell "your woman" to get on the pill, and she agrees,
>> there is a chance for side effects that effect her libido. No need to
>> risk this and other side effects now. Any self respecting MAN, who
>> knows he never wants to have children or never wants to have any more
>> children, would take responsibility for the contraception and not try
>> to shift his responsibility onto "his woman." A condom is one
>> option. A vasectomy is another.
>
>
> I am not 'fixed' since I only had one daughter but I have heard tales of
> accidental pregnancies, so would probably advise the female half to use
> the pill too. My daughter is 26 and tells her mom (not me) about her sex
> life and broken condoms (details left out) so to be as safe as possible
> you would want to use a vasectomy, pill, condom approach. Kind of like
> biking, be prepared for what could go wrong. Since there are nasties
> like AIDs out there, it is better to err on the safe side. Worrying
> about getting my wife pregnant is now a non issue since we are both in
> our 55~60 stage. Only problem is that men never stop being able to start
> off a new life and that could lead to a really hard to explain situation.
> Proceed with caution,
> Bill Baka

I agree no method of contraception is 100% effective. I am aware that
condoms, pills and vasectomies fail, but vasectomy failure is less 1%.
Sometimes the tube grows back together. My doctor in addition to the
usual cutting and cauterizing, bent the tubes away from each other. I
went back for both of my post procedure sperm counts, even though my
doctor said most of his patients disappear after the first count. Some
of the failures associated with other methods like the pill and
contraception are caused by improper use of the contraceptive
(forgetting to take the pill one day, putting the condom on too late or
improperly...). That isn't a concern with a vasectomy. The risk is as
low as possible barring abstinence, and I can live with that level or risk.

On the other hand, STD's are real. I am married, but if I were not, I'd
definitely be using a condom as well with any woman with whom I were
having sexual activity.

01-18-2005, 09:49 PM

Maggie wrote:
>
> > 4) When one is in their 50's they do not necessarily want a baby
> > around; having a child hit puberty when one is retiring is not
> > necessarily a good thing.>
> > - rick
>
> What a scary thought. If you have a baby at 45 you will have a
> teenager when you are in your sixties......Oh my God. I hardly made it
> through my kids teenage years and I got married when I was a mere
> child. I was in my thirties when they were in the hell of puberty.
> Early forties for my last one going through puberty. If I had one
> going through all that now that I am 50, I think I might shoot myself.
> I want grandchildren. The kind you get to spoil and send home with
> their parents. It doesn't get any better than that.
> Maggie.

The sad thing is a lot of the "grandparents" today in their later 50s
and 60s are (now) saddled (not quite the word I want to use) to raise
their grandchildren because their own child(ren) didn't or couldn't
properly support and care for their children (the grandkids), or perhaps
the middle generation refused to accept/honor responsibilty,
whatever(?). In most cases, it's the child(ren) who suffers.

Unfortunately, it seems that more and more "grandparents" now have to
raise their grandkids because their own children are unable to properly
care for them???

scarey thought/times.

Skyhooks
hmardis "a h t " ui uc "dau ght" e d u

01-18-2005, 09:49 PM

Maggie wrote:
>
> > 4) When one is in their 50's they do not necessarily want a baby
> > around; having a child hit puberty when one is retiring is not
> > necessarily a good thing.>
> > - rick
>
> What a scary thought. If you have a baby at 45 you will have a
> teenager when you are in your sixties......Oh my God. I hardly made it
> through my kids teenage years and I got married when I was a mere
> child. I was in my thirties when they were in the hell of puberty.
> Early forties for my last one going through puberty. If I had one
> going through all that now that I am 50, I think I might shoot myself.
> I want grandchildren. The kind you get to spoil and send home with
> their parents. It doesn't get any better than that.
> Maggie.

The sad thing is a lot of the "grandparents" today in their later 50s
and 60s are (now) saddled (not quite the word I want to use) to raise
their grandchildren because their own child(ren) didn't or couldn't
properly support and care for their children (the grandkids), or perhaps
the middle generation refused to accept/honor responsibilty,
whatever(?). In most cases, it's the child(ren) who suffers.

Unfortunately, it seems that more and more "grandparents" now have to
raise their grandkids because their own children are unable to properly
care for them???

scarey thought/times.

