You can't beat it for reliability, after all; relying on any kind of barrier method makes your human error risk skyrocket. (I use an IUD, which comes close to or matches the Pill for reliability, but I think most doctors won't prescribe those other than for married women with children -- liability fears.)
There's also the social problem of relying on someone else for unverifiable birth control. I can see it for men in committed monogamous relationships, but for anyone else I'd expect the response to be: "Sure you're on the pill. Now put on this condom." I suppose the guy gets additional peace of mind out of it, but it's not an alternative to other birth-control, just a supplement.
The majority of child-bearing age women I know are on the pill, though I know several who couldn't find one that didn't make them crazy. Body chemistry varies so widely that it's really hard to generalize pharmaceutical experiences across a population.
The IUD is pretty much the best of all contraceptive worlds.
I am on the patch, but only for the last five months or so. I should leave this comment at Becks's place; heck maybe I will, but that's interesting, because it's done a lot of good things for me; it's been good for my skin, my periods are definitely easier, but I have noticed something a little bit wrong with my sex drive, especially as compared to my previous three-times-a-day energy, and wasn't sure what to attribute it to.
Not that it doesn't have its own flaws, says the woman who used to have light, cramp-free periods. (Not that they're all that bad now, but there's been a distinct negative effect.)
It is to me, because it wasn't true of my girlfriends, but that might be because they were all borderline nuts (in the best possible way) and couldn't take it.
I guess it could be a surprise to you guys because a lot of women won't admit they're on it to their partners until they've known them for a while. If their partners assume they're not on the Pill, they worry about pregnancy and don't fight the idea of condoms.
10: I don't think I could trust that a guy was on the manpill unless I was feeding it to him. Too risky.
I was surprised that the NYT article, well, hadn't been written already. My friends joke that the Pill works by making you uninterested in sex; see, perfect contraception!
I never had trouble with the Pill, but have you and your friends been going back for different prescriptions? Friends of mine who've had libido or other emotional effects have had some success with switching brands.
24 - If I were to go back on it, I'd definitely try a different brand and would go in with a more critical eye for symptoms. Like I said, though, I never realized anything was up.
Also, I think Ogged just linked to my post to out me as part of the Not Getting Any club to all of Unfogged so he wouldn't feel so alone. Thanks for that.
Mind-body stuff is weird that way, it's very hard to think of your feelings as something affected by biochemistry. I don't get much in the way of period-related emotional effects, but I get wicked mood swings when I'm knocked up. The first time I was pregnant, it took me a month or two to figure out how to step back and think "All right, I normally wouldn't want to knife the deli guy for spilling my coffee a little. This probably isn't a genuine emotion so much. Take a deep breath and let it pass."
A very good friend of mine fit the profile of Beck and her friend: was proscribed the Pill at around 14, went off it after breaking up with a long-time boyfriend in her twenties, and realized that the Pill had been doing strange things to her body. And then.... she gained twenty pounds, her body odor changed, she started growing a lot more hair, she started breaking out worse than she'd ever experienced before, and didn't get her period for another two years. Terrifying.
She's now on the ring (the hormones are localized) and very happy about it.
I've known women who had really severe physical reactions to Depo-Provera and Norplant - hair falling out, etc. I've also known women who swore by them as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
A friend of mine went absolutely batshit after getting the whatchamacallit injection. Bouts of sobbing would occur to her like a sneeze, and she was repulsed by the notion of sex. But her rebound was very quick after the expiration (and very powerful, to the happy surprise of her boyfriend).
Some doctors noted that blood pressure medicine (nifedipine) prevented some couples from conceiving.
There are also occlusive plugs, which I think has been tried in India. There is very little money for contraceptive research in this country. The research leading to the Pill was funded primarily neither by government nor by industry but by a feminist philanthropist.
I am scared of the Pill and anything that would muck with those hormones, since I already have bad mood swings which I treat with drugs.
47--It was indeed pretty awful and disorienting, but since my friend was (and now again is) drop-dead gorgeous as a baseline, this era of wierd fuckeduppedness also coincided with her streak of sleeping with male models. So it could have been worse, I guess. And I don't take offense easily around here, so no worries.
the pill tends to stabilize mood swings at least as often as it exacerbates them
This is true. Also, there is zero statistical correlation between BC pill usage and weight gain. My last employer was a CRO specializing in reproductive health trials, so I've read way more literature on this than is seemly.
48, 50, 51: I think it has a "whacking the TV set effect" on mood swings. Might cause them, might cure them, might have no effect one way or the other, all depending on your individual biochemistry. It's the sort of thing that's worth trying if you're prepared to get right back off if the Pill is making things worse instead of better.
There's really no predicting its effect on any individual until she guinea pigs it. And, as LB says, different formulations can have wildly different effects on mood.
there is zero statistical correlation between BC pill usage and weight gain
And I was all set to blame the fact that I didn't fit into my dresses on my birth control. Damn you, apostropher. Damn you to hell. Where, if I lose weight and dye my hair [okay, also damn google for not indexing the most recent threads; I want to link to where LB called me not a blonde], you will have to answer to me.
Bostoniangirl - If you mean psychosis in the clinical sense, I don't think the pill carries much risk of that. (Although I'm no doctor). If you just mean plain ole' layman's crazy, well isn't that more or less the same thing as wild mood swings, which you say you already have?
(Not that I'm encouraging you to take the pill or anything.)
Urple-- I believe that my mother's diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder--manic depressive illness with schizophrenic-like symptoms. I believe she spoke in tongues when she was 16, but I've known her to be terribly agitated and to stay up all night. And once she thought she was urgently expected at a presidential inauguration--that's when a hospital called my Dad.
Okay that sounds like the clinical sort of crazy. I don't think taking the pill will affect your odds of ending up speaking in tongues or anything. But I could be wrong.
I'm bipolar, and after years of the pill making me almost unsleepwithably irritable, the NuvaRing is perfect, and if that were to stop, it could be out of my system in no time at all. Of course, the one complication would be if gets a little bit dislodged and someone thinks it's a diaphragm and concludes that you've orchestrated something that you absolutely did not orchestrate, but that would never happen. Especially not this past summer.
Some people have cock rings, but I think it's more of a barrier method.
I've heard that some IUDs are infused with hormones (progesterone?)
My wife was on the pill in HS because she really did have messed up periods (had to go home some bad days), she was regular on it, but then when she stopped it was even worse than before- had to have periods induced every few months because they didn't occur naturally for a year.
I think the pill decreases libido because ovulation is known to increase libido. No ovulation, no want sex.
It's main function is to prevent ovulation, and in the rare cases where it fails, it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. That's why the wingnuts call it an "abortifacient", because there's a slight chance you could block a fertilized egg. Never mind that medical pregnancy is defined as post-implantation.
Wait, then what's the deal with those different color pills that you take for one week each month? An old girlfriend said something about how some of them were essentially placebos. Or maybe that was just her brand.
That's why the wingnuts call it an "abortifacient", because there's a slight chance you could block a fertilized egg.
To expand on this, I believe that the 'fertilized egg-blocking' effect is speculative. That is, the primary mechanism of the Pill is ovulation-blocking; it is possible, when that fails, to get pregnant while taking the Pill; and a significant percentage (40%, half?) of all fertilized eggs fail to implant. To my knowledge, there isn't medical data establishing that the Pill reduces the odds that a fertilized egg will implant if ovulation and fertilization take place.
It's possible, but not established. But it's a lot easier to whip up opposition to 'abortifacients' than to straight BC, so it's a politically productive area of speculation for BC opponents.
81: And strictly speaking I don't think it's really a period. I've heard that some people are starting to skip the placebo bit to suppress the period part entirely.
I think rose's point in 65 is that the NuvaRing looks kinda, sorta, like a diaphragm with a big ol' hole in the middle of it.
Indeed, there is sometimes a chance that it might become dislodged and fall out during sex, but that's when you can go for extra points in well, call it the ring toss.
There was a New Yorker article about 6 years ago about some doctor who studied periods. He said the whole placebo set, making you get your period exactly every 28 days, is BS and is based on 60s views of male doctors that women want to have their period and be "regular". He said there's no reason not to keep taking the active pills for several months and only get your period three or four times a year (less frequent than that and you can have breakthrough bleeding.) I thinks that's the idea behind the new Seasonale pill I've seen commercials for.
67, 65: My speculation would be that what didn't happen is that someone didn't think that she orchestrated the sexual encounter, because they didn't think that she had deployed her diaphragm in before meeting for the evening or whatever.
I would guess not -- it's not a barrier method, and assuming it was replaced reasonably quickly (like an hour or so) I'd doubt hormone levels would drop all that fast. But I don't know.
No, even if the ring comes out for a few minutes, you're still protected. (Or so my wife assures me.)
I just mean, if you (meaning me) can get the ring around your (meaning my) member, it feels like an accomplishment. A carnival-game accomplishment, but still.
I think they have to dissolve like the drug, or you could tell the differenece, and starch won't dissolve, it will just make oobleck. At least, that's for blinded drug studies- I guess it doesn't matter for birth control pills.
Late, but to the original question, I'm on the pill, and all of my friends are either on it, or some other form of hormonal bc (patch and the NuvaRing). Seems to be the thing to do these days. I love the pill - I don't really have any side effects, just the benefits, although I was on one for a month that had a higher dose of estrogen and it was Fucked. Up. I got off that quick.
What makes me sad is that they keep lowering and lowering the amount of hormones needed to be effective, and that all the women in years past have been taking way more hormones than necessary. Sucks.
... they didn't think that she had deployed her diaphragm in before meetin ...
Or there was a coment along the lines of "wattinhell!? You call this protected? You cut a big ol' hole in the middle of your diaphragm. What kind of fruitloop are you?"
On pill, but only because you can't get Norplant any more. I heart Norplant. (And yes, I realize that "you can't get it" is hyperbole; nonetheless, it's not as available as it used to be, and my fucking health insurance won't cover it. OR an IUD.)
Estrogen, bless it, gives me migraines: so mini-pill it is. Which is a pain, b/c I'm bad at taking pills and it should be taken at the same time daily to ensure maximum protection. Oh well, some day I'll turn up pregnant, I guess.
Most women of childbearing age are on the pill b/c (1) it's more reliable and convenient than barrier methods; (2) it's more often covered by insurance than IUDs or Norplant or other alternative hormonel delivery methods; (3) getting pregnant sucks.
Here's what I don't get, though. Every woman I know agrees with LB: when they develop a pill for men, that's nice honey, but I'm not likely to stop taking mine unless I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship and I trust the hell out of my partner to remember to take 'em.
So why the hell do men just leave b/c to women? Obviously, the immediate fear of getting pregnant isn't as intense. But seriously, men in the room: if you don't want to cause a pregnancy, do you assume your partner's on the pill; ask, and then take her word for it/assume she doesn't forget; or insist on using the only method available to you, i.e. condoms?
Is it just me? Or did anyone else read ogged's original post as saying: "The pill lowers women's libidos? No wonder those twenty- and thirty-somethings don't want to have sex with me"?
When I was single and in the beginning stages of sexual relationships, it was condoms at all times, period. I think at least one or two of those relationships ended up being a condoms+pill situation.
It wasn't until I was in a trusted, monogamous, and STD-tested relationship that I felt comfortable "leaving the birth control" to her, but I assured her (and I assure you now) that I felt the requisite amount of guilt along with my relief.
I mean, I guess I'm more concerned about the disease, but mostly because the woman says she is on the pill, and I believe her. But also, I know that if she's lying, there's the condom.
But I see where you're going: I have no reason to think a woman would lie about being on the pill, whereas you would suspect a man might like about the mill. It's because we're assholes.
No, it wouldn't even be b/c I think a guy would *lie* as that, having occasionally forgotten a pill myself, I simply do not trust even the most trustworthy person with something that's as important to me as not getting knocked up.
you can imagine a fellow (or I can) who would lie, whereas I really can't imagine a woman who would, or at least I don't have the danger of encountering one, since I don't play in the NBA.
I don't think it's so much lie flat out, but just gloss over certain truths. Like, say, for example, say "yeah, I'm on the mill" but not mention the fact that he forgot to take it two days in a row last week. Oops.
it probably comes down to the assumption that men just want to fuck fuck fuck, which is a problematic assumption. Because probably untrue, and certainly harmful.
