Collective vasectomy March Madness markets in everything

Mr. Ferretti, 36 years old, and Mr. Lopez, 44, had enjoyed themselves under the supervision of a doctor for what some are calling a brosectomy—a vasectomy with friends in a cushy setting of couches, snacks, big-screen TV, and in some clinics, top-shelf liquor.

Here is the WSJ story.  And:

The University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City has run March Madness promotions for the past three years. It offers a vasectomy package that includes a Utah Jazz basketball ticket giveaway, goody bags and basketball-shaped ice packs. This year, its surgeons performed more than three times as many vasectomies in March compared with the average number done in the other months through May, according to the health center’s internal marketing data.

They promised us flying cars, and all we got was…

Comments

As wages go down, vasectomies go up.

Is that true?

Yep.

They promised us flying cars, and all we got was…

Reproductive responsibilty. If we had only known booze and sports tickets would work, we might have avoided years of synthetic hormone pills.

If you file "reproductive responsibility" under erectile dysfunction (E.D.) possibly men they could contract E.D. by watching DVD's of Rachel Maddow sceeds.

we might have avoided years of synthetic hormone pills.

They could have avoided the synthetic hormones by having their tubes tied. There might just be a reason they did not wish to do that.

"They could have avoided the synthetic hormones by having their tubes tied. There might just be a reason they did not wish to do that"

That's more complicated surgery than a vasectomy and it costs more as well.

Abortions are not simple either. I say let's get Planned Parenthood push a twofer as a pre-req.

Sounds great. Anything to promote the reality that vasectomies in no way affect a man's performance or "make him less of a man." There is also the added bonus of, hopefully, reducing childbirths. Numerous studies by various entities have shown that having a child is the single most important factor in reducing a woman's standard of living

promote the reality fantasy that vasectomies in no way affect a man’s performance or “make him less of a man.”

FIFY

The idea that you have to have children to be a man certainly flies in the face of historical record, common sense and real life

" . . . having a child OUT-OF-WEDLOCK is the single most important factor in reducing a woman’s standard of living."

This.

Children reduce opportunities and standards of living regardless, save for the wealthy and very wealthy. This conclusion requires only common sense, the occasional awareness of public service announcement and advertisements for college and child care costs and knowledge that expenses will be greater as the child gets older.

Numerous studies by various entities have shown that having a child is the single most important factor in reducing a woman’s standard of living

Societies that frown on reproduction disappear.

Name one. It's never happened.

Just one? The Shakers....Well, there are two left, so I guess technically they haven't totally disappeared.

He'll move the goalposts, say it doesn't count.

If you count "the Shakers" as a society, and they truly died out due to not breeding, then there's the one example. Thin gruel.

"then there’s the one example. Thin gruel."

You said, "name one", he did. Your response is churlish.

Also, my aunt. She had no children and disappeared.

@JWatts: oh my, I wouldn't want to be churlish around here, it's simply not done LOL

No problem. Societies rise and fall all the time. Our discussion and responsibility lay with the species. America is collapsing and nothing can stop it.

"Numerous studies by various entities have shown that having a child is the single most important factor in reducing a woman’s standard of living"

Saving money rather than spending also reduces one's standard of living.

Not necessarily. It has only been in the last couple of decades that the media and the economists proclaim that spending creates a better United States. In the 1980's, when Japanese ambitions were the bugbear of the "patriotic" American, economists and the popular media were lambasting American's spendthrift ways and proclaimed that Japan was ascendant because of their extraordinary savings rate. Besides, Americans didn't get through the Depression by spending a lot, they didn't have it to spend.

Do you know the birth rates for the industrialised west and asia? You think these below replacement rates are a good thing?

A society, including the women within it, have no future, retirement or standard of living when the safety net along with productivity go belly up due to the upsidedown demographics.

Or is this high quality trolling?

I say it's real.

Thanks for the comment about "high quality." I don't know the exact numbers, but there have been many articles and papers written in the last decade about the industrialized nations low birthrate and developing nations relative high birthrate. Most of these authors bemoan the low birthrate for the reason that retirement payments, i.e., social security or pensions, cannot be sustained with fewer young people working. This has too many flaws to enumerate here, so I will settle for 2.
1) This idea relies on what I call, The Rule of Cascading Excuses. Just because a flawed social experiment, or law, is passed, it means that an additional flawed law, or social experiment, should be tried, thereby compounding the mistake and creating new problems that need to be addressed. Why not eliminate the original flawed attempt? 2) Careful of conflating 4 ideas; the death of the species, retirement funding, standard of living and productivity. I'll briefly address this in turn: A) Societies rise and fall, that's not a priority and the species will hardly go extinct from portions of the world's population reducing their birthrate; B) Retirement funding is such a blatant idea that one group, or cohort, of a population has to work to support another smacks of income redistribution; C) The US standard of living has been rising, and only seems to be stagnant because what appears to be basic requirements are actually luxuries; D) Productivity is falling due to the confluence of many factors including, the expansion of government entities and the existence of welfare, food stamps and disability insurance. There are other contributing factors, but these are the most important. Why should one work hard, increase their own productivity and their children's standard of living if there are being supplied with all they feel is necessary?

This is gross.

While we're at it, why are people in authority promoting sterilization in any occidental country? Or any affluent oriental country?

Utah is about the last place I'd expect to see this.

1880: 1.8B People
1960: 3B People
2000: 6B People
2017: 7.3B People

"While we’re at it, why are people in authority promoting sterilization in any occidental country? Or any affluent oriental country?"

A: Because we have too many fucking people.

I see no evidence that we have too many people, but your statistics certainly indicate that there is a lot of fucking.

LOL!

The sex isn't the problem, it's the creation of life without responsibility that is the problem.

Thanks, carlospin

As for flying cars - just drove by the Aeromobil office in Bratislava Slovakia last week. No name on the building, and not much going on, but there were one or two cars parked in the showroom and a security guy yelled at me for parking there.

They're going to start doing this in all Muslim countries. Nice to see them learning from Mormons.

You are witnessing one Party,

Undergoing, in support of its Leader,

A

Collective Lobotomy.

I don't recall that conversation with Comey.

I know, I know, you won the popular vote.

Did they argue about the seedings?

Comments for this post are closed