'Rhythm Method' May Kill Off More Embryos Than Other Methods Of Contraception

by Jesus - Coitus interruptus. Sat Jun 24, 2006 20:58

To abstain from sex for seven days during what cycle now?

An interesting survey would be asking your women friends to explain the rythmn method
in their own words. (Thats always good for a laugh )and then tell them to abstain
when they are horniest. Who's benny and why is this important?

The Guardian today has a report on women and cycles too, (by a woman).
This is interesting from many angles because it looks at the issue of
women actually knowing their bodies and listening to how they operate
without the fear factor, the dogma, the discrimination or the interference
from outside which builds an image of woman that has nothing to do
with the reality of our lives. (even if we are transgendered and messianic)
as is the case with me- (c above).

Paraphenalia:- Coils, pills, I.U.Ds, KY, Condoms,morning after,
night before, (sex during periods can get you pregnant).
Hands up who gets a 28 day cycle.

Please strapadicktome, butt plugs (tailed or not), ropes, chains, whips,
and if you take the catholic option there always the tongue, or if you are lucky
enough ......(

Tying up is always interesting, instead of being tied down by the superfluity of
the need to disect the soul with theory. in the words of a great man, great golden
copulations are needed. a lot.

Back to the tongue- damned good and gets rid of all the issues regarding
pregnancy , fear and other bogeys. Have some tonight, tis called cunninlingus
or fellatio. or 69.

by Aphrodite Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:09

Ah me! The endless commercial playground that is the female reproductive system. Stuffing your body routinely with synthetic and other hormones, no matter what the pharmaceutical companies tell you, is not at all good for you.

We've been told it's safe repeatedly, from the outset, and as usual the medical reassurances have regularly had to be revised downwards because of unanticipated complications (e.g. deaths). It used to be that you could pop the pill throughout your reproductive life. What a great little money earner that one was. When people started to drop dead after uninterrupted pill use for just eight years, it was realised no miracle cure for pregnancy had been found. A lot of people had to die before that was acknowledged. Thrombosis, stroke, breast cancer and lots of other stuff complicated the happy free-for-all too. More people had to die before that lot got acknowledged too.

The coil sets up a permanent low grade infection in the uterus, hostile to embryos. Excessive bleeding, horrendous period pain and the outbreak of life-threatening infections after long-term use, are just some of its side effects. Not a lot of fun really. Also implicated in subsequent ectopic pregnancy, which is a dangerous killer. And less effective as a means of contraception.

Condoms and diaphragms? Talk about party poopers!

Now, the rhythm method, applied correctly carries NONE of the above disadvantages, the absence of that last one being a particularly attractive feature which truly ought not to be underestimated. There is no comparison.

As Jesus says, if women are serious about taking control of their own reproductive rights, this method teaches you to understand exactly what is happening in your body and when.

Good news for the older couple too is that chaps, apparently, are 50% less fertile from about the age of 40 - and their fertility declines further after that. There's a window of opportunity there for the women: combined with the rhythm method, you can get a good decade or more of worry free frolicking abed..

Negatives:

the loss of billions in profits for pharmaceuticals :-)

the increased risk of pregnancy for people who do not have regular cycles :-(

the risk of STDs if used outside long-term, faithful relationships :-(

For everyone else, probably most of us, there's no serious contraceptive competition.

by Emily Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:18

If condoms are party poopers then what is the rhythm method? Only certain days when you can do it. Then all those charts and temperature taking. Get real.

by Aphrodite Sun Jun 25, 2006 13:04

Well, if you insist on penetration, and you absolutely have to have it every day of your cycle, it will be a problem for you, I suppose.
Whats the difference between controlling your appetite for sex and controlling it for food? A good appetite makes a meal so much more enjoyable, and you can always snack a little while you wait. Contraceptives have an invasive effect on your relationship beyond the mere physical, too. The rhythm method has a corresponding emotional and psychological dimension that is very good for your relationship - it brings you closer in every way. Besides you dont get to muck up your body with devices and chemicals and you dont have all that fumbling with rubber devices. This isn't a moral argument - the rhythm method is a lot of fun and there are a lot of people who know that.

by Emily Mon Jun 26, 2006 15:48

Another reason to use condoms. Cancers not much fun and you have a much greater chance of contracting the human papillomavirus if you just use the rhythm method.