Skyhooks
hmardis "a h t " ui uc "dau ght" e d u

01-18-2005, 09:49 PM

Maggie wrote:
>
> > 4) When one is in their 50's they do not necessarily want a baby
> > around; having a child hit puberty when one is retiring is not
> > necessarily a good thing.>
> > - rick
>
> What a scary thought. If you have a baby at 45 you will have a
> teenager when you are in your sixties......Oh my God. I hardly made it
> through my kids teenage years and I got married when I was a mere
> child. I was in my thirties when they were in the hell of puberty.
> Early forties for my last one going through puberty. If I had one
> going through all that now that I am 50, I think I might shoot myself.
> I want grandchildren. The kind you get to spoil and send home with
> their parents. It doesn't get any better than that.
> Maggie.

The sad thing is a lot of the "grandparents" today in their later 50s
and 60s are (now) saddled (not quite the word I want to use) to raise
their grandchildren because their own child(ren) didn't or couldn't
properly support and care for their children (the grandkids), or perhaps
the middle generation refused to accept/honor responsibilty,
whatever(?). In most cases, it's the child(ren) who suffers.

Unfortunately, it seems that more and more "grandparents" now have to
raise their grandkids because their own children are unable to properly
care for them???

scarey thought/times.

Skyhooks
hmardis "a h t " ui uc "dau ght" e d u

01-19-2005, 02:52 AM

Skyhooks wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
> >
> > > 4) When one is in their 50's they do not necessarily want a baby
> > > around; having a child hit puberty when one is retiring is not
> > > necessarily a good thing.>
> > > - rick
> >
> > What a scary thought. If you have a baby at 45 you will have a
> > teenager when you are in your sixties......Oh my God. I hardly made
it
> > through my kids teenage years and I got married when I was a mere
> > child. I was in my thirties when they were in the hell of puberty.
> > Early forties for my last one going through puberty. If I had one
> > going through all that now that I am 50, I think I might shoot
myself.
> > I want grandchildren. The kind you get to spoil and send home with
> > their parents. It doesn't get any better than that.
> > Maggie.
>
> The sad thing is a lot of the "grandparents" today in their later 50s
> and 60s are (now) saddled (not quite the word I want to use) to raise
> their grandchildren because their own child(ren) didn't or couldn't
> properly support and care for their children (the grandkids), or
perhaps
> the middle generation refused to accept/honor responsibilty,
> whatever(?). In most cases, it's the child(ren) who suffers.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that more and more "grandparents" now have to
> raise their grandkids because their own children are unable to
properly
> care for them???

scarey thought/times.
>
> Skyhooks
> hmardis "a h t " ui uc "dau ght" e d u

I think its quite unfair of you to lump an entire generation into this
category. Not one of my friends are (saddled?) with their
grandchildren. Most of my friends have children that are educated, well
informed, and responsible. My daughter is going to be married. She has
her Masters in Counseling, he has his Masters in Business and a very
lucrative career. If anyone gets saddled with anything it will be them
and how they will care for their parents when they are ready for the
"home". My generation (those in our 50's) are more involved in taking
care of elderly parents with failing health than they are with being
saddled with grandchildren. Grandchildren are delightful. I believe
the generation of young people today are waiting until they finish
college, becoming financially stable and they are having children in
their late twenties or early thirties. As opposed to my generation
having kids at 20. I do not believe in waiting too long to have
children and I don't believe you should have them in your late teens.
Both bring their problems. This generation is a generation that seems
to have it right. Finish college, establish yourself, then start a
family when you are in your late twenties. You are not too young and
immature, yet your not so old that you will look like their
grandparents when they are teenagers. I admire this generation. I think
they have it right. And I can't wait to be saddled with some
grandchildren while I am still young enough to really enjoy them.' I
would never have wanted my daughter married with kids at 20, yet I am
hoping she does not wait until 40 either.
Maggie.

01-19-2005, 02:52 AM

Skyhooks wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
> >
> > > 4) When one is in their 50's they do not necessarily want a baby
> > > around; having a child hit puberty when one is retiring is not
> > > necessarily a good thing.>
> > > - rick
> >
> > What a scary thought. If you have a baby at 45 you will have a
> > teenager when you are in your sixties......Oh my God. I hardly made
it
> > through my kids teenage years and I got married when I was a mere
> > child. I was in my thirties when they were in the hell of puberty.
> > Early forties for my last one going through puberty. If I had one
> > going through all that now that I am 50, I think I might shoot
myself.
> > I want grandchildren. The kind you get to spoil and send home with
> > their parents. It doesn't get any better than that.
> > Maggie.
>
> The sad thing is a lot of the "grandparents" today in their later 50s
> and 60s are (now) saddled (not quite the word I want to use) to raise
> their grandchildren because their own child(ren) didn't or couldn't
> properly support and care for their children (the grandkids), or
perhaps
> the middle generation refused to accept/honor responsibilty,
> whatever(?). In most cases, it's the child(ren) who suffers.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that more and more "grandparents" now have to
> raise their grandkids because their own children are unable to
properly
> care for them???

