4 ms·

I don't get why people with reasonable intelligence don't just use fertility awareness. It is free, it has no side effects, and any time you decide you want to

I don't get why people with reasonable intelligence don't just use fertility awareness. It is free, it has no side effects, and any time you decide you want to have kids you can use the same method to increase your chances. I get that dumb people often think you can always get pregnant. But people capable of passing high school biology should grasp the concept of ovulation.

jsmith0295 10y ago
That's got to be the least convenient option
mcherm 10y ago
Because people of reasonable intelligence also realize that ovulation has occasional hiccups in timing, that on rare occasions sperm can live a surprisingly long time, and that as a result"fertility awareness" (on its own) is a less reliable means of contraception than most other options.
- y7 10y ago
  I'd really like to learn the proper numbers on this. What are the precise risks of a timing hiccup or second ovulation during a menstrual cycle? Also, how does regularity of one person's period affect these risks? How accurate are the indicators for ovulation most methods use (body temp, cervical mucus, etc.)?
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    Well... it depends. If you only rely on this method for a few days each month immediately after the end of menses, the chances of it failing are MUCH lower than if you rely on it for a week prior and a week after menses. That said, wiki claims[1] that the latter approach is >95% effective in perfect use, and 88% effective in typical use. Compare this to withdrawal[2], which wiki claims is 96%/78% effective respectively. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods#Standard_Days_Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_m... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      You linked to the rhythm method, not fertility awareness. Fertility awareness means actually measuring the physiological changes resulting from the hormonal changes that precede ovulation (temperature, saliva, cervical mucous). This is much more reliable than guessing based on the date, which is obviously going to fail relatively often as ovulation isn't reliably regular even in the most "regular" cycles.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  With a typical amount of deviation in the time of ovulation, the rhythm method still allows 1-2 weeks per month with very low risk of pregnancy. Combined with withdrawal when the risk is unacceptably high, it can be acceptably effective. > "fertility awareness" (on its own) is a less reliable means of contraception than most other options You're absolutely correct, of course - but some people's situations don't require such a high level of reliability. For instance, my wife and I used the rhythm method for four years after marriage without incident, until we decided to try for our first child. During that time an unexpected pregnancy would not have been unwelcome. We weren't where we wanted to be financially, but we would have been fine. Our ballpark assumption of a 10% chance of conception per year was an acceptable level of risk to outweigh the negatives of a barrier method or hormone-based option.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  You are thinking of the rhythm method, that has nothing to do with fertility awareness, which is finding out for sure when ovulation is occurring, not guessing based on dates. Fertility awareness is more reliable than condoms, but nobody goes around acting like condoms are not a reasonable option: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_me...
ceejayoz 10y ago
> But people capable of passing high school biology should grasp the concept of ovulation. People capable of passing high school biology should also grasp the concept of a) "whoops!" and b) sex being enjoyable enough to risk even if ovulation is possible. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/11/lets-talk-about-natural-family-planning.html http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/11/lets-ta... > According to the Guttmacher institute, the typical use failure rate of NFP is around 25%. Of course, Catholics have taken issue with this number, insisting that it is way too high. So I looked around and another number sometimes used for NFP’s typical use failure rate was 12%. One Catholic writer suggested that it was 2% to 5. Note that even that last number shows that the typical use failure rate for NFP is higher than IUDs and implants.
- y7 10y ago
  Then again, the typical use failure rate of the standard male condom is 18% [1]. Personally, I'm more interested in perfect use failure rates than typical use failure rates. [1] http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CTFailureTable.pdf http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/20...
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    The CDC says condoms are 12% to fertility awareness's 24% (i.e. twice the risk). http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/family-planning-methods-2014.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintend... That means fertility awareness has worse odds than Russian roulette. I'm not the slightest bit interested in perfect use failure rates, because humans are rarely perfect (especially not the ones who think they are), and the consequences of a whoops are pretty immense, both for the couple and for the unwanted child that results. Meanwhile, an implant has a 0.05% typical use failure rate, and an IUD 0.2%. I'm not taking any chances - I'm infertile, have had a vasectomy, and my wife has an IUD. My current set of twins (via donor sperm) are plenty of work for my liking.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
pjc50 10y ago
People who think that periods are reliably periodic are in for a surprise with this.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  You are thinking of the rhythm method, that has nothing to do with fertility awareness, which is finding out for sure when ovulation is occurring, not guessing based on dates.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Besides the questionable effectiveness, the fact is that periods aren't nearly as regular as this stuff would like folks to believe, and this is completely inappropriate for women with highly irregular periods. Hormones cloud all sorts of otherwise reasonable judgement as well - I'm guessing if you pay attention, you'll notice it in yourself as well. In addition, this can be dangerous for those that shouldn't get pregnant for health reasons, yet can't get sterilized (there are many doctors that won't sterilize childless people, nor folks that are young - and it is often not a covered procedure). Folks that have reasonable intelligence, pass high school biology, and have a reasonable understanding of health should understand these down sides. A bit of understanding of risks and statistics would probably lead the person to assume it is a lesser risk to use another form of contraception or two.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  there are many doctors that won't sterilize childless people, nor folks that are young - and it is often not a covered procedure This is very strange. Sterilizing people who can't safely get pregnant ought to be a no-brainer, including (especially?) from an insurance perspective.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    What I know is stories from articles such as this: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-13/health/ct-met-sterilization-denied-20140513_1_tubal-ligation-sterilization-young-women http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-13/health/ct-met-... I know it wasn't covered by insurance when I was younger (I'm in my late 30's), though I didn't know it would be somewhat risky for me to be pregnant at the time, if it is possible at all. I've simply never wanted children, and the procedure wasn't covered by insurances let alone finding a doctor that would do it. I don't know if they became something covered under the recent health care changes as I don't live in the states any longer. I'd often not been able to pay the copayment anyway, unfortunately. From an insurance perspective, the cost-effective and less risky option is to do birth control, either pills, shots, or IUD's to prevent such a thing from happening, I'd think.
- 10y ago