Condom Use Reduces Young Women's Risk Of Contracting HPV, Study Says

Main Category: Sexual Health / STDs News
Article Date: 26 Jun 2006 - 0:00am (PDT)This Article

Young women whose partners use condoms every time they have sex are 70% less likely to contract the human papillomavirus than women whose partners use condoms less than 5% of the time, according to a study published in the June 22 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, the AP/Miami Herald reports (Johnson, AP/Miami Herald, 6/22). HPV is known to cause most cases of genital warts and cervical cancer (Emery, Reuters, 6/21). In the study, Rachel Winer, a researcher at the University of Washington's epidemiology department, and colleagues invited more than 24,000 undergraduate women ages 18 to 22 at UW to take part in the study (AP/Miami Herald, 6/22).

by Emily Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:06

Congresswoman Lee Introduces Legislation To Reduce Women And Girls' Vulnerability To HIV/AIDS
Main Category: HIV / AIDS News
Article Date: 25 Jun 2006 - 0:00am (PDT)

Today, Congresswoman Barbara Lee introduced a bill with bipartisan support that would require the President to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce the vulnerability of women and girls to HIV infection in developing countries and would eliminate the requirement that thirty-three percent of AIDS prevention funds be spent for abstinence-only programs.

"There is no reason why someone should be more vulnerable to AIDS because she is a woman, but the fact remains that women and girls in developing countries are bearing the brunt of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic," said Lee. "Our prevention efforts must be sensitive to the growing gender disparity and must focus on providing women and girls the education and resources they need to protect themselves."

An estimated 38.6 million people are living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world today. In sub-Saharan Africa, women make up sixty percent of those infected and seventy-six percent of infections among those fifteen to twenty-four years old.

The Protection Against Transmission of HIV for Women and Youth (PATHWAY) Act of 2006, introduced by Congresswoman Lee with the bipartisan support of fifty three other members of Congress, would require the president to address twelve key issues that contribute to gender disparities in the rate of HIV infection.

by Aphrodite Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:14

that condoms are superior to natural sex, that our bodies are not designed for it. Hygiene is a big factor in the diseases and infections you mention - again something that is far less of a risk in faithful relationships and simple to maintain .

You might as well argue that we should all wear face masks so as not to catch other potentially infectious and fatal diseases - air borne pathogens being one of the most lethal there are. Having a couple of drinks at your local pub and using their toilet facilities would be much riskier than sex with a committed partner. A study some years ago discovered traces of more than 20 different people's urine in peanuts set out for nibbles on the counter in a pub...stomach churning!

Then again, you could just stay in your house and minimise the risk of death by disease completely. We're going to die sometime and the avoidance of natural sex with a reliable, hygenic partner seems almost neurotic, imo.

by Emily Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:22

You are the one who is neurotic rather than me. You are very naive if you think you can pick up STD in a pub toilet (unless you shag there). Unprotected sex is not a good idea. Why are you so frightened by a piece of rubber? This phobia may yet rebound on you.

by jesus - . Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:29

In Africa , as in Ireland... women do not represent themselves at political level.

We have the lowest participation in the 'triple arm of good governance'.

We do not engage with the State, Church or Patriarchial sytems. Like women in Africa.

My question is why does a US congresswoman enforce first world theoretical /political
decisions on a developing country. Empowerment, (Political, social, educational) and embrace of culture/diversity: dropping the debt would go a long way toward emancipating the political voices of women.

Of course condoms should be used in high risk situations, to avoid pregnancy and to combat stds- but sex (privilege therof) should be enjoyed choice and its not all about penetration.

The use of child-rape to 'cleanse' aids victims (including rape of infants) is not about choice. It is about superstition, poverty and fear.

Sex for women with circumcision wounds is about patriarchical endorsement of the need to excise female (erection),and possession and ownership.

We are privilged in this country (largely) to be aware of choice and to disengage from the systems which preach to us as women, but the issue of empathy and understanding of cultural differences should not preclude the neccesity of recognising our responsibility in not opposing the problems in Africa and other places blighted by Aids thru action.