Or that women don't really want it -- that they can't be out of their right mind in a similar way at a similar moment. Not that I would claim to speak for the la-deez, but the consensus around seems to be that women can want sex just as much as men.
#125, I know: but it's the position itself that I don't get. Yes, being pregnant is worse than being the cause of a pregnancy; but assuming that most men do *not* want to hear "honey, we need to talk," I just don't understand how that "heat of the moment" thing gets any play at all.
B, are you trying to bait someone into making a claim about the balance of responsibility for a pregnancy? I don't really get your line of questioning—we all agree that it's illogical to trust a new sexual partner's word about their contraceptive precautions/bill of sexual health. So, what logic?
I just don't understand how that "heat of the moment" thing gets any play at all.
Because people are willing to trade long-term sensibility for immediate gratification. That's the explanation for any partner who doesn't insist on a condom the first time (and second, and so on, until intimacy or what have you).
#128: No. I was asking an honest question; in my experience, even very intelligent men are willing to forego condoms with long-term partners on the assumption that said partners will take care of birth control. And given LB's point--which I agree with, and which most women I know agree with--that a male pill is greatly needed and will be welcomed, but that I am not going to stop taking mine--I figured I'd ask.
It's because we're assholes. Either because we only want to fuck, or because we're willing to think that we only want to fuck, when that isn't actually the case.
I know I'm an outlier, but this seems somehow silly - or else I'm missing the operational definition of 'long-term partner".
I trust my long-term partner with a comprehensive Power of Attorney, and signature power over all my financial affairs. I'm willing to trust that she's not going to sell my house, clean out all my accounts, and run off to the South Pacific. I should worry that she might do all that and get pregnant, too?
I'd say (once you're in the 'past a condom' stage of a relationship) that men are more willing to trust women with BC because the immediate stakes are higher. I mean, as big a deal as getting someone else pregnant is, it's not the same as getting pregnant.
I'm not the world's most organized person, and part of the reason I'm using an IUD now is that while the pill worked fine for me before I had kids and a demanding job, after my second kid was born I had months where I'd missed four or five pills. A couple of months like that, and I figured I was going to have three kids if I didn't do something about it, and went and got myself an IUD. At my level of flakiness, if I were taking the pill to keep from getting someone else pregnant rather than getting myself pregnant, I might easily have not gotten worried enough to take action for quite a bit longer. If you see what I mean.
I wouldn't trust myself with BC if it wasn't my own ass on the line.
I would trust my partner with all those things too--because they're conscious decisions. Whereas even if one consciously decides to use birth control, it's possible to forget a pill. I've done it. I would worry about someone else doing it.
I know women who have lied about b/c and gotten pregnant on purpose, yes I do.
The Illinois Appellate Court decided a bizarre case last year. A woman had been in a sexual relationship with a doc. According to him, it was Clintonesque: blowjobs, no intercourse. The guy no doubt thought that this was a reliable method of birth control. However, post-ejaculation, the wench (mean, sexist term, but justified if the guy is telling the truth) went into the bathroom and, unknown to the guy, apparently stored his semen, which she later injected into herself. She got pregnant, had his kid, and sued him for child support!! The court held that he had to pay.
But see, that's the thing: why can we imagine a guy lying about that stuff? What guy in his right mind wants to get someone knocked up?
Hey, on "Desperate Housewives," Carlos took his wife's bcp's and replaced them with placebos so she'd get knocked up. If there are women who want to get knocked up, against the guy's wishes, and are willing to mislead the guy to do so, presumably there are some guys who would do the same thing. (I trust you're not suggesting that guys are morally superior to those conniving women. :-) ) Maybe the guy really wants to have a kid with her before she's too old (a la Carlos), or figures "I want to marry her, she's not willing yet, but if she gets pregnant then she'll marry me."
I mean, as big a deal as getting someone else pregnant is, it's not the same as getting pregnant.
I think that's all of it, tbh. I think 'Don't get pregnant' is beat into women's heads more than 'Don't get a girl pregnant' is for men. Plus, the risks aren't equal.
If I get pregnant, I probably have to take time off of school, bear the physical risk, social stigma of being an unwed mother, etc. The guy that gets me pregnant? Assuming he's decent and sticks around, doesn't have to take time out of his life, doesn't have to be pregnant, less social stigma because he's not the one walking around being pregnant. If he's not decent, he probably won't even have to pay child support.
I would be more affected by a unplanned pregnancy than he would; I have more incentive to be cautious. I think it doesn't even require guys being assholes, they're just not as sensitive to the risks because the risks aren't as serious for them.
Yeah, I think the "it gets beat into women's heads" thing is *key.* And I hate that. I can't say this for certain, not being a guy, but it seems to me that if I were a decent guy (as most men are) that getting someone else pregnant would make me feel worse than actually getting pregnant myself. I mean, if I get knocked up by accident, I have to deal with the consequences, and they might suck, but at least the choice is mine to make. If I knock someone else up, I not only have to deal with the guilt about that, but also the powerlessness of not being able to fix it myself, and the ensuing guilt about forcing someone I love to deal with a lot of bullshit, you know?
Re: unequal consequences -- at the coed Catholic high school in my hometown, if a girl became pregnant, she was expelled. The father? Was banned from extracurricular activities for a semester.
(This was in the mid-90s. I don't know what the policy is now.)
Irons disputes Phillips's claims and asserts that she conceived her child in the ordinary way. For purposes of this column only, however, I will assume the truth of Philips's allegations.
In other words, more evidence for my general principle of not having any sort of sex with anyone I think is unsound and not having non-condom sex with anyone I don't trust a whole helluva lot over a nice long time period.
That said, there seems to be a backlash brewing over enforcement of paternity responsibility. I'm still pretty much in the "Suck it up, men!" column, but I'm starting to get a little worried about how the laws are written and enforced. An Irish gay friend of mine backed out of donating sperm to a good friend of his because the EU has recently decided to overrule private contracts absolving sperm donors of fiscal responsibility. I haven't quite moved out of the Suck It Up column, but men might deserve some legal clarity here.
Oh yeah, at my Catholic h.s. a pregnant girl was expelled; nothing at all happened to the father. That was in the 80s, so I guess Becks' story demonstrates "progress."
I figure the guy, if he were to think about it at all, probably figures that however worried he is about the possibility of pregnancy, she's more worried.
If he's a decent guy, he'll feel bad, but that's nothing near something sitting on your bladder kicking you while causing sciatica for nine months. If there were a perfect child support system that was seriously compromising to the guy's career, they'd be more worried.
I think that paternity enforcement and fiscal responsibility stuff is really just about absolving the state of the responsibility for supporting single moms, frankly. The backlash bothers me, because you end up with idiots like Tierney arguing that if men have to pay child support, they should have veto power over abortions, rather than focusing on the fact that it isn't the woman, but the state, that demands and enforces child support from a kid's father. (Which, according to every single mom I know, sucks ass, because it makes you dependent on a resentful guy.)
All this said, though, given a hypothetical alternative between girls/women holding all the b.c. knowledge/cards/responsibility and keeping that information from them (realistically, what it would be), I'd rather have the girls in charge.
Young girl at my old high school tearfully confiding to my sister: How do you know if he used a condom?
it seems to me that if I were a decent guy (as most men are) that getting someone else pregnant would make me feel worse than actually getting pregnant myself.
Eh, I'm a decent person, or at least not so much of a moral leper, and I don't think I would. I would feel guiltier about getting someone else pregnant -- more like a bad person -- but if I were making the decision on a totally selfish basis, whether I would rather have an unwanted pregnancy or be responsible for getting someone else pregnant, I know which one of those sounds to me like the easier way out. To be overly clever, avoiding pregnancy is a much more visceral motivation than avoiding a pregnancy for which one is responsible.
Also, I'd like to say that despite all of the arguments we get into about men, women, and gender-correctness (see teh gay discussion for example) that I've been impressed by the men on this thread. I figured in 150+ comments there would have been at least some level of "um, we've got a good thing here - don't ruin it for us" backlash to my anti-Pill post but so far, none. Well played, guys.
#152: Oh, I agree in terms of visceral motivation, and I agree that in terms of actually feeling a compulsion to take b.c., selfishness is a better motivation than selflessness. I'm just flogging a hobbyhorse about the fact that we tend to talk about unwanted pregnancies as if men aren't concerned about them (unless they're opposed to abortion), instead of talking about men's role in unwanted pregnancies as an awful thing--not because of the threat of child support payments, but because it involves creating a problem you can't fix, and then having to watch someone you care about fix it on their own.
This is partly my whole "mother of a son" thing, by the way, and the line I plan to take when talking to him about birth control, responsibility, etc.
Smart line to take, I think, BPhD. (And your son is adorable.)
To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that child support should be increased/tightened/whatever to get men to be more responsible about b.c.; could have made the point by saying 'if we required them to quit school, their sports teams, and wear a pregnancy suit and then we kicked them a lot in nine months...'
As I said on Beck's blog, Newt's a month older than we were planning on. We had decided that we were going to stop using the diaphragm the next month, but by that time I was knocked up.
So, personally I consider them unreliable. But I understand it works great for lots of people.
I found diaphragms reliable, but I hate barrier methods. Inconvenience ticks me off.
You know what's great, though, if you want a barrier method, is a condom plus this stuff called "Vaginal Contraceptive Film." Yes, it's buy the same idiots that bring us "Vaginal Cleaning Film," but I'm not going to be a boycott purist when a convenient b.c. method is available. VCF is about 2 inches square, and it's kind of like rice paper (a little thicker): spermicide suspended in a gelatinous film. Fold it up, whack it in, and with a condom, you're good to go. A lot more portable and convenient than a diaphragm.
I figured in 150+ comments there would have been at least some level of "um, we've got a good thing here - don't ruin it for us" backlash to my anti-Pill post but so far, none.
My girlfriend has problems in this area (rather a few). I dunno, if the shit doesn't work right, there's no real benefit to it unless you're involved wholly in one-night stands.
Prof. B:No. I was asking an honest question;
Ok, obviously, I have a far more dire and cynical view of humanity, bless their black flabby little hearts. (I didn't say I didn't like 'em; I don't particularly trust them.)
in my experience, even very intelligent men are willing to forego condoms with long-term partners on the assumption that said partners will take care of birth control.
In an ideal situation, probably not. In an unideal situation (booze, drugs, rampant horniness, brain farts, lack of condoms, bad condoms, etc.) that may not matter so much.
And given LB's point--which I agree with, and which most women I know agree with--that a male pill is greatly needed and will be welcomed,
I think they ought to have one, but I suspect it wouldn't sell very well unless it was half Viagra. Taking pill to avoid getting pregnant: deeply needed protection making one feel safe. Taking a pill to avoid getting someone else pregnant: onerous burden assumed to get what you want. Workable in a high trust, monogamous situation, much more difficult in a random encounter situation.
I'm with Armsmasher: the incentives are wrong.
but that I am not going to stop taking mine--I figured I'd ask.
Absolutely.
Yeah, I think the "it gets beat into women's heads" thing is *key.*
No doubt. It's obnoxious. Neccessary but obnoxious.
If I knock someone else up, I not only have to deal with the guilt about that, but also the powerlessness of not being able to fix it myself, and the ensuing guilt about forcing someone I love to deal with a lot of bullshit, you know?
(Might as well paint a target on my ass) I did that once. Signal wires were crossed. Nonetheless, entirely my fault. I felt the way you described, but that was AFTERWARDS. The trick is, of course, to feel that way BEFOREHAND. Which is more of a difficult project than it seems when seen from a remove, simply because the gonads and the brain are trying to obey that old biological imperative.
Hey, house wiring is really quick and easy if you ignore the possibility of getting zapped!
Since I went to a Catholic school, along with the normal contraception stuff that they taught in health class (despite it being against the rules), they also taught Fertility Awareness. Not your mother's rhythm method, but how to read the signs your body gives off that indicate when you're ovulating. I'd never rely on it alone, but I think a lot of people are too quick to dismiss its usefulness for letting people know when to be extra careful or just being in touch with your body.
The concept of wanting to have a period is totally foreign to me. I guess I'm just old-fashioned and misogynist.
