The original poster (OP), a 35-year-old female, describes a recurring and stressful situation regarding unintended pregnancies with her 30-year-old husband. She notes that every time the husband has been in charge of birth control (BC), they have conceived another child. They already share four children, with the timeline detailing pregnancies following the use of condoms after twins were born, and subsequent pregnancies after an IUD was removed due to a car accident injury.
For over a year and a half, the OP has urged her husband to get a vasectomy, as hormonal BC is not an option for her due to medical reasons. When bringing it up, the process seems to restart repeatedly, with excuses preventing the procedure. This issue is compounded by the recent, unplanned loss of a pregnancy around 19 weeks, which was emotionally devastating, especially as the husband offered little support during the event. The OP is now left doubting their relationship and future, feeling extreme emotional turmoil after a recent sexual encounter where her husband allegedly removed his condom without her consent.
Aita for not sleeping with my husband untill he gets a vasectomy?
According to Dr. Finley Carter, a specialist in relationship dynamics and consent, “Trust in intimate relationships is not solely built on shared affection but on the reliable demonstration of mutual respect, especially concerning physical autonomy and shared long-term decisions like family planning.”
The OP’s situation presents a critical breakdown in shared responsibility regarding reproductive health. For the husband to consistently avoid a permanent contraceptive solution, despite the wife’s medical inability to use hormonal methods and the severe emotional and physical cost of previous unplanned pregnancies (including the recent loss), suggests a pattern of prioritizing short-term convenience over his partner’s well-being and bodily autonomy. The alleged removal of the condom mid-act without explicit consent moves the issue beyond negligence into the realm of sexual coercion or assault, which fundamentally destroys the safety and trust required for intimacy.
The OP is experiencing understandable trauma, characterized by ‘Stockholm syndrome’ feelings where the source of comfort is also the source of deep pain. A professional path forward must prioritize the OP’s physical safety first. The conversation must center on accountability for the boundary violation and the immediate scheduling of the vasectomy. If the husband resists accountability or postpones the procedure again, the OP must recognize that his actions signal a consistent disregard for her stated needs, making any future trust repair extremely difficult.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The OP is currently in a state of extreme distress, oscillating between intense anger and a desire for comfort from her husband, which she recognizes as conflicting with the violation she feels. The central conflict is between her need for absolute certainty regarding contraception—demanding a vasectomy as the only acceptable next step—and the husband’s consistent avoidance of this permanent commitment, which has now led to a profound breach of trust.
The core question for consideration is whether the husband’s repeated failures to secure contraception, culminating in a potential non-consensual act, are fundamentally incompatible with rebuilding trust and maintaining the relationship, especially given the severe emotional toll of the recent pregnancy loss, or if the established emotional dependency prevents the OP from accepting the depth of the betrayal.
