5 ms·

What is with scare quotes? It's a non-pharmaceutical method with only passive intervention (i.e., measurements and abstaining). The word "natural" seems at le

What is with scare quotes? It's a non-pharmaceutical method with only passive intervention (i.e., measurements and abstaining). The word "natural" seems at least as appropriate here as "organic" and "processed" foods; all of these are oversimplifications, but they communicate something that's not meaningless with reasonable fidelity to an unsophisticated user. I understand most reporters are going to bring an existing set of political beliefs to the table, but I wish they felt a higher duty to present an objective account. (Like a judge.) This doesn't mean pretending there's no fact of the matter and all sides must be given equal time uncritically, but cooly assessing arguments is different than weaponizing the words on the page.

SomeHacker44 8y ago
It could also have been "scare-quoted" with "birth-control" since, IMO, there is not much "control" going on here. It's at best "birth-guidance" or something equally inefficacious (as compared to, say, IUD). Just my opinion. Personally, I would never recommend this to my minor daughter, sexual partner or frankly anyone who wants actual control in their "birth-control."
- ksdale 8y ago
  My wife and I talked about this, we've used trackers to increase our chances of conceiving and prior to that I had never really thought about how effective timing could be. That said, if you absolutely need to not get pregnant, it's not useful. I would also never suggest this to my minor daughter. The best use case is for someone who would prefer to have like 5 kids over 20 years rather than 10 kids. I also think people really underestimate differences in fertility at different ages. An 18 year old is way more likely to get pregnant than a 35 year old. I'd bet if a 35 year old woman was reasonably careful with natural planning, she could avoid getting pregnant until menopause, but I think there's no chance that an 18 year old with average fertility could make it to 25 without having at least one pregnancy.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > It could also have been "scare-quoted" with "birth-control" Yea, and I would have agreed with that usage! Indeed, the author could have said explicitly something like "it's called "birth-control", but the inherent imprecision of the method means it's more aptly described as "birth-partial-hindrance".
sandworm101 8y ago
The quotes refer to other "natural" methods that were once pitched but are now bunk. "Natural" also has religious connotation in the US. Rhythm method was the church-approved means of family planning. It doesnt work, with a per-year failure rate of at least 10%. So anyone talking of natural birth control is eyed with sucpicion.
- dpeck 8y ago
  The rate is significantly higher than 10%. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/Family-Planning-Methods-2014.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/uninten... And for that matter many other methods are a lot higher than many would guess
- zeveb 8y ago
  > It doesnt work, with a per-year failure rate of at least 10%. That's on par with condoms, which per Planned Parenthood have an effective annual failure rate of 15%[0]. Oddly, folks don't eye talk of condoms with suspicion. 0: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom...
  - syntheticnature 8y ago
    As your own link shows, the main problem with condoms is people failing to use them properly (the 98% figure given for proper usage is actually one of the lower values I've seen for effectiveness in that case). Part of it is not putting them on right. The other part is much closer to one of the problems this app has: people getting caught in the moment and making an impulsive decision to proceed at least partially against the app/without a condom, then pull out (and either stop/apply a condom).
    - dpeck 8y ago
      “You’re holding it wrong”
    - ummonk 8y ago
kazinator 8y ago
Thermometers, let alone ones with 0.1°C precision, do not grow on trees.
- toss1 8y ago
  Even with 0.1°C precision, time of day makes an insanely huge difference. Taking temp at the same part of your daily schedule, e.g., on awakening, will still show substantial variation based on just waking up earlier/later, or if something skews your sleep cycle -- and by substantial, I'm talking about >1.2°C. Take temp at different times of day, and you're looking at >2°C normal variance between early morning low and mid-afternoon high. Source: while training & competing at an international level, I took resting Temp/HR/BP readings 2x per day to regulate the training intensity schedule (unusual increases in resting values provided early warning for overtraining or illness, so could back off a smaller amount earlier rather than being forced to a larger rest later). What I found was that the temp numbers were extremely sensitive to the huge daily temp cycle, and that I had to constantly compensate reading that value. It's really interesting, but unless you're very consistent and understand the daily cycle and variability, really hard to base anything on it (and I'm not even considering the F hormone cycle which is what they're apparently trying to measure).
- rascul 8y ago
  Maybe not on trees, but certainly around them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolbear%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolbear%27s_law
  - Vraxx 8y ago
    While amusing, I'd like to point out that the accuracy stated for this law doesn't meet the precision that the parent poster stated (0.1°C).
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rascul 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tryitnow 8y ago
Good point. The scare-quotes should actually be around the term "birth-control" since this app clearly has no solid supporting evidence from unbiased 3rd party researchers. So it's not really birth-control, it's "birth-control."
- acct1771 8y ago
  90% effective "birth control" still controls birth. You just end up with 6 kids instead of 18.