It depends on what you mean by want. I don't think many women do want a period in some kind of affirmation of their womanhood (although I know that some women do). Many women want to have them because it's a pretty damn reliable indicator that they aren't pregnant. If you keep taking your Pills, the only proof you get is negative "I think I've been reliably taking it." A period is more solid evidence. So it's more in the realm of unpleasant but serving some greater purpose than being a good thing in and of itself.
Having never been pregnant, I'm sympathetic to this. I don't know what my body's symptoms of early pregnancy would be like (especially with the Pill masking them), so buried way back in my mind is the fear that if I skip periods with the Pill, I'll end up realising I'm pregnant comparitively late in the pregnancy. It's something that's good to know as soon as possible and missing a period is one of the best early signs.
A male friend of mine was raped by a woman trying to impregnate herself in order to entrap him into staying with her (he was planning to move out). She woke him up from a nap with a blow job, which he consented to, but then got on top of him. He said "no, wait, I'll get a condom" several times, but she outweighed him considerably and one arm of his was pinned against the couch. She did become pregnant, although I think there's some ambiguity as to whether the pregnancy was from this incident, another time when they had unprotected sex during her period, or maybe weirdly the condom, despite not breaking, had leaked some sperm. His (well, presumably, don't think there's ever been a test) son was born, he went to see him and the mother in the hospital, and she threatened to kill him. The mother hasn't sued for child support and he hasn't paid any.
Very few guys are able to provide even minimally decent support for more than one family (with kids) at a time. Someone always gets shorted.
What that means is that a non-wealthy guy can do right by two families in his life, if he marries young. Even that would entail dumping his wife when she was about 40.
But I've seen guys who've taken three or four tries at it. It ends up being pretty miserable -- if the child support is paid, the new family suffers, and the old family doesn't necessarily do well either.
It makes me sound like a terrible Puritan, but people should realize that the second chance isn't as good as the first, and in some cases, that they really shouldn't try again.
I think you'll find a lot of sympathy for a position saying that people should be very, very careful about choosing to have kids, and and about how they plan to support them. At least, I've got a lot of sympathy for such a position.
Reckless hedonism is great so long as it doesn't involve screwing over your kids.
Ironically, at the time this drama was unfolding (167), my friend was playing the son in _An Inspector Calls_, a great melodrama (Edwardian maybe) a play in which every member of a family bears some portion of the responsibility for a young woman's death, and the son's contribution was getting her pregnant.
You know, this thread, it kind of irritates me. Did I not call in 128 that we were looking at a referendum on paternal responsibility? I was raised pretty far from the ivory towers of the east coast and was instructed from the get-go that any pregnancy resulting from my foolishness would absolutely be my responsibility if I intended to be a member of my family in good standing. The "backlash against child support"? It can't be a view held by many more than makes up the bloc of men who systematically oppose women's rights—a bloc, surely, that accounts for an historically small percentage of men today.
Sure, we paranoid protofathers don't deserve congratulations for it, but please don't doubt the very real, fundamental terror we feel toward pregnancy or the sense that we are absolutely required to do the right thing that's at the source of that terror.
I guess "backlash" was the wrong word, describing as it does the creepy "fathers' rights" camp. I do think that the "right of the child" to have and know about his or her parent(s), genetic and legal, is going to get a little confusing going forward. I'm pretty much solidly in the camp of everyone commenting here in favor of responsibility--and yes, terror. What I'm interested in, more, is what the responsibility should be of donors, surrogates, and people who give their children up for adoption. These are issues in family law that seem to me far from settled.
Not doubting it -- as one of those saying that women have a greater fear of unwanted pregnancy than men, I'm really relying on my use of the word 'visceral'. The 'responsibility for an unplanned child' element of fear is equal, but the 'Oh my god, there's something alive in my abdomen that isn't me,' is all on the woman. Further, that extra burden is strongly frontloaded -- it kicks in the minute you know you're pregnant -- which makes it, I think, more motivating than the perhaps more significant worry over the long haul of how to pay for college.
Additionally, no one's mentioned the elephant in the room - abortion. In the social milieu to which most commenters here belong, odds are an unwanted pregnancy would be aborted. (I'm guessing that, but I'm pretty sure. It's what I did when I got pregnant the month after Mr. Breath and I started having sex. (Broken condom, waiting for my period so that I could go on the pill)).
Abortion is a two-edged sword, perceived burden-wise. It's thought of as at best, a morally ambiguous decision by even many (most?) pro-choice people, and it's the woman's decision. So in a pro-choice but morally conflicted couple, which describes a heck of a lot of people, the woman knows that if she gets pregnant, she is going to have to decide whether or not to do something that she, or other people whose opinion she values, regards as a bad thing. The man doesn't have to worry about taking responsibility for that decision -- he just has to lay back and be supportive.
None of this is intended to say that most men are lacking in responsibility, just that in the factual situation as it stands, women have a significantly greater incentive to avoid pregnancy.
I heart the morning after pill. A pox upon the houses of all those who would prevent it from being sold over-the-counter. I (well, my mom) once paid 400 dollars in Emergency Room fees in college when I didn't know where else to go to get an Rx. I was insured, but my insurance didn't cover birth control, and my normal health care provider was the school health center, which was closed during the summer even though there were some students living there. Though it would have covered an abortion. Guess I should have waited and seen. Still today, morning after pill doctors' visits take hours out of my life, though now I know better than to go to the ER, and go to community health centers.
There's something that really, really, really needs to go OTC.
(I am an idiot, of course. Back in 1995, while I had heard of the morning after pill, it wasn't so much a matter of public discussion, and I literally didn't think of it untill I'd missed the window.)
They've gotten a lot better in the past few years. In college, the morning after pill gave me violent nausea and borderline frightening quantities of menstrual bleeding. Now it's just fine.
No doubt, LB, a man can't share the burden of gestation even as he shares the concerns associated with parenting. But as to the latter, I think that in one sense even the irritating and misguided "father's rights" camp reveals a greater universal sense of paternal responsibility among men. (Even if father's righters' goal is to exercise control over women, they still couch their goals in a language that they assume will be met by a sympathetic audience: in terms of paternal responsibility.)
Gynos should totally be offering prescriptions for the MA pill as a standard option during checkups. (Maybe they do -- mine doesn't, but of course she knows I'm using an IUD.)
184--That's interesting to know. I took it once, in 1997, and had a horrible experience. The seeming contempt expressed by the good people at Planned Parenthood didn't help, either.
Hear, hear. Having been in the situation of needing (well, my girlfriend needing) emergency contraception, I shudder to think of the drama and potential trauma that would have resulted had she not been able to get it.
But as to the latter, I think that in one sense even the irritating and misguided "father's rights" camp reveals a greater universal sense of paternal responsibility among men.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't get you here -- greater than what? Than there used to be? I would say that there needs to be some serious shakeup, not so much in law but in practices, in family law relating to children of unmarried or no longer married parents. It should be strongly understood that both parents are totally responsible for all of their children, and that that responsibility should be expressed in both financial support and personal contact and caretaking. The vestiges of the "Women care for children; men pay child support" system suck for everyone.
so here's my question: with the risk of failure of condoms, but the near perfect success of the pill, why not do both? It's bayesian probability, and it reduces the chances to nil. I guess the con is teh sex isn't as great for the guy, but if you really don't want to risk the burden of fatherhood (or motherhood), why wouldn't you suffer that?
184: My famously horrible college health center was pretty bad for that, too. My nurse clucked when she counted the days from my last period, "Right at your most fertile time," with a disapproving look and in a tone that I felt pretty clearly expressed that I was slutty and irresponsible.
190: Some women get negative health/emotional effects from the pill. Even for those of us who don't, there's a tendency to go off it during long dry spells (have I ever told you guys I was in the Peace Corps?), and you can't go back on it until immediately after your period.
So, yes, doubling up on BC is always a good idea, but there are reasons for a fair amount of condom-only sex.
Some men really, really have a hard time with condoms. Like, very rarely can they come. It's not an excuse for condomless sex with a new partner, but it's motivation to get rid of the condoms as soon as the trust is there.
Not only do I not disagree with you, I emphatically agree. And I think outside the vocal minority of scum (the backlash against child support), so do most men nowadays. Admittedly, I'm young and childless and hang out with lots of young, childless, even childish dudes, but I think that we were all at the very least raised with a different understanding than the "women care for children, men pay child support" paradigm.
I don't think it's a lack of paternal responsibility that explains the shortcomings of family law, but instead a perfect storm of structural factors: laws written by an older generation who grew up in an economy with drastically different gender expectations, previously unreliable methods for establishing paternity inexpensively and without a shadow of a doubt, etc.
And I would agree, adding that there is, even in the most responsible of us, a tendency to behave in accordance with perceived norms. And for all the legacy reasons you mention, the perceived norm is that children of unmarried parents live with the mother and the father does or doesn't have visits with the kids and does or doesn't pay child support. This is something we're just going to have to evolve away from, as more men and women who have grown up thinking consciously about these issues become the people who are in unmarried-parenting situations.
Lambskin's making a comeback. No disease prevention, just birth control, supposedly more comfy (don't know personally.) Good turn-on if you're into bestiality too.
It's worth noting that a popular men's magazine has run an article taking the scummy men's rights position; I can't find the full text of the article but here's a book slut post that discusses it; scroll down to Details. I actually only read the article because it was in the waiting room of the health clinic where I was waiting for the MA pill, and I came in spluttering about it to the gyno. "Let me take that from you and throw it out," he said. Then he went on to express to me at length his profound hatred of the Bush Administration.
It may be that Details is an outlier, and is trying to carve out a niche for itself as the retrograde upscale glossy. The next article began, "The Federal Aviation Administration is looking for a few good men."
207: Fair enough. I was speaking from my experience, but it occurs to me that the condom experience in general is probably a bit different for men and women.
Perhaps I should clarify, in case people don't click through, that it's taking a worse position than the one Armsmasher is describing, i.e., it's asserting the right to ditch a child if you can't tell the woman to have an abortion; it describes that action as "the male abortion."
Link in 205: The description of the Vanity Fair cover does not seem to match the illustration.
And I'd need some heavy convincing before I came around to 198. It seems likely to me that men have more political power and are going to resist changes in the law that would disadvantage them. Think Newt Gingrich.
I don't really get you on that. While there certainly need to be changes in the law to handle the sorts of marginal situations Jackm was talking about, I don't see family law now as systematically advantaging men. Societal practices tend to leave women not married to the fathers of their children disproportionately taking care of those children, but that's not particularly due to the state of the law as I understand it.
I support the right of men to waive their parental responsibilities as soon as the men who want to do it get out there and start lobbying to restore AFDC and make it automatic for single moms at a level that matches local average incomes for two-parent families.
I know someone who's been associated with family courts in one New England state. Apparently there's a presumption in favor of the man if he wants custody, even in cases where there is evidence of spousal or child abuse by the man- it is then the woman's burden to prove he is unfit. My reading of this is that courts assume men won't want custody, and if they make a claim for it, they must be a male of outstanding character and therefore should presumptively be favored.
I betcha someone already answered this very well but - hey - here is my answer anyway.
I used condoms pre-marriage. When I met my future wife she was on BC pills for health reasons (Yippee!) but was also Catholic (Awww).
After marriage we used the pill and I personally accepted the risk that my wife might get pregnant anyway. I knew there was a small but greater than zero risk that my wife might 'forget' or whatever but I accepted that risk.
Along the way we've popped out four sprogs. I was ready to stop at three but my wife wanted the fourth, and of course I love my fourth child to death.
BUT I also said before 4 was born I was stopping and it was time for the snip-snip and my fathering days were over, and my wife was cool with that. Interestingly enough they wouldn't give me the big V until my wife gave birth, saying I might change my mind.
I've heard that here in Chicago if you and your ex both want child custody, and one of you believes in the Sky Fairy and the other doesn't, the non-believer is in trouble. Judges assume that the Sky Fairy-believer is the better parent. Every courtroom says "In God We Trust" on the wall.
Yeah, wasn't there some custody dispute case recently between two Wiccan parents where the judge ordered that the child be indoctrinated in the Sky Fairy even though neither parent wanted that?
As someone who's spent a fair amount of time sitting in courtrooms, the great thing about 'In God We Trust' is how well it anagrams: e.g., "Nurse dog, twit!"