Cultural debasement is part of a global problem . I want to hear a woman from Africa with Aids , not a US congresswoman debating on what a woman from Africa is suffering or feeling.

We do not oppose: the Medical establishment or the gov lack of awareness funding, (our collusion in Africa's poverty )because we are a wealthy nation.

by Emily Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:40

Barbara Lee isnt enforcing anything. The Bush Administration is, they are ensuring that a third of all such aid goes on abstinence only programs.

Why not attack Bush and the Republicans? You must know that it is Bush and company who are against Debt Relief. Now get down off of your cross. Someone else needs the wood.

by Chris Murray Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:43

.

by Aphrodite Mon Jun 26, 2006 20:39

...because they spoil the fun. Simple. No phobia, no nothing - sex isnt as good that way. In a relationship where circumstances permit me to practice sex naturally, so whats your problem? You're telling me that I am wrong to do that? Really? Are you saying that nobody should be having natural sex, that we MUST all use condoms?

Also, youve missed the point of what I said earlier: you can get all kinds of infections and dangerous illnesses from all kinds of physical human interaction - I wasnt talking about STDs. You use condoms to your hearts content, if you want. That's your choice, and good luck to you. My point is only that, within a faithful relationship where the woman has a dependable cycle, the rhythm method is a great form of contraception from every perspective. It doesnt suit everybody but I dont see why you should object to my choice or try to make out it's 'wrong'. A woman's right to choose, OK? Ive explained why I dont like other forms of contraception - specifically the dangers to health and the interference with the sexual act they involve. Happy for others to view it differently.

by Emily Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:37

STDs, HIV/AIDS. They all spoil the fun as well.

You have an agenda and you are peddling lies. "When people started to drop dead after uninterrupted pill use for just eight years" you know thats not true. Some people have bad reactions to the pill, some people have bad reactions to peanuts. Yeah peanuts can kill some people. You also lie about the Coil.

Now off you go back to Maynooth.

by Ishtar - / Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:54

And read it again, and mis-read it (again).

I thought pretzels killed people.

by Emily Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:59

"I thought pretzels killed people."

Pretzels dont kill people; people kill people. :-)

There are those who have a fatal allergy to peanuts. Even a trace can send them into serious shock, hence the warnings on a lot of food products. My basic point is this: lots of things out there can hurt a a small % of people. The likes of Aphro will misuse that fact. Statistics dont lie; liars use statistics.

by Chris Murray - the Unmanageables Tue Jun 27, 2006 13:17

A pretzel almost killed Mr George Bush. Steve Bell did an excellent
cartoon of the 'pretzelgate' episode at the time of happening.

It interrupted the Darth Vader episodes, but was worthwhile. The
chimp was resurgent for a while there.

by Emily Tue Jun 27, 2006 13:53

I was just doing a pastiche of the pro-gun lobby line in the US.
"Guns dont kill people; people kill people."

I've read that Jimmy Carter was once threatened by a rabbit! He was paddling a canoe and the rabbit (who was simming!?) attacked his canoe. He fended it off with a paddle! Anyone around in those days of yore who can confirm this?

by Aphrodite Tue Jun 27, 2006 15:05

What agenda?

I've pointed out an alternative that works for a lot of people: if you are in a faithful relationship and have a regular cycle the rhythm method works very well. Why does this upset you so much? What's it to you if others are happy to do that? Would you like to force them to use contraception even if they dont want or need to? What a great day when we have priests and radicals both telling us that sex is dirty and dangerous. You don't have any right to question other peoples right to natural sex any more than they do your right to use contraception.

