Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Terza,
    
    It depends a good deal on how you feel about having more children.
    If you feel your family is finished then I would vote for having
    your tubes tied. I had mine done 12 years ago - after bleeding
    with an IUD. I had used the pill but since I had developed vericosities
    when I was pregnant the doctor didn't want me to go back on it.
    I was awake for the operation and even got to look down the fiber
    optic tube to see my own insides. (Yeah I know, but I am/was a
    biologist and I thought it was interesting.)
    
    If you still might want to have more kids but not right now, and
    your doctor finds no health reason against it, then my second choice
    would be the pill. It has acquired what I regard as an unreasonable
    bad rep. It is more reliable than the only other options, mostly
    for psychological reasons. People don't *like* using the condom
    and diaphragm for example so they take a chance or two and then
    have a surpise baby. :-)

    Of course I went on and had two more kids after my tubes were tied
    - but I adopted them.
    
    Bonnie

    Rather than go through MAJOR surgery by tying tubes - go the easy
    way and have the laprosocopy (sp?) band aid surgery.  It's easy
    - recuperative time  short - no scars - and simply put, your fallopian
    tubes are cauterized.  I had it done after years of being on the
    pill....and was never sorry.

I had my tubes tied (a tubal occlusion as opposed to a tubal ligation).
I thought about it for approximately 10 years before doing so; I wanted to 
be as sure as I could that I didn't want to make any children.  I realised 
that adoption was a more desireable option for me, so I went ahead and 
have never had any regrets.  

Being a bit cowardly about experiencing any pain what-so-ever, I had mine 
done under general anesthesia.  Even so, it was still an out-patient 
"bandaid" procedure, but my recuperation time was probably longer than if 
it had been done under local -- the drowsy after effects kept me "napping" 
for about a day or two.  Abdominal tenderness and a bloated feeling kept 
me out of comission for about a week, but that may have been because my 
doctor found a cyst and removed it while he was in the area, which required
that he do some extra probing and manipulating.  I have a little scar, but
that's because my belly-button is an "outer" and that's where they go in.
At any rate, make sure you have some loose fitting clothes to wear if you 
should decide to do it!  My old farmer's overall's were perfect...

I was on the pill off and on for about 10 years -- they made me depressed 
and lowered my libido.  I'd used a diaphragm at different points in those 
10 years and started out using condoms-and-foam.  It's just _very_
convenient not to have to think or worry about an unwanted pregnancy.  

Christine

        re .1: The bad reputation of the pill is primarily from the
        earlier heavy dosage ones... the more recent versions are much
        (much!) lower dosage, and don't appear to have the more nasty
        side effects of the old ones (in fact, I've heard that some
        research has suggested they may even help where the old ones
        hurt). 
        
        	/dave

    Well, of course discuss this with your doc, but you might consider
    keeping your IUD until it starts giving you trouble, rather than
    taking it out at some arbitrary expiration date.  I've used various
    IUDs for many years (including the infamous Dalkon Shield, during
    my hoyden youth; I was lucky and had no problems).  I used the D.S.
    for 5 years, and the Lippes Loop that replaced it for 4 years. 
    Though no one knows exactly how they work, it seems to be the mere
    presence of the IUD that causes the contraceptive effect.  The
    aforementioned 2 IUDs were replaced only because after several years,
    the body builds up calcium salts on the device and/or the string,
    which then causes irritation and break-thru bleeding.  Since I seem
    to be as fertile as a rabbit - 2 kids, both on first try - my
    experience seems to show that a woman can rely on an IUD as long
    as it can comfortably remain in place.  Anyhow, that's my strategy
    for birth control at the moment.  Since I get problems when on the
    pill, I don't know what I'll do when my IUD must be removed.
    
    I've also heard that many docs stocked up on IUDs when they heard
    that the devices would no longer be marketed.  Don't know if this
    is true.
    
    Note if you keep your IUD, or find another one, you will most probably
    be on your own, as far as liability in case of medical complications
    goes.
    