Not to be the language police again, but, guys, uh, "Sky Fairy?" Is it not possible to decry anti-atheist prejudice (which I feel not occasionally) without using that term? Just sayin'.
Somehow I've never heard anyone refer to their children and their births that way before.
Really? It is a pre-emptive strike at the 'childfree' crowd. Kinda like bphd calling herself bitchphd.
I think sprog means 'stupid progeny' but I'm not sure. I like the term better than 'crotch droppings,' but that is because I'm not really into scatological terms.
Re: LB in 200!, I'm ready to believe that divorce culture acts as a similarly influencial perceived norm, a Solomon's wisdom—the best thing to do for kids in these situations is to split their custody down the middle. But I don't know whether most divorced families result in joint-custody situations, so I'm not sure it's the prevailing divorce norm, but we at least have a standard out there other than nuclear family or single mom.
OK, Tripp, I grant you that "crotch droppings" is even worse. :P
Not to be the language police again, but, guys, uh, "Sky Fairy?" Is it not possible to decry anti-atheist prejudice (which I feel not occasionally) without using that term? Just sayin'.
I try to give religion the respect it deserves: none. Adults don't normally believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. God is no different. Believing that you have an invisible friend is delusional, period.
211: OK, I know nothing whatsoever about the law, so I withdraw what I said about it completely.
But, insofar as Smasher is saying in 198 that men are in general totally responsible except for the men's-rights scum, and the vestiges of the "women take care of the children, men pay child support" paradigm are with us only because of historico-structural factors, I just have my doubts. As Tia points out, the men's-rights scum want even less responsibility than that (and John Tierney seems to think this is logical). I think there's a long way to parental equality, and a lot of men don't want to go there. Remember, our friends tend to be young and liberal.
And I will defend to my dying day the proposition that the Vanity Fair cover here does not show "a glowing Martha Stewart... embracing a little black dog."
what I mean to say is: there is little you have written here that I have personally enjoyed, but I wouldn't want to speak for everyone, or presume to understand their thoughts and beliefs.
'Childfree' people puzzle me. I can understand not wanting to have kids; I can't understand the vitriol. Maybe the ones I know are idiots.
'Like, omg! They had kids! That's so wasteful in this day and age,' she says, wearing top of the line clothing, driving her SUV, covered in makeup and jewelry, with her six bedroom house.
Just to be clear -- do you (not occasionally) feel such prejudice, or the effects of such prejudice? Because I had not figured you to be biased contra irreligionists.
And I'm with useta-be-tweedledopey about the gradually disappearing input fields. Is it my punishment for not being anonymous? Cause I'll break out the indecipherable nicknames quicker than you can say Kcaj Nosnibor.
I dunno. Even if one believes in God, and believes atheists are all going to hell, referring to them as the Damned or Future Demon Toasties is still rude.
(I could point out that one could believe in God and believe quite easily that it's wrong for a judge to decide a custody battle based on using someone's religiosity as a proxy for their parental fitness, but that's probably being overly pedantic.)
Jeremy Osner, I am irreligious, and feel the effects of such prejudice. Sorry for the ambiguity. I am now belatedly regretting starting another fight, but Frederick, in a community which includes several professed believers, all of whom have an excellent sense of humor about their religion, while I can't speak for the proprietors of this site, your comment strikes me as just about tantamount to trolling.
I too am irreligious and make a point of not belittling other people's religious beliefs (though of course I leave exceptions up to my own discretion) -- I've thought the first few times I encountered it that the "sky faerie" construct was kind of amusing and looked for a way to drop it into conversation in some context/milieu where it would not cause offense and would cause chuckles. Reckon it's played at this point though, before I ever got my chance.
there is little you have written here that I have personally enjoyed
OK. I don't recall experiencing an orgasm or anything upon reading anything you've written, text. I take it you're offended by my criticism of religion. It's odd: religious folks, on the whole, think that atheists are the scum of the earth (for example, less than 50% say they would ever vote for an atheist for president -- see link below), but they think that we have to respect their religions. It's OK for me to criticize any other idea people have, but religion is somehow sacrosanct and immune from criticism. Bullshit.
Being an atheist is still "the most discriminated-against characteristic of the eight tested in the research," according to the latest Gallup poll asking who people would vote for for U.S. President.
Let's see, off the top of my head in my circle of friends, close to 100%. Plus one using Norplant.
I've only taken it for just over a year, but some of them have been on it for ten.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:01 PM
What's ol' 8. up to these days?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:01 PM
You can't beat it for reliability, after all; relying on any kind of barrier method makes your human error risk skyrocket. (I use an IUD, which comes close to or matches the Pill for reliability, but I think most doctors won't prescribe those other than for married women with children -- liability fears.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:04 PM
We really need some movement on the man-pill.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:06 PM
AKA the "mill".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:07 PM
You're all grist for my mill.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:08 PM
Man-pill I thought was too difficult; preventing one egg vs. 2-3 million sperm sort of thing.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:09 PM
No one can stop all the sperm!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:11 PM
I've found taking a daily mutlivitamin to be a nearly impossible resolution, so there's that.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:12 PM
There's also the social problem of relying on someone else for unverifiable birth control. I can see it for men in committed monogamous relationships, but for anyone else I'd expect the response to be: "Sure you're on the pill. Now put on this condom." I suppose the guy gets additional peace of mind out of it, but it's not an alternative to other birth-control, just a supplement.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:12 PM
Not merely because there is no such thing as a mutlivitamin.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:13 PM
"Sure you're on the pill. Now put on this condom."
Not to mention in the non-monogamous situation, there's "Sure you're on the pill. What STDs do you have?" issue.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:14 PM
there is no such thing as a mutlivitamin.
Google says different.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:14 PM
Is it really a surprise that a large % of 20 and 30-something women are?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:14 PM
The majority of child-bearing age women I know are on the pill, though I know several who couldn't find one that didn't make them crazy. Body chemistry varies so widely that it's really hard to generalize pharmaceutical experiences across a population.
The IUD is pretty much the best of all contraceptive worlds.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:15 PM
I am on the patch, but only for the last five months or so. I should leave this comment at Becks's place; heck maybe I will, but that's interesting, because it's done a lot of good things for me; it's been good for my skin, my periods are definitely easier, but I have noticed something a little bit wrong with my sex drive, especially as compared to my previous three-times-a-day energy, and wasn't sure what to attribute it to.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:15 PM
like smasher, it's a good thing I don't have to take a pill everyday to keep myself alive, otherwise, I'd be dead.
Posted by jvance | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:15 PM
Not that it doesn't have its own flaws, says the woman who used to have light, cramp-free periods. (Not that they're all that bad now, but there's been a distinct negative effect.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:16 PM
18 to 15.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:17 PM
Is it really a surprise
It is to me, because it wasn't true of my girlfriends, but that might be because they were all borderline nuts (in the best possible way) and couldn't take it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:18 PM
I guess it could be a surprise to you guys because a lot of women won't admit they're on it to their partners until they've known them for a while. If their partners assume they're not on the Pill, they worry about pregnancy and don't fight the idea of condoms.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:18 PM
Good to see the double-posting problem has been addressed.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:20 PM
10: I don't think I could trust that a guy was on the manpill unless I was feeding it to him. Too risky.
I was surprised that the NYT article, well, hadn't been written already. My friends joke that the Pill works by making you uninterested in sex; see, perfect contraception!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:21 PM
I never had trouble with the Pill, but have you and your friends been going back for different prescriptions? Friends of mine who've had libido or other emotional effects have had some success with switching brands.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:24 PM
Some folks I've known who had libido issues with the Pill also had better luck with the progesterone-only pill.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:25 PM
24 - If I were to go back on it, I'd definitely try a different brand and would go in with a more critical eye for symptoms. Like I said, though, I never realized anything was up.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:28 PM
My sister collected $70 k for Dalkon Shield problems, but it wasn't worth it.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:30 PM
Also, I think Ogged just linked to my post to out me as part of the Not Getting Any club to all of Unfogged so he wouldn't feel so alone. Thanks for that.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:30 PM
Mind-body stuff is weird that way, it's very hard to think of your feelings as something affected by biochemistry. I don't get much in the way of period-related emotional effects, but I get wicked mood swings when I'm knocked up. The first time I was pregnant, it took me a month or two to figure out how to step back and think "All right, I normally wouldn't want to knife the deli guy for spilling my coffee a little. This probably isn't a genuine emotion so much. Take a deep breath and let it pass."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:33 PM
I've been saying and I've been saying, there's something both of you could do about that.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:33 PM
30 to 28, of course.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:34 PM
But who knows when ogged will next be where Becks is (NY & DC, right?)? Whereas I do know when I'll next be in NY.
The way forward is clear!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:35 PM
Wolfson!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:36 PM
Happy Horror Story Time!
A very good friend of mine fit the profile of Beck and her friend: was proscribed the Pill at around 14, went off it after breaking up with a long-time boyfriend in her twenties, and realized that the Pill had been doing strange things to her body. And then.... she gained twenty pounds, her body odor changed, she started growing a lot more hair, she started breaking out worse than she'd ever experienced before, and didn't get her period for another two years. Terrifying.
She's now on the ring (the hormones are localized) and very happy about it.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:37 PM
Jesus Jackmormon. I'd hate to hear your scary horror stories.
Posted by jvance | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:39 PM
Yow.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:39 PM
Yow. Nothing in 34 has happened to anyone I know thank god. Only good happy things.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:41 PM
"Wait, are most twenty- and thirty-something women in our social circle on the pill?"
Yes.
Posted by Kathleen | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:42 PM
is yow the new yikes?
Posted by jvance | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:42 PM
Jackmormon needs 2 more anecdotes to match my Sunday Styles-worthy level of credibility. (Or so I keep repeating to myself over and over.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:43 PM
I've known women who had really severe physical reactions to Depo-Provera and Norplant - hair falling out, etc. I've also known women who swore by them as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The moral of the story? YMMV.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:46 PM
A friend of mine went absolutely batshit after getting the whatchamacallit injection. Bouts of sobbing would occur to her like a sneeze, and she was repulsed by the notion of sex. But her rebound was very quick after the expiration (and very powerful, to the happy surprise of her boyfriend).
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:46 PM
This "friend" is you, right?
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:48 PM
43--no.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:51 PM
I think 43 was meant for me. Matt F, what can I say, I didn't read the label.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:54 PM
The main goals of the man pill were not to stop all the sperm but to make them poor swimmers that couldn't penetrate the egg (the nifty sugar pill--binds with the sperm so that the egg can't).
Some doctors noted that blood pressure medicine (nifedipine) prevented some couples from conceiving.
There are also occlusive plugs, which I think has been tried in India. There is very little money for contraceptive research in this country. The research leading to the Pill was funded primarily neither by government nor by industry but by a feminist philanthropist.
I am scared of the Pill and anything that would muck with those hormones, since I already have bad mood swings which I treat with drugs.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:55 PM
It was indeed meant for the Smasher. 34 sounds like a horrific experience, not exactly a joke-appropriate comment.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 3:59 PM
Bostoniangirl- for what it's worth, I think the pill tends to stabilize mood swings at least as often as it exacerbates them.
Of course that doesn't make it any less of a sinful abomination against nature.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:01 PM
47--It was indeed pretty awful and disorienting, but since my friend was (and now again is) drop-dead gorgeous as a baseline, this era of wierd fuckeduppedness also coincided with her streak of sleeping with male models. So it could have been worse, I guess. And I don't take offense easily around here, so no worries.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:03 PM
the pill tends to stabilize mood swings at least as often as it exacerbates them
This is true. Also, there is zero statistical correlation between BC pill usage and weight gain. My last employer was a CRO specializing in reproductive health trials, so I've read way more literature on this than is seemly.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:10 PM
48 and 50: When my sister took it, it made her really irritable and moody.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:14 PM
A very good friend of mine fit the profile of Beck and her friend: was proscribed the Pill at around 14
If she was proscribed it, doesn't that mean she was forbidden to take it? /wolfson
I think Ogged just linked to my post to out me as part of the Not Getting Any club to all of Unfogged so he wouldn't feel so alone.
You could probably find some Unfoggeder willing to help you with that.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:14 PM
48, 50, 51: I think it has a "whacking the TV set effect" on mood swings. Might cause them, might cure them, might have no effect one way or the other, all depending on your individual biochemistry. It's the sort of thing that's worth trying if you're prepared to get right back off if the Pill is making things worse instead of better.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:17 PM
51: See 41.