It is true that women were advised not to take the pill for longer than 8 years in a row because of the risks which included sudden death from stroke and heart attack. People died. They had to withdraw some products completely. There were class actions in the US. The pharmas have done some outrageous experiements on women in third world countries too. The scandal of how Depo Provera was forced on Asian women has been well documented. This was a form of contraceptive implant which caused awful and deadly side effects. Many of the women who died or suffered complications were written out of trials which often they didnt know they were participating in. When some tried to come off the medication they were intimidated into contuing. And that's just one product. In the Phillipines young women (teenagers) were administered contraceptive injections while being told they were being innoculated against disease - they were lied to. Among other side effects, many discovered they were infertile later on. Chances are that you r pill has been tested on women in economically challenged countries. The pharmaceuticals were then forced to admit that it's not a good idea for anyone over 35 to take the pill. Making profit out of mucking around with women's reproductive systems is not an altruistic endeavour. The pharmas spend something like ten times more on marketing their products than they do on researching them. Do you seriously think they have your best interests at heart? They go to a lot of trouble to suppress natural remedies and alternative medicine. The medical profession has always been mysoginistic and callous about women's health and reproductive systems. Maybe that's your agenda?

by Aphrodite Tue Jun 27, 2006 15:20

Are there any side-effects?

Very definitely – and you must be aware of these before you decide to have an IUD.

These devices generally:
· make your periods heavier
· make them longer
· may make them more painful.
Furthermore, because of the increase in menstrual flow, it’s possible that you might become anaemic (‘weak-blooded’).

So the IUD is not usually the best choice of contraception for a woman who already has heavy or prolonged periods. She might well do better with another method, such as the Pill or the IUS.

We’ll discuss some other potential problems with the IUD in a moment.

Can anybody use an IUD?

No. Most women can use them, but not all. You shouldn’t have an IUD if:
· you have some structural abnormality of the womb or cervix.
· you have a pelvic infection, for instance a sexually transmitted disease (STD).
· you have unexplained vaginal bleeding.
· you have heart valve problems (unless a heart specialist thinks you should go ahead).
· you have an allergy to copper (which is rare).
· you’ve previously had an ectopic pregnancy.
· you think you might already be pregnant.
The doctor will advise you if you have any other condition that makes using a ‘coil’ inadvisable.

Also, IUDs are really best for women who have already had a pregnancy – partly because the cervix is wider open, making the insertion of the device easier and less painful. But in practice, quite a lot of young women who have never had babies do opt for the IUD as their method of choice.

However, it’s a fact that younger single women are more likely than average to catch STDs – especially if they have more than one sex partner. It’s worth bearing in mind that inserting an IUD could make such an infection ‘flare up.’

In particular, the sexual infection called ‘chlamydia’ is now very common in Britain. In early 2005, it was recommended that anyone having an IUD insertion should have a test for chlamydia first.

Link: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/cont...l.htm

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device

by Emily Tue Jun 27, 2006 16:40

If you want to get the truth about contraception, then heres a few sites you should access:

Irish Family Planning Association
60 Amiens Street,
Dublin 1.
Tel 01 - 806 9444
Fax 01 - 806 9445
E-mail post@ifpa.ie
http://www.ifpa.ie/

Marie Stopes Reproductive Choices
Family Planning Centre
10/11 Berkeley Street
Dublin 7.
(01) 830 0630
http://www.reproductivechoices.ie/index.htm

IPPF - International Planned Parenthood Federation
http://www.ippf.org

UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund
http://www.unfpa.org

by Matrov Vinterest Tue Jun 27, 2006 17:43

Considering that beside all else, contraception is basically the greatest weapon of population control ever conceived where sexual pleasure is derivable without pregnancy ‘almost most of the time’.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/iag/myths...s.htm

MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT SEX EDUCATION AND CONDOMS
Myth 6:

“We shouldn't teach youth about condoms because they have high failure rates.

The Facts: Laboratory studies show that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV and other STI pathogens.

Studies have shown that polyurethane condoms, including the female condom, also provide effective barriers against sperm, bacteria, and viruses, such as HIV. In addition, studies clearly show that condom breakage rates in this country are less than two percent; experts say that most of the breakage and slippage is likely due to incorrect use rather than to condoms' quality.
Finally, only two of every 100 couples who use condoms correctly and consistently will experience pregnancy within one year—two pregnancies arising from an estimated 8,300 acts of sexual intercourse among the 100 couples, for a 0.02 percent per-condom failure rate”.

We have all heard of the use of two condoms simultaneously in Ireland “To be sure to be sure”

But, couple condoms with homosexuality and you’re on the pigs back (so to say).

My question so is – Who would anyone consider is IRELANDS GREATEST HUMAN CONDOM.

Note: Well know public representatives can be included in your answer.