SomeHacker44 8y ago

It could also have been "scare-quoted" with "birth-control" since, IMO, there is not much "control" going on here. It's at best "birth-guidance" or something equally inefficacious (as compared to, say, IUD). Just my opinion. Personally, I would never recommend this to my minor daughter, sexual partner or frankly anyone who wants actual control in their "birth-control."

ksdale 8y ago
My wife and I talked about this, we've used trackers to increase our chances of conceiving and prior to that I had never really thought about how effective timing could be. That said, if you absolutely need to not get pregnant, it's not useful. I would also never suggest this to my minor daughter. The best use case is for someone who would prefer to have like 5 kids over 20 years rather than 10 kids. I also think people really underestimate differences in fertility at different ages. An 18 year old is way more likely to get pregnant than a 35 year old. I'd bet if a 35 year old woman was reasonably careful with natural planning, she could avoid getting pregnant until menopause, but I think there's no chance that an 18 year old with average fertility could make it to 25 without having at least one pregnancy.
jessriedel 8y ago
> It could also have been "scare-quoted" with "birth-control" Yea, and I would have agreed with that usage! Indeed, the author could have said explicitly something like "it's called "birth-control", but the inherent imprecision of the method means it's more aptly described as "birth-partial-hindrance".

sandworm101 8y ago

The quotes refer to other "natural" methods that were once pitched but are now bunk. "Natural" also has religious connotation in the US. Rhythm method was the church-approved means of family planning. It doesnt work, with a per-year failure rate of at least 10%. So anyone talking of natural birth control is eyed with sucpicion.

dpeck 8y ago
The rate is significantly higher than 10%. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/Family-Planning-Methods-2014.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/uninten... And for that matter many other methods are a lot higher than many would guess
zeveb 8y ago
> It doesnt work, with a per-year failure rate of at least 10%. That's on par with condoms, which per Planned Parenthood have an effective annual failure rate of 15%[0]. Oddly, folks don't eye talk of condoms with suspicion. 0: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom...
- syntheticnature 8y ago
  As your own link shows, the main problem with condoms is people failing to use them properly (the 98% figure given for proper usage is actually one of the lower values I've seen for effectiveness in that case). Part of it is not putting them on right. The other part is much closer to one of the problems this app has: people getting caught in the moment and making an impulsive decision to proceed at least partially against the app/without a condom, then pull out (and either stop/apply a condom).
  - dpeck 8y ago
    “You’re holding it wrong”
  - ummonk 8y ago

kazinator 8y ago

Thermometers, let alone ones with 0.1°C precision, do not grow on trees.

toss1 8y ago
Even with 0.1°C precision, time of day makes an insanely huge difference. Taking temp at the same part of your daily schedule, e.g., on awakening, will still show substantial variation based on just waking up earlier/later, or if something skews your sleep cycle -- and by substantial, I'm talking about >1.2°C. Take temp at different times of day, and you're looking at >2°C normal variance between early morning low and mid-afternoon high. Source: while training & competing at an international level, I took resting Temp/HR/BP readings 2x per day to regulate the training intensity schedule (unusual increases in resting values provided early warning for overtraining or illness, so could back off a smaller amount earlier rather than being forced to a larger rest later). What I found was that the temp numbers were extremely sensitive to the huge daily temp cycle, and that I had to constantly compensate reading that value. It's really interesting, but unless you're very consistent and understand the daily cycle and variability, really hard to base anything on it (and I'm not even considering the F hormone cycle which is what they're apparently trying to measure).
rascul 8y ago
Maybe not on trees, but certainly around them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolbear%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolbear%27s_law
- Vraxx 8y ago
  While amusing, I'd like to point out that the accuracy stated for this law doesn't meet the precision that the parent poster stated (0.1°C).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rascul 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tryitnow 8y ago

Good point. The scare-quotes should actually be around the term "birth-control" since this app clearly has no solid supporting evidence from unbiased 3rd party researchers. So it's not really birth-control, it's "birth-control."

acct1771 8y ago
90% effective "birth control" still controls birth. You just end up with 6 kids instead of 18.