There's really no predicting its effect on any individual until she guinea pigs it. And, as LB says, different formulations can have wildly different effects on mood.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:17 PM
You could probably find some Unfoggeder willing to help you with that.
Gee Frederick, that's a pretty funny joke. It's a wonder no one else thought of it anywhere in the preceding 24 comments.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:20 PM
I'll see your 41 and raise you 55.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:20 PM
damn you urple.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:21 PM
As I have a family history of psychosis, I am nervous about mucking with my moods.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:21 PM
Understandable.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:23 PM
there is zero statistical correlation between BC pill usage and weight gain
And I was all set to blame the fact that I didn't fit into my dresses on my birth control. Damn you, apostropher. Damn you to hell. Where, if I lose weight and dye my hair [okay, also damn google for not indexing the most recent threads; I want to link to where LB called me not a blonde], you will have to answer to me.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:24 PM
Bostoniangirl - If you mean psychosis in the clinical sense, I don't think the pill carries much risk of that. (Although I'm no doctor). If you just mean plain ole' layman's crazy, well isn't that more or less the same thing as wild mood swings, which you say you already have?
(Not that I'm encouraging you to take the pill or anything.)
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:25 PM
Urple-- I believe that my mother's diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder--manic depressive illness with schizophrenic-like symptoms. I believe she spoke in tongues when she was 16, but I've known her to be terribly agitated and to stay up all night. And once she thought she was urgently expected at a presidential inauguration--that's when a hospital called my Dad.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:29 PM
Okay that sounds like the clinical sort of crazy. I don't think taking the pill will affect your odds of ending up speaking in tongues or anything. But I could be wrong.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:33 PM
can I redirect your attention, urple? Should I or shouldn't I undergo an elective kidney operation?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:41 PM
I'm bipolar, and after years of the pill making me almost unsleepwithably irritable, the NuvaRing is perfect, and if that were to stop, it could be out of my system in no time at all. Of course, the one complication would be if gets a little bit dislodged and someone thinks it's a diaphragm and concludes that you've orchestrated something that you absolutely did not orchestrate, but that would never happen. Especially not this past summer.
Posted by rose | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:49 PM
I'm just saying I've read the warning labels in pills packs before, and I've never seen "may begin speaking in tongues" listed as risk factor.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:50 PM
I don't follow the mixup. Even if, as didn't happen, someone thought the ring was a diapraghm, they're both methods of BC. What was the difference?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:51 PM
well then perhaps you'll write me a prescription for some of these birth control pills. Can I get one with echinacea?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 4:52 PM
text, I love you, but I don't get the comment.
Birth Control pill also doubles the concentration of a certain anticonvulsant with antidepressant properties.
Rose, Thanks for delurking, and I'd love to know the answer to LB's question.
Also, what are the relative merits of the ring versus an IUD?
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:05 PM
See my 18 for an IUD disadvantage. I don't know anything about the ring either way.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:07 PM
68 was to 66. I was sort of being a bastard to urple.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:09 PM
IUD isn't hormonal. No lag time upon removal for restoring fertility. Ring has to be replaced regularly, while you just forget about the IUD.
LB is right - some women experience much heavier periods with the IUD, especially in the first few months after insertion.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:20 PM
If someone would only develop a cock ring.
(Trying to fill the gap, what with apostropher bringing the knowledge)
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:24 PM
Some people have cock rings, but I think it's more of a barrier method.
I've heard that some IUDs are infused with hormones (progesterone?)
My wife was on the pill in HS because she really did have messed up periods (had to go home some bad days), she was regular on it, but then when she stopped it was even worse than before- had to have periods induced every few months because they didn't occur naturally for a year.
I think the pill decreases libido because ovulation is known to increase libido. No ovulation, no want sex.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:32 PM
I thought you still ovulated on the pill, just at a predictable time (not that this is something I have any shred of authority on)
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:34 PM
Nope. At least the goal is to prevent ovulation, although it, like everything else in life, may work imperfectly.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:35 PM
It's main function is to prevent ovulation, and in the rare cases where it fails, it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. That's why the wingnuts call it an "abortifacient", because there's a slight chance you could block a fertilized egg. Never mind that medical pregnancy is defined as post-implantation.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:38 PM
Its- damn it, I'm usually really good at that.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:39 PM
Wait, then what's the deal with those different color pills that you take for one week each month? An old girlfriend said something about how some of them were essentially placebos. Or maybe that was just her brand.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:42 PM
That's why the wingnuts call it an "abortifacient", because there's a slight chance you could block a fertilized egg.
To expand on this, I believe that the 'fertilized egg-blocking' effect is speculative. That is, the primary mechanism of the Pill is ovulation-blocking; it is possible, when that fails, to get pregnant while taking the Pill; and a significant percentage (40%, half?) of all fertilized eggs fail to implant. To my knowledge, there isn't medical data establishing that the Pill reduces the odds that a fertilized egg will implant if ovulation and fertilization take place.
It's possible, but not established. But it's a lot easier to whip up opposition to 'abortifacients' than to straight BC, so it's a politically productive area of speculation for BC opponents.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:43 PM
One week's worth is placebos -- it's so that you'll have a period. There's no medical reason why you should want to, but it reassures people.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:45 PM
Ah, ok. I now understand. Thanks.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:52 PM
Rose, come back and answer LizardBreath's question!!!
(Let's see if that works.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:53 PM
81: And strictly speaking I don't think it's really a period. I've heard that some people are starting to skip the placebo bit to suppress the period part entirely.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:54 PM
I think rose's point in 65 is that the NuvaRing looks kinda, sorta, like a diaphragm with a big ol' hole in the middle of it.
Indeed, there is sometimes a chance that it might become dislodged and fall out during sex, but that's when you can go for extra points in well, call it the ring toss.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:54 PM
There was a New Yorker article about 6 years ago about some doctor who studied periods. He said the whole placebo set, making you get your period exactly every 28 days, is BS and is based on 60s views of male doctors that women want to have their period and be "regular". He said there's no reason not to keep taking the active pills for several months and only get your period three or four times a year (less frequent than that and you can have breakthrough bleeding.) I thinks that's the idea behind the new Seasonale pill I've seen commercials for.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:55 PM
I think guys in relationships should have to eat the placebos as a token reminder of their ladies' regimens. Also, woo sugar hook 'em!
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:57 PM
67, 65: My speculation would be that what didn't happen is that someone didn't think that she orchestrated the sexual encounter, because they didn't think that she had deployed her diaphragm in before meeting for the evening or whatever.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:59 PM
Does anyone know why placebos are (typically? always?) sugar pills, as opposed to, say, corn starch pills, or some other harmless powder?
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:00 PM
88: Oh, that's much more likely.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:01 PM
85: Didn't we all have a talk recently about euphemisms? Does "the ring toss" mean that if the ring is dislodged you'll get preggers?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:01 PM
I would guess not -- it's not a barrier method, and assuming it was replaced reasonably quickly (like an hour or so) I'd doubt hormone levels would drop all that fast. But I don't know.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:04 PM
No, even if the ring comes out for a few minutes, you're still protected. (Or so my wife assures me.)
I just mean, if you (meaning me) can get the ring around your (meaning my) member, it feels like an accomplishment. A carnival-game accomplishment, but still.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:04 PM
I think they have to dissolve like the drug, or you could tell the differenece, and starch won't dissolve, it will just make oobleck. At least, that's for blinded drug studies- I guess it doesn't matter for birth control pills.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:05 PM
88--Okay, I get it now. Now that I've parsed all your negatives, that is.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:05 PM
67 & 69 -
Diaphragms, if I've got this right, must be inserted up to 2 hours before sex, but the Ring is left in for 3 weeks at a stretch.
Many women can't use IUD's, and the Ring is malleable and, it must be said, does not resemble a lure. Really, I can't recommend it highly enough.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:12 PM
95: I felt weird about making up speculation about others' sex life without trying to be funny.
If you look up 'placebo' here, sugar pills don't actually contain sugar anymore.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:16 PM
Oh well- I was just trying to work the term oobleck into a thread about birth control.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:20 PM
The concept of wanting to have a period is totally foreign to me. I guess I'm just old-fashioned and misogynist.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:29 PM
Late, but to the original question, I'm on the pill, and all of my friends are either on it, or some other form of hormonal bc (patch and the NuvaRing). Seems to be the thing to do these days. I love the pill - I don't really have any side effects, just the benefits, although I was on one for a month that had a higher dose of estrogen and it was Fucked. Up. I got off that quick.
What makes me sad is that they keep lowering and lowering the amount of hormones needed to be effective, and that all the women in years past have been taking way more hormones than necessary. Sucks.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:31 PM
Thanks, LB and Matt#3. (Obviously, if I do go that route, I'll double-check your info with a professional, not that that's personal or anything.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:34 PM
... they didn't think that she had deployed her diaphragm in before meetin ...
Or there was a coment along the lines of "wattinhell!? You call this protected? You cut a big ol' hole in the middle of your diaphragm. What kind of fruitloop are you?"
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:41 PM
On pill, but only because you can't get Norplant any more. I heart Norplant. (And yes, I realize that "you can't get it" is hyperbole; nonetheless, it's not as available as it used to be, and my fucking health insurance won't cover it. OR an IUD.)
Estrogen, bless it, gives me migraines: so mini-pill it is. Which is a pain, b/c I'm bad at taking pills and it should be taken at the same time daily to ensure maximum protection. Oh well, some day I'll turn up pregnant, I guess.
Most women of childbearing age are on the pill b/c (1) it's more reliable and convenient than barrier methods; (2) it's more often covered by insurance than IUDs or Norplant or other alternative hormonel delivery methods; (3) getting pregnant sucks.
Here's what I don't get, though. Every woman I know agrees with LB: when they develop a pill for men, that's nice honey, but I'm not likely to stop taking mine unless I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship and I trust the hell out of my partner to remember to take 'em.
So why the hell do men just leave b/c to women? Obviously, the immediate fear of getting pregnant isn't as intense. But seriously, men in the room: if you don't want to cause a pregnancy, do you assume your partner's on the pill; ask, and then take her word for it/assume she doesn't forget; or insist on using the only method available to you, i.e. condoms?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:53 PM
Oh, and on the subject of skipping your periods, check out The Well-Timed Period. Great blog on repro health issues, written by an ob/gyn.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:55 PM
Is it just me? Or did anyone else read ogged's original post as saying: "The pill lowers women's libidos? No wonder those twenty- and thirty-somethings don't want to have sex with me"?
I'm just saying...
Posted by admadm | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 6:56 PM
When I was single and in the beginning stages of sexual relationships, it was condoms at all times, period. I think at least one or two of those relationships ended up being a condoms+pill situation.
It wasn't until I was in a trusted, monogamous, and STD-tested relationship that I felt comfortable "leaving the birth control" to her, but I assured her (and I assure you now) that I felt the requisite amount of guilt along with my relief.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:00 PM
Wow, that's some bold delurking.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:00 PM
So why the hell do men just leave b/c to women?
What? I'm pretty sure condoms are the most widely used contraceptive in America.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:03 PM
I think it's pretty much understood that you're wearing a condom unless you're in a relationship (with that person).
Unless you happen to be stuck in an elevator or something.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:04 PM
Well, they are, but I thought that in general that was b/c of disease control, not birth control. If I'm wrong, I feel sure you guys will tell me.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:06 PM
The thing is, they perform both functions when they don't break.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:07 PM
I seem to recall being equally freaked out at the possibilities of unwanted pregnancy and disease, and trusting St. Trojan to keep me safe from both.
I don't recall ever making the distinction. Data point of one.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:09 PM
I mean, I guess I'm more concerned about the disease, but mostly because the woman says she is on the pill, and I believe her. But also, I know that if she's lying, there's the condom.