    Talk to your doc.  Good luck.  

    I've been wondering whether anyone's going to try to get the IUD
    manufacturers to reconsider - I hate the thought of something useful
    being forced out by the threat of unfounded litigation. I've had
    great success with a Cu7 for years now, and don't want to have to
    switch.
    
    However, the Copper-7 is probably the most risky to leave in place
    beyond the expiration date, because of its copper components. 
    
    I have heard that they are still available in Canada, so if you
    live near the border you might consider that. 

    -b

    I recommend going on the Pill.  I was on it for 6 years and only
    had 1 minor side effect that I found was easy to deal with.  I always
    got nauseous the day after starting the new package of pills, but
    I soon found out the at the reaction was time-related.  Since I
    seemed to get sick about 5 or 6 hours after taking that first day's
    pill, I just made it a habit to take it about 6:00.  Then I would
    be asleep when the side effects would hit, and since they only lasted
    a few hours, I would sleep through the whole thing.  So the only
    time I really had to deal with that miserable feeling was if I took
    the pill real late and hadn't given my body the chance to go through
    that stage til sometime after I got up.  Other than that, which
    was quite controllable, I never had any problems.  I just went off
    the pill in July because we want to start having children, but I
    fully intend to go back on it when I'm done having children.
    

    How about male sterilization?  If you're afraid of the surgery to do
    the operation (and who wouldn't be?), then get your husband to have
    a vasectomy.  It's a well-known fact that male sterilization is a much
    simpler operation to perform and less expensive.  Probably less
    risky too.

    	-Ellen

    -.8
    
    That's what I was going to say!  Isn't a vasectomy relatively easy
    to reverse if the couple wants more children?
    
    

    Both a vasectomy and a tubal ligation may SOMETIMES be reversible.
    Even when they are successfully reversed, fertility sometimes
    does not return.  The rule on both vasectomies and tubal ligations
    is, don't get one unless it is your intention to be permanently
    sterile.  You may be able to change your mind subsequently,
    but YOU CAN'T COUNT ON IT.
    
    As for "relatively easy", the vasectomy itself is a 20 minute
    outpatient operation, performed under local an�sthesia; the reversal
    is a multi-hour micro-surgical operation, which must be performed
    under general an�sthesia.  Incidentally, Matthew Thornton (the
    Nashua area HMO) covers vasectomies, but NOT reversals.
    
    	-Neil

    I agree with re: 8 I go with male sterilization.  It's so much easier
    I know it's trying to tell your SO, husband, lover etc. that's it
    will be painless and would
    e be much less risky then you tying those
    tubes.
    
    I right now use foam and condoms because I can't take the pill due
    to side effects and my doctor tried them all.  Since I still want
    to have children later my husband will probably have the sterilization
    done unless they come out with male birth control pills or some
    other device.  
                               
    -Bobbi
    
    

    Thanks for all your great replies!  I hadn't considered a vasectomy
    because I'm divorced and there isn't anyone in the picture right now.
    I was just planning ahead...
    
    I have a Cu-7 right now and I had two others before I became pregnant
    with my two children.  I never had any problems except in the beginning
    when menstrual cramps caused me serious pain.  (Now I don't even have
    cramps).
    
    I don't want any more children, but everyone keeps telling me that if/when
    I get into another serious relationship, I may want to have children
    with him, and I shouldn't close any doors.
    
    I had heard of tubal litigation, but never tubal occlusion.  What are
    they and what is the difference?
    
    I liked the idea about going to Canada...
    
    
    							Terza
    
    

 How about a cervical cap?  I think they are terrific, but unfortunately not
 readily available.  I got one from Matthew Thornton (Nashua area HMO)
 several years ago when they were giving them out on a trial basis.
 They are similiar to a diaphragm but alot smaller and you can keep
 it in for 3-5 days at a time.  It allows for much more spontaneity 
 than the diaphragm does.  If you are interested I would call a few
 places in Boston or maybe ask your doctor if he/she could recommend
 any place.  In europe, (from what I have been told) they are very
 popular.   I take very good care of mine and will seriously consider a
 vacation to Europe when the time comes to replace it.  It sounds
 like it would be perfect for your situation.  