scarey thought/times.
>
> Skyhooks
> hmardis "a h t " ui uc "dau ght" e d u

I think its quite unfair of you to lump an entire generation into this
category. Not one of my friends are (saddled?) with their
grandchildren. Most of my friends have children that are educated, well
informed, and responsible. My daughter is going to be married. She has
her Masters in Counseling, he has his Masters in Business and a very
lucrative career. If anyone gets saddled with anything it will be them
and how they will care for their parents when they are ready for the
"home". My generation (those in our 50's) are more involved in taking
care of elderly parents with failing health than they are with being
saddled with grandchildren. Grandchildren are delightful. I believe
the generation of young people today are waiting until they finish
college, becoming financially stable and they are having children in
their late twenties or early thirties. As opposed to my generation
having kids at 20. I do not believe in waiting too long to have
children and I don't believe you should have them in your late teens.
Both bring their problems. This generation is a generation that seems
to have it right. Finish college, establish yourself, then start a
family when you are in your late twenties. You are not too young and
immature, yet your not so old that you will look like their
grandparents when they are teenagers. I admire this generation. I think
they have it right. And I can't wait to be saddled with some
grandchildren while I am still young enough to really enjoy them.' I
would never have wanted my daughter married with kids at 20, yet I am
hoping she does not wait until 40 either.
Maggie.

01-19-2005, 02:52 AM

Skyhooks wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
> >
> > > 4) When one is in their 50's they do not necessarily want a baby
> > > around; having a child hit puberty when one is retiring is not
> > > necessarily a good thing.>
> > > - rick
> >
> > What a scary thought. If you have a baby at 45 you will have a
> > teenager when you are in your sixties......Oh my God. I hardly made
it
> > through my kids teenage years and I got married when I was a mere
> > child. I was in my thirties when they were in the hell of puberty.
> > Early forties for my last one going through puberty. If I had one
> > going through all that now that I am 50, I think I might shoot
myself.
> > I want grandchildren. The kind you get to spoil and send home with
> > their parents. It doesn't get any better than that.
> > Maggie.
>
> The sad thing is a lot of the "grandparents" today in their later 50s
> and 60s are (now) saddled (not quite the word I want to use) to raise
> their grandchildren because their own child(ren) didn't or couldn't
> properly support and care for their children (the grandkids), or
perhaps
> the middle generation refused to accept/honor responsibilty,
> whatever(?). In most cases, it's the child(ren) who suffers.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that more and more "grandparents" now have to
> raise their grandkids because their own children are unable to
properly
> care for them???

scarey thought/times.
>
> Skyhooks
> hmardis "a h t " ui uc "dau ght" e d u

I think its quite unfair of you to lump an entire generation into this
category. Not one of my friends are (saddled?) with their
grandchildren. Most of my friends have children that are educated, well
informed, and responsible. My daughter is going to be married. She has
her Masters in Counseling, he has his Masters in Business and a very
lucrative career. If anyone gets saddled with anything it will be them
and how they will care for their parents when they are ready for the
"home". My generation (those in our 50's) are more involved in taking
care of elderly parents with failing health than they are with being
saddled with grandchildren. Grandchildren are delightful. I believe
the generation of young people today are waiting until they finish
college, becoming financially stable and they are having children in
their late twenties or early thirties. As opposed to my generation
having kids at 20. I do not believe in waiting too long to have
children and I don't believe you should have them in your late teens.
Both bring their problems. This generation is a generation that seems
to have it right. Finish college, establish yourself, then start a
family when you are in your late twenties. You are not too young and
immature, yet your not so old that you will look like their
grandparents when they are teenagers. I admire this generation. I think
they have it right. And I can't wait to be saddled with some
grandchildren while I am still young enough to really enjoy them.' I
would never have wanted my daughter married with kids at 20, yet I am
hoping she does not wait until 40 either.
Maggie.