But I see where you're going: I have no reason to think a woman would lie about being on the pill, whereas you would suspect a man might like about the mill. It's because we're assholes.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:10 PM
No, it wouldn't even be b/c I think a guy would *lie* as that, having occasionally forgotten a pill myself, I simply do not trust even the most trustworthy person with something that's as important to me as not getting knocked up.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:11 PM
that is, he'd lie about it. And presumably would like doing so. Like an asshole.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:12 PM
you can imagine a fellow (or I can) who would lie, whereas I really can't imagine a woman who would, or at least I don't have the danger of encountering one, since I don't play in the NBA.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:14 PM
I don't think it's so much lie flat out, but just gloss over certain truths. Like, say, for example, say "yeah, I'm on the mill" but not mention the fact that he forgot to take it two days in a row last week. Oops.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:17 PM
I know women who have lied about b/c and gotten pregnant on purpose, yes I do.
But see, that's the thing: why can we imagine a guy lying about that stuff? What guy in his right mind wants to get someone knocked up? Jesus.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:19 PM
No guy in his right mind! But at that point, no guy's in his right mind?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:20 PM
it probably comes down to the assumption that men just want to fuck fuck fuck, which is a problematic assumption. Because probably untrue, and certainly harmful.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:23 PM
Well, not all men, all the time, but as 'Smasher points out, sometimes a man's rational decision making powers aren't really being brought into play.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:24 PM
Or that women don't really want it -- that they can't be out of their right mind in a similar way at a similar moment. Not that I would claim to speak for the la-deez, but the consensus around seems to be that women can want sex just as much as men.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:24 PM
Right, but a woman's always are.
Am I the only one here who is having a problem with the logic?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:25 PM
Matt, I'm pretty sure in context it should be spelled "lay-deez."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:26 PM
Oh, no no no, I was describing a position, not advocating it.
But surely, the negative consequences of pregnancy fall more heavily on the woman than on the man.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:26 PM
jinx!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:26 PM
#125, I know: but it's the position itself that I don't get. Yes, being pregnant is worse than being the cause of a pregnancy; but assuming that most men do *not* want to hear "honey, we need to talk," I just don't understand how that "heat of the moment" thing gets any play at all.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:29 PM
B, are you trying to bait someone into making a claim about the balance of responsibility for a pregnancy? I don't really get your line of questioning—we all agree that it's illogical to trust a new sexual partner's word about their contraceptive precautions/bill of sexual health. So, what logic?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:29 PM
But see, that's the thing: why can we imagine a guy lying about that stuff? What guy in his right mind wants to get someone knocked up? Jesus.
'why can't'? *I* can. People lie about all sorts of stupid shit, male and female alike.
I simply do not trust even the most trustworthy person with something that's as important to me as not getting knocked up.
Ayup. It's a sucker bet.
Cala: My friends joke that the Pill works by making you uninterested in sex; see, perfect contraception!
If so, I wonder what effect the pill has had on the divorce rate. Unintended social engineering 101!
I'm just saying I've read the warning labels in pills packs before, and I've never seen "may begin speaking in tongues" listed as risk factor.
"Always consult your doctor when taking any medication."
The phrase of the day is: "transient psychosis". Learn it, love it, don't live it.
ash
['Also: "cascading fault".']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:29 PM
127: Ah.. the hypothetical I was considering wasn't so much "Honey," as "Random girl I met in a bar."
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:31 PM
"Am I the only one here who is having a problem with the logic?"
I think we all have problems with the logic. But that way of thinking probably accounts for the differences you've brought up.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:31 PM
I just don't understand how that "heat of the moment" thing gets any play at all.
Because people are willing to trade long-term sensibility for immediate gratification. That's the explanation for any partner who doesn't insist on a condom the first time (and second, and so on, until intimacy or what have you).
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:32 PM
#128: No. I was asking an honest question; in my experience, even very intelligent men are willing to forego condoms with long-term partners on the assumption that said partners will take care of birth control. And given LB's point--which I agree with, and which most women I know agree with--that a male pill is greatly needed and will be welcomed, but that I am not going to stop taking mine--I figured I'd ask.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:47 PM
It's because we're assholes. Either because we only want to fuck, or because we're willing to think that we only want to fuck, when that isn't actually the case.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:49 PM
See, I think my question is more charitable towards men than the "we're assholes" answer, but, hey.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:49 PM
no, I don't think your question is uncharitable. but that's my answer. and I think I got it right. That is, 134 gets it exactly right.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:52 PM
I know I'm an outlier, but this seems somehow silly - or else I'm missing the operational definition of 'long-term partner".
I trust my long-term partner with a comprehensive Power of Attorney, and signature power over all my financial affairs. I'm willing to trust that she's not going to sell my house, clean out all my accounts, and run off to the South Pacific. I should worry that she might do all that and get pregnant, too?
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:58 PM
I'd say (once you're in the 'past a condom' stage of a relationship) that men are more willing to trust women with BC because the immediate stakes are higher. I mean, as big a deal as getting someone else pregnant is, it's not the same as getting pregnant.
I'm not the world's most organized person, and part of the reason I'm using an IUD now is that while the pill worked fine for me before I had kids and a demanding job, after my second kid was born I had months where I'd missed four or five pills. A couple of months like that, and I figured I was going to have three kids if I didn't do something about it, and went and got myself an IUD. At my level of flakiness, if I were taking the pill to keep from getting someone else pregnant rather than getting myself pregnant, I might easily have not gotten worried enough to take action for quite a bit longer. If you see what I mean.
I wouldn't trust myself with BC if it wasn't my own ass on the line.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:59 PM
I would trust my partner with all those things too--because they're conscious decisions. Whereas even if one consciously decides to use birth control, it's possible to forget a pill. I've done it. I would worry about someone else doing it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:01 PM
If it's your ass on the line, you probably don't have to worry about the birth control.
sorry.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:03 PM
We were planning to have a lawyer.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:05 PM
I know women who have lied about b/c and gotten pregnant on purpose, yes I do.
The Illinois Appellate Court decided a bizarre case last year. A woman had been in a sexual relationship with a doc. According to him, it was Clintonesque: blowjobs, no intercourse. The guy no doubt thought that this was a reliable method of birth control. However, post-ejaculation, the wench (mean, sexist term, but justified if the guy is telling the truth) went into the bathroom and, unknown to the guy, apparently stored his semen, which she later injected into herself. She got pregnant, had his kid, and sued him for child support!! The court held that he had to pay.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050309.html
But see, that's the thing: why can we imagine a guy lying about that stuff? What guy in his right mind wants to get someone knocked up?
Hey, on "Desperate Housewives," Carlos took his wife's bcp's and replaced them with placebos so she'd get knocked up. If there are women who want to get knocked up, against the guy's wishes, and are willing to mislead the guy to do so, presumably there are some guys who would do the same thing. (I trust you're not suggesting that guys are morally superior to those conniving women. :-) ) Maybe the guy really wants to have a kid with her before she's too old (a la Carlos), or figures "I want to marry her, she's not willing yet, but if she gets pregnant then she'll marry me."
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:05 PM
nice
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:06 PM
I mean, as big a deal as getting someone else pregnant is, it's not the same as getting pregnant.
I think that's all of it, tbh. I think 'Don't get pregnant' is beat into women's heads more than 'Don't get a girl pregnant' is for men. Plus, the risks aren't equal.
If I get pregnant, I probably have to take time off of school, bear the physical risk, social stigma of being an unwed mother, etc. The guy that gets me pregnant? Assuming he's decent and sticks around, doesn't have to take time out of his life, doesn't have to be pregnant, less social stigma because he's not the one walking around being pregnant. If he's not decent, he probably won't even have to pay child support.
I would be more affected by a unplanned pregnancy than he would; I have more incentive to be cautious. I think it doesn't even require guys being assholes, they're just not as sensitive to the risks because the risks aren't as serious for them.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:23 PM
Yeah, I think the "it gets beat into women's heads" thing is *key.* And I hate that. I can't say this for certain, not being a guy, but it seems to me that if I were a decent guy (as most men are) that getting someone else pregnant would make me feel worse than actually getting pregnant myself. I mean, if I get knocked up by accident, I have to deal with the consequences, and they might suck, but at least the choice is mine to make. If I knock someone else up, I not only have to deal with the guilt about that, but also the powerlessness of not being able to fix it myself, and the ensuing guilt about forcing someone I love to deal with a lot of bullshit, you know?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:27 PM
Re: unequal consequences -- at the coed Catholic high school in my hometown, if a girl became pregnant, she was expelled. The father? Was banned from extracurricular activities for a semester.
(This was in the mid-90s. I don't know what the policy is now.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:31 PM
From Frederick's link:
In other words, more evidence for my general principle of not having any sort of sex with anyone I think is unsound and not having non-condom sex with anyone I don't trust a whole helluva lot over a nice long time period.That said, there seems to be a backlash brewing over enforcement of paternity responsibility. I'm still pretty much in the "Suck it up, men!" column, but I'm starting to get a little worried about how the laws are written and enforced. An Irish gay friend of mine backed out of donating sperm to a good friend of his because the EU has recently decided to overrule private contracts absolving sperm donors of fiscal responsibility. I haven't quite moved out of the Suck It Up column, but men might deserve some legal clarity here.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:34 PM
Oh yeah, at my Catholic h.s. a pregnant girl was expelled; nothing at all happened to the father. That was in the 80s, so I guess Becks' story demonstrates "progress."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:34 PM
I figure the guy, if he were to think about it at all, probably figures that however worried he is about the possibility of pregnancy, she's more worried.
If he's a decent guy, he'll feel bad, but that's nothing near something sitting on your bladder kicking you while causing sciatica for nine months. If there were a perfect child support system that was seriously compromising to the guy's career, they'd be more worried.
Plus, condoms suck.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:35 PM
I think that paternity enforcement and fiscal responsibility stuff is really just about absolving the state of the responsibility for supporting single moms, frankly. The backlash bothers me, because you end up with idiots like Tierney arguing that if men have to pay child support, they should have veto power over abortions, rather than focusing on the fact that it isn't the woman, but the state, that demands and enforces child support from a kid's father. (Which, according to every single mom I know, sucks ass, because it makes you dependent on a resentful guy.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:38 PM
All this said, though, given a hypothetical alternative between girls/women holding all the b.c. knowledge/cards/responsibility and keeping that information from them (realistically, what it would be), I'd rather have the girls in charge.
Young girl at my old high school tearfully confiding to my sister: How do you know if he used a condom?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:39 PM
it seems to me that if I were a decent guy (as most men are) that getting someone else pregnant would make me feel worse than actually getting pregnant myself.
Eh, I'm a decent person, or at least not so much of a moral leper, and I don't think I would. I would feel guiltier about getting someone else pregnant -- more like a bad person -- but if I were making the decision on a totally selfish basis, whether I would rather have an unwanted pregnancy or be responsible for getting someone else pregnant, I know which one of those sounds to me like the easier way out. To be overly clever, avoiding pregnancy is a much more visceral motivation than avoiding a pregnancy for which one is responsible.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:40 PM
Also, I'd like to say that despite all of the arguments we get into about men, women, and gender-correctness (see teh
gaydiscussion for example) that I've been impressed by the men on this thread. I figured in 150+ comments there would have been at least some level of "um, we've got a good thing here - don't ruin it for us" backlash to my anti-Pill post but so far, none. Well played, guys.Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:41 PM
153: for most of the guys here, it isn't an issue, so.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:48 PM
#152: Oh, I agree in terms of visceral motivation, and I agree that in terms of actually feeling a compulsion to take b.c., selfishness is a better motivation than selflessness. I'm just flogging a hobbyhorse about the fact that we tend to talk about unwanted pregnancies as if men aren't concerned about them (unless they're opposed to abortion), instead of talking about men's role in unwanted pregnancies as an awful thing--not because of the threat of child support payments, but because it involves creating a problem you can't fix, and then having to watch someone you care about fix it on their own.
This is partly my whole "mother of a son" thing, by the way, and the line I plan to take when talking to him about birth control, responsibility, etc.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:48 PM
I agree with 150, but I also think that the state around here also wants to avoid any responsibility for making abortion seem so utterly taboo.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:50 PM
Smart line to take, I think, BPhD. (And your son is adorable.)
To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that child support should be increased/tightened/whatever to get men to be more responsible about b.c.; could have made the point by saying 'if we required them to quit school, their sports teams, and wear a pregnancy suit and then we kicked them a lot in nine months...'
Anyhow. Do diaphragms work well?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:51 PM
As I said on Beck's blog, Newt's a month older than we were planning on. We had decided that we were going to stop using the diaphragm the next month, but by that time I was knocked up.