jsmith0295 10y ago

That's got to be the least convenient option

mcherm 10y ago

Because people of reasonable intelligence also realize that ovulation has occasional hiccups in timing, that on rare occasions sperm can live a surprisingly long time, and that as a result"fertility awareness" (on its own) is a less reliable means of contraception than most other options.

y7 10y ago
I'd really like to learn the proper numbers on this. What are the precise risks of a timing hiccup or second ovulation during a menstrual cycle? Also, how does regularity of one person's period affect these risks? How accurate are the indicators for ovulation most methods use (body temp, cervical mucus, etc.)?
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  Well... it depends. If you only rely on this method for a few days each month immediately after the end of menses, the chances of it failing are MUCH lower than if you rely on it for a week prior and a week after menses. That said, wiki claims[1] that the latter approach is >95% effective in perfect use, and 88% effective in typical use. Compare this to withdrawal[2], which wiki claims is 96%/78% effective respectively. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods#Standard_Days_Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_m... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    You linked to the rhythm method, not fertility awareness. Fertility awareness means actually measuring the physiological changes resulting from the hormonal changes that precede ovulation (temperature, saliva, cervical mucous). This is much more reliable than guessing based on the date, which is obviously going to fail relatively often as ovulation isn't reliably regular even in the most "regular" cycles.
LyndsySimon 10y ago
With a typical amount of deviation in the time of ovulation, the rhythm method still allows 1-2 weeks per month with very low risk of pregnancy. Combined with withdrawal when the risk is unacceptably high, it can be acceptably effective. > "fertility awareness" (on its own) is a less reliable means of contraception than most other options You're absolutely correct, of course - but some people's situations don't require such a high level of reliability. For instance, my wife and I used the rhythm method for four years after marriage without incident, until we decided to try for our first child. During that time an unexpected pregnancy would not have been unwelcome. We weren't where we wanted to be financially, but we would have been fine. Our ballpark assumption of a 10% chance of conception per year was an acceptable level of risk to outweigh the negatives of a barrier method or hormone-based option.
MustardTiger 10y ago
You are thinking of the rhythm method, that has nothing to do with fertility awareness, which is finding out for sure when ovulation is occurring, not guessing based on dates. Fertility awareness is more reliable than condoms, but nobody goes around acting like condoms are not a reasonable option: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_me...

