Page 3 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Viridian
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8

18 Jul 2013, 9:19 pm

Vectorspace wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Vectorspace wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It is consistent - 85% is 85%, after all.
No, that's misinterpretation of the statistics...

Black is white, day is night, pain is joy, wealth is poverty, death is life, and 85% is not 85% ... yeah ... got it.

:roll:

I didn't mean to attack you.

Some "real data" I found:
http://www.sexedlibrary.org/index.cfm?pageId=788 wrote:
Method failure of male condoms (failure that is a direct result of a flaw in the condom) is uncommon. In fact, it is estimated to occur among only 3% of couples using condoms consistently and correctly during the first year of use. To help individuals understand this estimate, Contraceptive Technology explains that “only three of 100 couples who use condoms perfectly for one year will experience an unintended pregnancy.”
If each of these 100 couples had intercourse at the average coital frequency of 83 acts per year, then 100 couples would have intercourse a combined 8,300 times a year. Three pregnancies resulting from 8,300 acts of condom use is a remarkably low pregnancy rate (.04 %) when calculated on a per-condom basis.

The latter numbers fit, as (99.96/100)^86=96.6%.

Note that this is about "perfect use". If human error is taken into account, the numbers are much higher.

(I'm not attacking either I'm just imputing my two cents of skepticism)
Plus, doesn't fertility vary from individual to individual? I, on personal level, find it hard to believe thrown statistics unless I have the data used to conclude the final product sitting in front of me. For example was this study concluded with a male with an average fertility rate and a female with an average fertility rate using a condom and was this female at the peek of her ovulation cycle? There are so many variables I feel like that statistic can vary greatly depending on the situation. Anyway I'm deviating from the subject...

I would generally avoid implants of any sort. Your uterus is not meant to contain foreign objects of any sort and when you implement an implant there is a chance you are introducing foreign bacteria into your system which can increase your chance of infection on top of that rubbing can occur and increase your chances of becoming infertile or hemorrhaging if ever it were to pierce your cervix wall. General rule, don't mess with your uterus or you may end up with something you'll regret.

You could also use the calendar based method like Ladywoof said, in conjunction with your boyfriend taking a hot bath right before you do "it" because high heat reduces a man's sperm count. Therefor, both you and your boyfriend have low fertility. (Note: The bath method should never by itself to prevent pregnancy)



Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

19 Jul 2013, 1:03 am

The thing why I never trusted the calendar method is, that my period always was very regular every 28 days as long as everything was fine. The one-two times I had really big stress, my period was no longer interested in keeping attention to be regularly. :(



Agemaki
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 371
Location: Squirrel Forest

21 Jul 2013, 5:51 am

I have the implant Nexplanon (under the skin of my left arm) and am quite happy with it. I like that it prevents me from menstruating and seems to have stabilized my hormone levels so that I have no pms whatsoever. It did cause a bit of moodiness in the first few months and there was a bit of pesky vaginal dryness but that has mostly cleared up and I use Sliquid Satin when it starts to bother me. And of course, not having to take a pill everyday is nice.

My understanding is that infertility is only a risk if you don't get it removed after three years. Or am I wrong?



MagsMorrigan
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 51
Location: North America

23 Jul 2013, 3:43 pm

Alycat wrote:
The GP has prescribed the mini pill. He said that other methods such as implants can cause infertility


Hope it works well for you, and that you are comfortable on it! ^_^
I used those for a while when I was younger, and they're much easier on the system than estrogen pills, in my experience.


_________________
I don't chat in forums much. I'm just hoping to get some new perspective and maybe make a friend. So, it's not creepy if you send me a PM with a link to a discussion you think is interesting. I would like that, actually.


yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

24 Jul 2013, 1:51 am

Agemaki wrote:
I have the implant Nexplanon (under the skin of my left arm) and am quite happy with it. I like that it prevents me from menstruating and seems to have stabilized my hormone levels so that I have no pms whatsoever. It did cause a bit of moodiness in the first few months and there was a bit of pesky vaginal dryness but that has mostly cleared up and I use Sliquid Satin when it starts to bother me. And of course, not having to take a pill everyday is nice.

My understanding is that infertility is only a risk if you don't get it removed after three years. Or am I wrong?

For Implanon NXT (I assume it is almost the same thing?) the effectiveness of the contraceptive is reduced after three years, but it shouldn't affect fertility once it is taken out.

In the words of the information booklet: "Once IMPLANON NXT has been removed, your previous level of fertility is expected to return quickly."



glow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,484
Location: England

08 Aug 2013, 5:20 pm

I've known women my age and younger, who have had the coil fitted, and I can assure myself I would never have one of them. Make a man wear one it s only right when women have the hassle of having to alternate their periods with the combined pill in the first place.



Kylyssa
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2013
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 24

09 Aug 2013, 8:33 pm

There's a method not technically available in the US. It's a non-hormonal, once-a-week pill called Centchroman or Saheli. It doesn't carry the same risks as hormonal contraceptives although it has milder risks of its own. It is not used in the US because it works, in part, by de-synchronizing the ripening of the egg and the uterine lining by causing ovulation to occur when the uterine lining cannot accept an embryo implantation.

I know people who use it due to a family history of breast cancer and fibroid tumors, both of which it reduces. Despite having fewer and milder side-effects than hormonal methods, it won't be approved in the US due to the religious position that a fertilized egg is equal to a newborn baby.



Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

11 Aug 2013, 9:02 pm

Kylyssa wrote:
There's a method not technically available in the US. It's a non-hormonal, once-a-week pill called Centchroman or Saheli. It doesn't carry the same risks as hormonal contraceptives although it has milder risks of its own. It is not used in the US because it works, in part, by de-synchronizing the ripening of the egg and the uterine lining by causing ovulation to occur when the uterine lining cannot accept an embryo implantation.

I know people who use it due to a family history of breast cancer and fibroid tumors, both of which it reduces. Despite having fewer and milder side-effects than hormonal methods, it won't be approved in the US due to the religious position that a fertilized egg is equal to a newborn baby.


That sounds really interesting, I hope they are available here. I haven't been able to find anything that was non-hormonal and wouldn't interfere in other ways before.


_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html