So, personally I consider them unreliable. But I understand it works great for lots of people.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:54 PM
I found diaphragms reliable, but I hate barrier methods. Inconvenience ticks me off.
You know what's great, though, if you want a barrier method, is a condom plus this stuff called "Vaginal Contraceptive Film." Yes, it's buy the same idiots that bring us "Vaginal Cleaning Film," but I'm not going to be a boycott purist when a convenient b.c. method is available. VCF is about 2 inches square, and it's kind of like rice paper (a little thicker): spermicide suspended in a gelatinous film. Fold it up, whack it in, and with a condom, you're good to go. A lot more portable and convenient than a diaphragm.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:55 PM
Oh, and Cala, I didn't think *you* were supporting the child support backlash (esp. as you said so directly).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:56 PM
I figured in 150+ comments there would have been at least some level of "um, we've got a good thing here - don't ruin it for us" backlash to my anti-Pill post but so far, none.
My girlfriend has problems in this area (rather a few). I dunno, if the shit doesn't work right, there's no real benefit to it unless you're involved wholly in one-night stands.
Prof. B:No. I was asking an honest question;
Ok, obviously, I have a far more dire and cynical view of humanity, bless their black flabby little hearts. (I didn't say I didn't like 'em; I don't particularly trust them.)
in my experience, even very intelligent men are willing to forego condoms with long-term partners on the assumption that said partners will take care of birth control.
In an ideal situation, probably not. In an unideal situation (booze, drugs, rampant horniness, brain farts, lack of condoms, bad condoms, etc.) that may not matter so much.
And given LB's point--which I agree with, and which most women I know agree with--that a male pill is greatly needed and will be welcomed,
I think they ought to have one, but I suspect it wouldn't sell very well unless it was half Viagra. Taking pill to avoid getting pregnant: deeply needed protection making one feel safe. Taking a pill to avoid getting someone else pregnant: onerous burden assumed to get what you want. Workable in a high trust, monogamous situation, much more difficult in a random encounter situation.
I'm with Armsmasher: the incentives are wrong.
but that I am not going to stop taking mine--I figured I'd ask.
Absolutely.
Yeah, I think the "it gets beat into women's heads" thing is *key.*
No doubt. It's obnoxious. Neccessary but obnoxious.
If I knock someone else up, I not only have to deal with the guilt about that, but also the powerlessness of not being able to fix it myself, and the ensuing guilt about forcing someone I love to deal with a lot of bullshit, you know?
(Might as well paint a target on my ass) I did that once. Signal wires were crossed. Nonetheless, entirely my fault. I felt the way you described, but that was AFTERWARDS. The trick is, of course, to feel that way BEFOREHAND. Which is more of a difficult project than it seems when seen from a remove, simply because the gonads and the brain are trying to obey that old biological imperative.
Hey, house wiring is really quick and easy if you ignore the possibility of getting zapped!
ash
['I did THAT once too!']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:00 PM
Since I went to a Catholic school, along with the normal contraception stuff that they taught in health class (despite it being against the rules), they also taught Fertility Awareness. Not your mother's rhythm method, but how to read the signs your body gives off that indicate when you're ovulating. I'd never rely on it alone, but I think a lot of people are too quick to dismiss its usefulness for letting people know when to be extra careful or just being in touch with your body.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:04 PM
Going way back to #99:
The concept of wanting to have a period is totally foreign to me. I guess I'm just old-fashioned and misogynist.
It depends on what you mean by want. I don't think many women do want a period in some kind of affirmation of their womanhood (although I know that some women do). Many women want to have them because it's a pretty damn reliable indicator that they aren't pregnant. If you keep taking your Pills, the only proof you get is negative "I think I've been reliably taking it." A period is more solid evidence. So it's more in the realm of unpleasant but serving some greater purpose than being a good thing in and of itself.
Having never been pregnant, I'm sympathetic to this. I don't know what my body's symptoms of early pregnancy would be like (especially with the Pill masking them), so buried way back in my mind is the fear that if I skip periods with the Pill, I'll end up realising I'm pregnant comparitively late in the pregnancy. It's something that's good to know as soon as possible and missing a period is one of the best early signs.
Posted by Mary | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:06 PM
If you find yourself eating a lot of peanut butter sandwiches, take a pregnancy test, is my advice.
Also if you keep feeling PMSish, but the damn thing won't show up.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:07 PM
I always knew when I woke up thinking "Hmm. Better go buy a pregnancy test." No idea what the tip-off was, but it was entirely obvious somehow.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:19 PM
Really? God, I'm the queen of taking pregnancy tests all the time, b/c the *possibility* that I could be pregnant just freaks me out so much.
Ironically the one time I *was* pregnant, it didn't occur to me for weeks.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:20 PM
A male friend of mine was raped by a woman trying to impregnate herself in order to entrap him into staying with her (he was planning to move out). She woke him up from a nap with a blow job, which he consented to, but then got on top of him. He said "no, wait, I'll get a condom" several times, but she outweighed him considerably and one arm of his was pinned against the couch. She did become pregnant, although I think there's some ambiguity as to whether the pregnancy was from this incident, another time when they had unprotected sex during her period, or maybe weirdly the condom, despite not breaking, had leaked some sperm. His (well, presumably, don't think there's ever been a test) son was born, he went to see him and the mother in the hospital, and she threatened to kill him. The mother hasn't sued for child support and he hasn't paid any.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:24 PM
Very few guys are able to provide even minimally decent support for more than one family (with kids) at a time. Someone always gets shorted.
What that means is that a non-wealthy guy can do right by two families in his life, if he marries young. Even that would entail dumping his wife when she was about 40.
But I've seen guys who've taken three or four tries at it. It ends up being pretty miserable -- if the child support is paid, the new family suffers, and the old family doesn't necessarily do well either.
It makes me sound like a terrible Puritan, but people should realize that the second chance isn't as good as the first, and in some cases, that they really shouldn't try again.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:27 PM
I think you'll find a lot of sympathy for a position saying that people should be very, very careful about choosing to have kids, and and about how they plan to support them. At least, I've got a lot of sympathy for such a position.
Reckless hedonism is great so long as it doesn't involve screwing over your kids.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:36 PM
169 What, like on a big family bunkbed? I agree in such an arrangement the kids should take the top bunk.
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:47 PM
Spoken like a man whose kid rarely wakes up vomiting.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:59 AM
This is slowing down. Suggested follow up: "Wait, are most twenty- and thirty-something women in our social circle on anti-depressants?"
Or else, an ever-popular age-of-consent-and-bestiality thread.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:23 AM
Involving the proper calculation of the age of consent in dog years.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:24 AM
2.28 in some states, 2.57 in others.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:28 AM
Ironically, at the time this drama was unfolding (167), my friend was playing the son in _An Inspector Calls_, a great melodrama (Edwardian maybe) a play in which every member of a family bears some portion of the responsibility for a young woman's death, and the son's contribution was getting her pregnant.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:41 AM
You know, this thread, it kind of irritates me. Did I not call in 128 that we were looking at a referendum on paternal responsibility? I was raised pretty far from the ivory towers of the east coast and was instructed from the get-go that any pregnancy resulting from my foolishness would absolutely be my responsibility if I intended to be a member of my family in good standing. The "backlash against child support"? It can't be a view held by many more than makes up the bloc of men who systematically oppose women's rights—a bloc, surely, that accounts for an historically small percentage of men today.
Sure, we paranoid protofathers don't deserve congratulations for it, but please don't doubt the very real, fundamental terror we feel toward pregnancy or the sense that we are absolutely required to do the right thing that's at the source of that terror.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:13 AM
I guess "backlash" was the wrong word, describing as it does the creepy "fathers' rights" camp. I do think that the "right of the child" to have and know about his or her parent(s), genetic and legal, is going to get a little confusing going forward. I'm pretty much solidly in the camp of everyone commenting here in favor of responsibility--and yes, terror. What I'm interested in, more, is what the responsibility should be of donors, surrogates, and people who give their children up for adoption. These are issues in family law that seem to me far from settled.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:26 AM
Not doubting it -- as one of those saying that women have a greater fear of unwanted pregnancy than men, I'm really relying on my use of the word 'visceral'. The 'responsibility for an unplanned child' element of fear is equal, but the 'Oh my god, there's something alive in my abdomen that isn't me,' is all on the woman. Further, that extra burden is strongly frontloaded -- it kicks in the minute you know you're pregnant -- which makes it, I think, more motivating than the perhaps more significant worry over the long haul of how to pay for college.
Additionally, no one's mentioned the elephant in the room - abortion. In the social milieu to which most commenters here belong, odds are an unwanted pregnancy would be aborted. (I'm guessing that, but I'm pretty sure. It's what I did when I got pregnant the month after Mr. Breath and I started having sex. (Broken condom, waiting for my period so that I could go on the pill)).
Abortion is a two-edged sword, perceived burden-wise. It's thought of as at best, a morally ambiguous decision by even many (most?) pro-choice people, and it's the woman's decision. So in a pro-choice but morally conflicted couple, which describes a heck of a lot of people, the woman knows that if she gets pregnant, she is going to have to decide whether or not to do something that she, or other people whose opinion she values, regards as a bad thing. The man doesn't have to worry about taking responsibility for that decision -- he just has to lay back and be supportive.
None of this is intended to say that most men are lacking in responsibility, just that in the factual situation as it stands, women have a significantly greater incentive to avoid pregnancy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:30 AM
And no one's mentioned the morning-after-pill.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:35 AM
Yo, yo, yo! I mentioned abortion!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:39 AM
Damn. Should have reread the thread before making assertions.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:41 AM
I heart the morning after pill. A pox upon the houses of all those who would prevent it from being sold over-the-counter. I (well, my mom) once paid 400 dollars in Emergency Room fees in college when I didn't know where else to go to get an Rx. I was insured, but my insurance didn't cover birth control, and my normal health care provider was the school health center, which was closed during the summer even though there were some students living there. Though it would have covered an abortion. Guess I should have waited and seen. Still today, morning after pill doctors' visits take hours out of my life, though now I know better than to go to the ER, and go to community health centers.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:42 AM
There's something that really, really, really needs to go OTC.
(I am an idiot, of course. Back in 1995, while I had heard of the morning after pill, it wasn't so much a matter of public discussion, and I literally didn't think of it untill I'd missed the window.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:44 AM
They've gotten a lot better in the past few years. In college, the morning after pill gave me violent nausea and borderline frightening quantities of menstrual bleeding. Now it's just fine.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:48 AM
No doubt, LB, a man can't share the burden of gestation even as he shares the concerns associated with parenting. But as to the latter, I think that in one sense even the irritating and misguided "father's rights" camp reveals a greater universal sense of paternal responsibility among men. (Even if father's righters' goal is to exercise control over women, they still couch their goals in a language that they assume will be met by a sympathetic audience: in terms of paternal responsibility.)
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:51 AM
Gynos should totally be offering prescriptions for the MA pill as a standard option during checkups. (Maybe they do -- mine doesn't, but of course she knows I'm using an IUD.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:51 AM
184--That's interesting to know. I took it once, in 1997, and had a horrible experience. The seeming contempt expressed by the good people at Planned Parenthood didn't help, either.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:52 AM
Hear, hear. Having been in the situation of needing (well, my girlfriend needing) emergency contraception, I shudder to think of the drama and potential trauma that would have resulted had she not been able to get it.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:53 AM
But as to the latter, I think that in one sense even the irritating and misguided "father's rights" camp reveals a greater universal sense of paternal responsibility among men.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't get you here -- greater than what? Than there used to be? I would say that there needs to be some serious shakeup, not so much in law but in practices, in family law relating to children of unmarried or no longer married parents. It should be strongly understood that both parents are totally responsible for all of their children, and that that responsibility should be expressed in both financial support and personal contact and caretaking. The vestiges of the "Women care for children; men pay child support" system suck for everyone.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 10:57 AM
so here's my question: with the risk of failure of condoms, but the near perfect success of the pill, why not do both? It's bayesian probability, and it reduces the chances to nil. I guess the con is teh sex isn't as great for the guy, but if you really don't want to risk the burden of fatherhood (or motherhood), why wouldn't you suffer that?