ceejayoz 10y ago

> But people capable of passing high school biology should grasp the concept of ovulation. People capable of passing high school biology should also grasp the concept of a) "whoops!" and b) sex being enjoyable enough to risk even if ovulation is possible. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/11/lets-talk-about-natural-family-planning.html http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/11/lets-ta... > According to the Guttmacher institute, the typical use failure rate of NFP is around 25%. Of course, Catholics have taken issue with this number, insisting that it is way too high. So I looked around and another number sometimes used for NFP’s typical use failure rate was 12%. One Catholic writer suggested that it was 2% to 5. Note that even that last number shows that the typical use failure rate for NFP is higher than IUDs and implants.

y7 10y ago
Then again, the typical use failure rate of the standard male condom is 18% [1]. Personally, I'm more interested in perfect use failure rates than typical use failure rates. [1] http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CTFailureTable.pdf http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/20...
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  The CDC says condoms are 12% to fertility awareness's 24% (i.e. twice the risk). http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/family-planning-methods-2014.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintend... That means fertility awareness has worse odds than Russian roulette. I'm not the slightest bit interested in perfect use failure rates, because humans are rarely perfect (especially not the ones who think they are), and the consequences of a whoops are pretty immense, both for the couple and for the unwanted child that results. Meanwhile, an implant has a 0.05% typical use failure rate, and an IUD 0.2%. I'm not taking any chances - I'm infertile, have had a vasectomy, and my wife has an IUD. My current set of twins (via donor sperm) are plenty of work for my liking.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago

pjc50 10y ago

People who think that periods are reliably periodic are in for a surprise with this.

MustardTiger 10y ago
You are thinking of the rhythm method, that has nothing to do with fertility awareness, which is finding out for sure when ovulation is occurring, not guessing based on dates.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

Besides the questionable effectiveness, the fact is that periods aren't nearly as regular as this stuff would like folks to believe, and this is completely inappropriate for women with highly irregular periods. Hormones cloud all sorts of otherwise reasonable judgement as well - I'm guessing if you pay attention, you'll notice it in yourself as well. In addition, this can be dangerous for those that shouldn't get pregnant for health reasons, yet can't get sterilized (there are many doctors that won't sterilize childless people, nor folks that are young - and it is often not a covered procedure). Folks that have reasonable intelligence, pass high school biology, and have a reasonable understanding of health should understand these down sides. A bit of understanding of risks and statistics would probably lead the person to assume it is a lesser risk to use another form of contraception or two.

andrewflnr 10y ago
there are many doctors that won't sterilize childless people, nor folks that are young - and it is often not a covered procedure This is very strange. Sterilizing people who can't safely get pregnant ought to be a no-brainer, including (especially?) from an insurance perspective.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  What I know is stories from articles such as this: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-13/health/ct-met-sterilization-denied-20140513_1_tubal-ligation-sterilization-young-women http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-13/health/ct-met-... I know it wasn't covered by insurance when I was younger (I'm in my late 30's), though I didn't know it would be somewhat risky for me to be pregnant at the time, if it is possible at all. I've simply never wanted children, and the procedure wasn't covered by insurances let alone finding a doctor that would do it. I don't know if they became something covered under the recent health care changes as I don't live in the states any longer. I'd often not been able to pay the copayment anyway, unfortunately. From an insurance perspective, the cost-effective and less risky option is to do birth control, either pills, shots, or IUD's to prevent such a thing from happening, I'd think.
10y ago