 					Kris
    
    

    Ligation means cut.  A tubal ligation cuts the tube so that the
    path the egg travels is disrupted.
    
    Occlusion is blockage.  This is interesting.  Research with silicone
    "plugs" that can be removed at will is relatively recent, and in my 
    cynical view of the medical profession, (my college training and 2 years
    in medical research gave it to me!), this type of fabulous freedom
    for women is NOT a high priority.  Not much funding is available
    if you apply for it because you want to research things like why
    women get cramps, and how can we give them more free sex lives!
    
    Imagine if these plugs were readily available!  Abortion would be
    a non-issue!  Sex and babies would not have to be so intimately, 
    (pardon the pun), linked in women's lives!  Silicone is biologically
    inert so there is NO bodily reaction!  I'll bet most of you
    noters have never even HEARD of this!  They don't want you to know!
    Breakdown of the American family and all that causes panic in the
    hearts of men brought up with June Cleaver.  Unrestricted sexuality
    in women is bad, bad, BAD!
    
    Also for the record, the "band-aid" procedure refers only to the
    WAY ligation or cauterization, (burning of the tube so that scar
    tissue blocks the path), can be performed.  Band-aid refers to
    the little nicks cut into the belly button, (dressed with only a
    band-aid when done), and into the hair line to perform one of the
    types of sterilization.  Other methods of approach have been used,
    but they are more involved and have pretty much been abandoned.
    
    I'm intrigued though, that someone mentioned the plugs, (occlusion).
    Anyone know the latest on them?  Anyone planning to talk to an
    OBGYN in the near future?
    
    Sandy

re: .15

I don't remember exactly what the percentages were but I do know
it was better than the diaghrapm.  I'll take a look at some literature
I have.

kris

    One of the things that worries me about sponges, etc. is the possiblity
    of toxic shock syndrome.  Does anyone have any facts on this?
    
    Terry

    re .19
    
    >Sponges are PERFECT.
    
    *Wrong*.  If we had perfect birth control devices available there'd
    be no such thing as unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
    
    I guess to restate this, in your opinion they are as close as perfect
    as you can get.
    
    	-Ellen

    Just wondering, why are .19 and .20 set hidden???
    

We'd like .19 and .20 to resolve some issues that came up rather suddenly and
very accidentlly....

I'm not taking Maggie's place here, just offering the information.

Bugsy Taber,
Moderator's Assistant*

* Maybe after I've learned Maggie's style and do as good a job as she has
  can I rate myself a Co-Moderator, but not just yet.

I wish we did have a perfect method for birth control.

I've been on Lo-Ovral for 3 years now... I'm still considered a
low-risk patient because I'm a 32-year-old non-smoker with no history
of heart-disease or circulatory problems.

We want to have children, so permanent sterilization is not a viable
option for either one of us right now.

But I don't plan on staying on The Pill too much longer.  I hate the
headaches and the weight gain!  And when I'm 35, I slip into the
High-Risk group.... just by virtue of my age.

I have no intentions of being responsible for the birth control by
myself anymore.... 

Once I come off of The Pill, it's HIS turn at birth control.  And as
far as I know, men have two options for it:  abstention and vastectomies.

Bugsy

    re: the Sponge
    
    The sponge is not perfect!!!  I have a girlfriend who is experiencing
    an unexpected (no longer unwanted) pregnancy after using the sponge.
    
    I myself used it for a very short period.  I found a couple of things
    that were not "perfect" about it.
    
    First, the sponge has something in it that made it "foamy" during
    intercourse.  This made things a little messy, but then, so aren't
    alot of other methods.  
    
    My partner got a burning sensation during intercourse, and then
    a rash for a couple of days after.  
    