Posted by jvance | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:00 AM
184: My famously horrible college health center was pretty bad for that, too. My nurse clucked when she counted the days from my last period, "Right at your most fertile time," with a disapproving look and in a tone that I felt pretty clearly expressed that I was slutty and irresponsible.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:01 AM
I guess the con is teh sex isn't as great for the guy
Or the gal.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:03 AM
190: Some women get negative health/emotional effects from the pill. Even for those of us who don't, there's a tendency to go off it during long dry spells (have I ever told you guys I was in the Peace Corps?), and you can't go back on it until immediately after your period.
So, yes, doubling up on BC is always a good idea, but there are reasons for a fair amount of condom-only sex.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:05 AM
192: Mmhm.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:06 AM
192/194: color me innocent.
Posted by jvance | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:07 AM
Some men really, really have a hard time with condoms. Like, very rarely can they come. It's not an excuse for condomless sex with a new partner, but it's motivation to get rid of the condoms as soon as the trust is there.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:08 AM
Any thoughts on polyurethane v. latex? I hate them both, but the former significantly less.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:10 AM
Not only do I not disagree with you, I emphatically agree. And I think outside the vocal minority of scum (the backlash against child support), so do most men nowadays. Admittedly, I'm young and childless and hang out with lots of young, childless, even childish dudes, but I think that we were all at the very least raised with a different understanding than the "women care for children, men pay child support" paradigm.
I don't think it's a lack of paternal responsibility that explains the shortcomings of family law, but instead a perfect storm of structural factors: laws written by an older generation who grew up in an economy with drastically different gender expectations, previously unreliable methods for establishing paternity inexpensively and without a shadow of a doubt, etc.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:11 AM
polyurethane v. latex
You know, I don't think I've ever even thought to note the difference.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:15 AM
And I would agree, adding that there is, even in the most responsible of us, a tendency to behave in accordance with perceived norms. And for all the legacy reasons you mention, the perceived norm is that children of unmarried parents live with the mother and the father does or doesn't have visits with the kids and does or doesn't pay child support. This is something we're just going to have to evolve away from, as more men and women who have grown up thinking consciously about these issues become the people who are in unmarried-parenting situations.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:15 AM
I don't think I've ever even thought to note the difference.
Unless you have a latex allergy, there isn't much difference to note.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:17 AM
Lambskin's making a comeback. No disease prevention, just birth control, supposedly more comfy (don't know personally.) Good turn-on if you're into bestiality too.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:17 AM
202: but expensive.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:17 AM
What's expensive, lambskin condoms or beastiality?
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:19 AM
It's worth noting that a popular men's magazine has run an article taking the scummy men's rights position; I can't find the full text of the article but here's a book slut post that discusses it; scroll down to Details. I actually only read the article because it was in the waiting room of the health clinic where I was waiting for the MA pill, and I came in spluttering about it to the gyno. "Let me take that from you and throw it out," he said. Then he went on to express to me at length his profound hatred of the Bush Administration.
It may be that Details is an outlier, and is trying to carve out a niche for itself as the retrograde upscale glossy. The next article began, "The Federal Aviation Administration is looking for a few good men."
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:21 AM
They're doing interesting things with fleece nowadays.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:21 AM
201: I'd disagree, because I have a stong preference, and I don't think I have a latex allergy, but possibly I do and it's very mild.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:21 AM
207: Fair enough. I was speaking from my experience, but it occurs to me that the condom experience in general is probably a bit different for men and women.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:25 AM
Perhaps I should clarify, in case people don't click through, that it's taking a worse position than the one Armsmasher is describing, i.e., it's asserting the right to ditch a child if you can't tell the woman to have an abortion; it describes that action as "the male abortion."
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:31 AM
Link in 205: The description of the Vanity Fair cover does not seem to match the illustration.
And I'd need some heavy convincing before I came around to 198. It seems likely to me that men have more political power and are going to resist changes in the law that would disadvantage them. Think Newt Gingrich.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:35 AM
I don't really get you on that. While there certainly need to be changes in the law to handle the sorts of marginal situations Jackm was talking about, I don't see family law now as systematically advantaging men. Societal practices tend to leave women not married to the fathers of their children disproportionately taking care of those children, but that's not particularly due to the state of the law as I understand it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:53 AM
#197: Polyurethane.
I support the right of men to waive their parental responsibilities as soon as the men who want to do it get out there and start lobbying to restore AFDC and make it automatic for single moms at a level that matches local average incomes for two-parent families.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:53 AM
I know someone who's been associated with family courts in one New England state. Apparently there's a presumption in favor of the man if he wants custody, even in cases where there is evidence of spousal or child abuse by the man- it is then the woman's burden to prove he is unfit. My reading of this is that courts assume men won't want custody, and if they make a claim for it, they must be a male of outstanding character and therefore should presumptively be favored.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:14 PM
139:
I betcha someone already answered this very well but - hey - here is my answer anyway.
I used condoms pre-marriage. When I met my future wife she was on BC pills for health reasons (Yippee!) but was also Catholic (Awww).
After marriage we used the pill and I personally accepted the risk that my wife might get pregnant anyway. I knew there was a small but greater than zero risk that my wife might 'forget' or whatever but I accepted that risk.
Along the way we've popped out four sprogs. I was ready to stop at three but my wife wanted the fourth, and of course I love my fourth child to death.
BUT I also said before 4 was born I was stopping and it was time for the snip-snip and my fathering days were over, and my wife was cool with that. Interestingly enough they wouldn't give me the big V until my wife gave birth, saying I might change my mind.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:16 PM
I've heard that here in Chicago if you and your ex both want child custody, and one of you believes in the Sky Fairy and the other doesn't, the non-believer is in trouble. Judges assume that the Sky Fairy-believer is the better parent. Every courtroom says "In God We Trust" on the wall.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:19 PM
Yeah, wasn't there some custody dispute case recently between two Wiccan parents where the judge ordered that the child be indoctrinated in the Sky Fairy even though neither parent wanted that?
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:21 PM
we've popped out four sprogs
Somehow I've never heard anyone refer to their children and their births that way before.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:22 PM
As someone who's spent a fair amount of time sitting in courtrooms, the great thing about 'In God We Trust' is how well it anagrams: e.g., "Nurse dog, twit!"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:23 PM
Here's the case.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:23 PM
Not to be the language police again, but, guys, uh, "Sky Fairy?" Is it not possible to decry anti-atheist prejudice (which I feel not occasionally) without using that term? Just sayin'.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:23 PM
Yeah, it should totally be 'Sky Priss'.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:24 PM
Thought about makin' that joke myself.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:25 PM
Don't know when I started talkin' like a cowboy.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:26 PM
we've decided that the proper term is the Gay Sex.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:27 PM
There are thousands- even a couple legally relevant ones:
WINGED TORT US
NUDGE WRITS TO
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:27 PM
It's good for hours of waiting-for-your-case-to-be-called amusement!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:28 PM
Somehow I've never heard anyone refer to their children and their births that way before.
Really? It is a pre-emptive strike at the 'childfree' crowd. Kinda like bphd calling herself bitchphd.
I think sprog means 'stupid progeny' but I'm not sure. I like the term better than 'crotch droppings,' but that is because I'm not really into scatological terms.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:29 PM
Ankle-biters!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:30 PM
It's good for hours of waiting-for-your-case-to-be-called amusement!
heh heh. It is good to see that other professions also have their "I went to college for THIS?' moments.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:33 PM
Re: LB in 200!, I'm ready to believe that divorce culture acts as a similarly influencial perceived norm, a Solomon's wisdom—the best thing to do for kids in these situations is to split their custody down the middle. But I don't know whether most divorced families result in joint-custody situations, so I'm not sure it's the prevailing divorce norm, but we at least have a standard out there other than nuclear family or single mom.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:35 PM
OK, Tripp, I grant you that "crotch droppings" is even worse. :P
Not to be the language police again, but, guys, uh, "Sky Fairy?" Is it not possible to decry anti-atheist prejudice (which I feel not occasionally) without using that term? Just sayin'.
I try to give religion the respect it deserves: none. Adults don't normally believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. God is no different. Believing that you have an invisible friend is delusional, period.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:35 PM
Linoleum lizards! Rug monkeys! Deductions!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:37 PM
What's with the saved data being eaten all the time (only one field at a time though)?
And Frederick just open a can of worms, mefears.
Posted by jvance | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:37 PM
211: OK, I know nothing whatsoever about the law, so I withdraw what I said about it completely.
But, insofar as Smasher is saying in 198 that men are in general totally responsible except for the men's-rights scum, and the vestiges of the "women take care of the children, men pay child support" paradigm are with us only because of historico-structural factors, I just have my doubts. As Tia points out, the men's-rights scum want even less responsibility than that (and John Tierney seems to think this is logical). I think there's a long way to parental equality, and a lot of men don't want to go there. Remember, our friends tend to be young and liberal.
And I will defend to my dying day the proposition that the Vanity Fair cover here does not show "a glowing Martha Stewart... embracing a little black dog."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:37 PM
if we're going to start giving people the respect they deserve, Frederick, this is going to become a less pleasant place for you.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:38 PM
Horrors.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:40 PM
(Actually, I think none of the covers match, due to deep-linking issues.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:42 PM
what I mean to say is: there is little you have written here that I have personally enjoyed, but I wouldn't want to speak for everyone, or presume to understand their thoughts and beliefs.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:43 PM
Pwecious widdle tax cwedit.
'Childfree' people puzzle me. I can understand not wanting to have kids; I can't understand the vitriol. Maybe the ones I know are idiots.
'Like, omg! They had kids! That's so wasteful in this day and age,' she says, wearing top of the line clothing, driving her SUV, covered in makeup and jewelry, with her six bedroom house.
Okayyyy.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:44 PM
which I feel not occasionally)
Just to be clear -- do you (not occasionally) feel such prejudice, or the effects of such prejudice? Because I had not figured you to be biased contra irreligionists.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:44 PM
And I'm with useta-be-tweedledopey about the gradually disappearing input fields. Is it my punishment for not being anonymous? Cause I'll break out the indecipherable nicknames quicker than you can say Kcaj Nosnibor.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:46 PM
239: I think they're generally people who like conflict, and being rude about other people's children is a surefire way of inciting a good one.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:47 PM
I dunno. Even if one believes in God, and believes atheists are all going to hell, referring to them as the Damned or Future Demon Toasties is still rude.
(I could point out that one could believe in God and believe quite easily that it's wrong for a judge to decide a custody battle based on using someone's religiosity as a proxy for their parental fitness, but that's probably being overly pedantic.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:48 PM
The child-free thing has been done.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:49 PM
Jeremy Osner, I am irreligious, and feel the effects of such prejudice. Sorry for the ambiguity. I am now belatedly regretting starting another fight, but Frederick, in a community which includes several professed believers, all of whom have an excellent sense of humor about their religion, while I can't speak for the proprietors of this site, your comment strikes me as just about tantamount to trolling.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:49 PM
I am irrelevant, and feel the effect of prune juice.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:50 PM
Just so long as you're no longer irregular.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:52 PM
You're so irreverent. Prune juice makes my movements irridescent.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:56 PM
I too am irreligious and make a point of not belittling other people's religious beliefs (though of course I leave exceptions up to my own discretion) -- I've thought the first few times I encountered it that the "sky faerie" construct was kind of amusing and looked for a way to drop it into conversation in some context/milieu where it would not cause offense and would cause chuckles. Reckon it's played at this point though, before I ever got my chance.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:56 PM
there is little you have written here that I have personally enjoyed
OK. I don't recall experiencing an orgasm or anything upon reading anything you've written, text. I take it you're offended by my criticism of religion. It's odd: religious folks, on the whole, think that atheists are the scum of the earth (for example, less than 50% say they would ever vote for an atheist for president -- see link below), but they think that we have to respect their religions. It's OK for me to criticize any other idea people have, but religion is somehow sacrosanct and immune from criticism. Bullshit.
Being an atheist is still "the most discriminated-against characteristic of the eight tested in the research," according to the latest Gallup poll asking who people would vote for for U.S. President.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9527.htm
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:56 PM
Frederick, I'm something of a militant atheist as well, but there's something to be said for maintaining comity when it's being extended to you.
(That being said, I laughed at "Sky Fairy." I've been know to say "Invisible Man in the Sky" for the same concept.)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:56 PM
Lotta people round here need to get rid of their Body Thetans.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:58 PM