    Also, if you enjoy oral sex along with "regular" intercourse, the
    sponge actually causes temporary loss of feelings both to the vagina,
    and the mouth.  Not total loss of feeling, but the intensity of
    feelings is not the same as without it.  Not to mention the bad
    taste of the sponge.  
    
    I vote for the pill.  
    
    Has anyone else actually used the sponge, I'ld be interested to
    know if others had similar problems.  
    
    cin
    

    I used the sponge three times and it I didn't like it either.  I
    had problems inserting it and taking it out.  Also I stopped using
    it after I found out from reading an article that the sponge in
    not that effective.....something like 1 out of 10 woman got pregnant
    after using it.....and they said you were better off using condoms
    and cream then using the sponge.  And yes they said HIGH TOXIC SHOCK
    SYNDROME....when using the sponge.  My GP recommended it but my
    OBGYN was against it....he liked the pill but again I get side affects
    so - that was out for me......I think the SPONGE is not that good
    of a product.   
                    
    
    bs

    #1 I said the PLUGS were perfect.  I NEVER said the sponge was.
       It isn't!!  Jeez!!!
    
    #2 Here is a public apology to Sue Bonde who is insulted at
       what she feeels were my derogatory remarks about her personal hygiene.
       Honest, I never even MET her!  How would I know?? 
    
    What Sue missed because the flames got in the way was:
    
    "The obvious pathway to the blood stream, (via the uterus rather
    than a cut), is not normally a path for bacteria.  The body is well
    protected against bacteria flow in that direction.  Same as with
    the lungs.  Occasionally, this protection can break down, (rare
    and temporary), and someone who is adequately concerned with hygiene
    COULD fall victim to infection that way".
    
    To paraphrase:
    
    "you can be clean as a whistle but sometimes your natural defenses
    just don't defend."
    
    My facts are correct.  Toxic shock is:
    
    1. Rare
    2. MOST OFTEN caused by (offending images here!)
    3. LESS OFTEN caused by a breakdown in the body's natural defense.
    
    Only a narrow-minded fool would make nasty presumptions about the
    cause of someone's pain and suffering.  But I wasn't the one who
    made any assumptions.
    
    Methinks thou protest too much!  
    
    
    
    

    If I remember correctly, toxic shock was also caused by the
    fact that the fibers in the tampons bound up potassium. There
    was some question that the sponge might also bind potassium.

 re: 27  When you refer to PLUGS do you mean a cervical cap?

Kris

    Plugs are little pieces of silicon surgically implanted into each
    fallopian tube via the same type of procedure as for sterilization.
    
    These plugs remain in place until you want to conceive, then you
    just go have them removed.
    
    It's still a new approach and so far I don't think it's available
    to the "general public".  That's why I'd like to know if anyone
    is going to be talking to a GYN soon.  I'd be interested to know
    the latest. I haven't been in medical research since 1982 and
    I sure miss the medical library!
    
    There's also the time-release skin devices which are tiny little
    needle-like things that go underneath the skin and work just like
    the pill.  The only benefit here though is convenience.  You're still
    dealing with hormones.  I think these skin things are in widespread
    use in "third-world" countries where they feel women can't or won't
    take a pill every day.
    
    So far, the plugs seem about the most perfect thing invented.  Just
    go get them right off the bat and they can remain in place for years
    while you NEVER have to think of them, (or babies!), and then when the 
    time is right, have them removed!   AND it's actually a "barrier" method
    of birth control, (like the diaphragm, it does nothing but "block"
    the way), and even most strict religions sanction "barrier" methods.
    Doesn't it sound great?
    
    

    I'd be wary of anything that remains in place for an extended period
    of time, even disregarding toxic shock syndrome.  Look at what's
    happened with IUDs.
    
    And I'm sorry I got mixed up - sponges vs. the plugs you're talking
    about.  But I hold to what I said.  There is no perfect birth control
    method.  I think these plugs are too new to market to make *any* assertion
    about them.  I myself would rather not take chances on new birth
    control methods.  I won't be a guinea pig for anyone.
    
    	-Ellen

    Tooth fillings remain in place for quite a LONG time.
    
    So do lots of Orthopedic prostheses, (hip joints, knee parts, head
    plates, etc).
    
    (I'm not trying to sway you at all.  Birth control is a highly personal
    decision.  I'm not trying to get you to agree with me on the plugs,
    just to realize that birth control is emotionally loaded and devices
    in the reproductive parts are no more or less "weird science" than
    devices anywhere else in the body!) 
    
    And as for being a guinea pig, you are with EVERYthing you try that
    hasn't been tested on YOUR body, aren't you?  The Dalkon sheid was
    "tested" and found safe!   Most women who got the IUD were NOT guinea
    pigs but that didn't help them too much!  The actual "guinea pigs"
    were probably safer because they were hovered over by their doctors!
    
    As with everything, read all you can and make the best decision
    for you based on the facts.

    
    Who ever said that birth control required putting something in or
    on the body?  Does anybody use the rhythm method anymore?  All it
    takes is a little awareness of your own body and a little planning.
    So what if it means abstention for a couple of days - the rewards
    for waiting are that much sweeter!
    
    	Conni
    

    I hope that nobody uses the "rhythm" method any more, since the
    original rhythm method was horribly unreliable.  I assume, though,
    that you are referring to "natural family planning", which augments
    the original calendar-based rhythm method with awareness of cervical
    mucus or basal body temperature.  If used carefully, these are
    as reliable as the chemical and mechanical methods.  
    
    As for abstinence, we find the sorts of safe lovemaking that
    are available during the "unsafe" times to be perfectly rewarding
    and pleasurable--it is only intercourse that you have to "abstain"
    from.
    
    	-Neil

    re .33
    
    Not all women can use this.  I can't.  I've gone between periods
    anywhere between 27 and 48 days.  It's different *every* month.
    With some women's cycles, if you mark the "unsafe" days, half the
    month is unsafe using the "natural family planning" method.

    	-Ellen

    To back up to a much earlier reply, IUDs were not stockpiled in
    doctor's offices.  Each IUD has a number and the doctors must keep
    records on which one went to which patient.  When the IUDs were
    pulled off the market, the drug companies went into doctors offices
    and demanded the IUDs remaining in stock.
    
    According to one of the authors of The_NEW_Our_Bodies_Ourselves,
    the IUD manufacturers are now dumping them in other countries (mostly
    in South America, if I recall).  The manufactures don't want to
    worry about law suits in the US, but they want to get their money
    out of the product.
    
    Judy

(I thought I put in a huge reply about combining methods of birth con-
 trol to reap huge increases in probability.  I even drew a little
  diagram.  Does anybody remember seeing such a reply?)

"Natural Family Planning" employing means of fertility awareness, etc.,
 is a big improvement over the rhythm method, but I wouldn't advocate
  using it all by itself.  It can improve your chances, though, if used
   in combination with other methods.

Basically, the idea is to use some other method or methods during the
 safe periods, and abstaining from intercourse during the fertile times.
  (Abstaining from intercourse is not, of course, the same as abstaining
   from sex.)

Modern fertility awareness relies more on monitoring one's body than on
 counting days.  Still, there's a 3-day risk factor involved, because
  that's how long sperm can live.

It is possible to have some control over the cycle, but some factors are
 beyond control:  stressful events can throw everything off.
  <_Jym_>

    Having your tubes tied--or cauterized--by any means including 'bandaide'
    surgery can be dangerous.  Beware of the possible complications.
    
    I had this procedure done several years ago, and although advised
    to have it done on an outpatient basis (in early morning, out late
    afternoon under a local) I insisted on being admitted to the hospital.
    (I am not too confident of physicians, and was willing to pay for
    the procedure myself (insurance wouldn't cover my hospitalization)
    rather than be an outpatient.  If I hadn't been admitted, I'm not
    sure I would be around today.
    
    I woke up with a team of doctors around me saying 'Hello, there,
    you sure gave us a fright!"  Grrrrreat!   Apparently, when they
    made the incision (puncture) just below my naval, they went directly
    into my intestine.  I ended up with three weeks in the hospital,
    a re-sectioned intestine (major surgery), and a blood infection.
    I was told that if they had x-rayed me prior to the surgery, they
    would have been aware of my 'misaligned intestines'.
    
    I am extremely happy not to have to worry any longer about birth
    control, and would recommend having the surgery to everyone wishing
    a permanent solution.  Just be aware that there can be complications,
    any surgerical procedure should not be considered risk free!                                                                   
    
    

    
    A note about natural family planning:  I have noticed the appearance
    of ovulation predictor kits in local drugstores which claim to indicate
    when a woman will ovulate approximately 3 days in advance.  Does
    anyone know about these test kits?  Are they more reliable than
    the use of basil body temperature in predicting the "unsafe" days?
    
    

I went to a talk on natural family planning and they claimed that if you 
breast-feed a baby exclusively for 6 months after birth, you will be 
infertile (I think they claim you don't ovulate).  Every book I've read 
(and some people) disprove this.  What about taking the pill during 
breast-feeding?  My sister-in-law did it, but I'm sure I'm comfortable 
with the idea.  (Maybe I should be asking this in PARENTING...)

Sarah (mom-to-be in January)

    Sarah,
    
    In primitive societies where women keep their babies with them all
    the time and allow them to nurse on demand, breast feeding does indeed
    surpress ovulation. This means carrying the baby on your hip all day
    and sleeping with it at night. This practice does indeed supress
    ovulation. Mothers in these societies generally nurse their children
    until they are over two. The gradual decrease in nursing as the
    child begins to eat solid food allows the ovulatory cycle to start
    up again and they usually have their children about 3 years apart
    by natural birth control.
    
    If you are nursing your baby on demand both day and night and are
    not feeding it any other foods the probablity is quite high that
    you will not ovulate. However, it is not easy for the average
    western woman to duplicate the nursing pattern that will guarantee
    100% supression of ovulation. It is probably not a good idea to
    rely on it for contraceptive purposes.
    
    When I was nursing - now 17 years ago! - my doctor would not prescribe
    the pill for nursing mothers. Since pill doseages have changed since
    then you should follow your doctor's guidance. The new low dose
    pills may be safe for the baby.
    
    Hope this is some help.
    
    Bonnie

    If you believe that I have this bridge I'd like to sell you. I have
    a sister_in_law who believed that you couldn't get pregnant if you
    were breast-feeding. She got a surprise. After breast_feeding for
    8 months shes now expecting again. 
    
    dave
    
    P.S.  Her line of work.. she's a nurse

    Demand breast-feeding practicied throughout a population will
    substantially cut the conception rates of that population (I
    think that there was an article on this is Scientific American
    a few years ago).  The effect is a statistical one, though, not
    a guaranteed one.  My wife didn't ovulate for over two years
    after our daughter was born; but one of her friends (who also
    practiced demand night-and-day feeding) ovulated within a month.
    
    	-Neil

    
    
    
    
    	This is fascinating, I really never knew this...
    
    
    

    My SO and I have tried most of the current methods of birth control
    at one time or another, and I have an abiding interest in the subject.
    Here are my opinions.
    
    The Pill caused Janice some side effects that make it unacceptable
    for us. Mood swings, inability to concentrate, weight gain. As soon
    as she went off of the pill these disappeared.
    
    The IUD. Doesn't always work, and, especially for women who've never
    had children, can be painful. As has been pointed out, is now much
    more difficult to obtain in the US.
    
    Abortion. Not useful as a method of birth control, though used that
    way in some other countries (Japan). A whole note could be devoted
    to the politics of birth control.
    
    Condoms and Foam. Messy, inconvenient, reduced sensitivity, especially
    for the man.
    
    Diaphram and Cream. Somewhat messy, somewhat inconvenient, especially
    for the woman (who usually ends up taking it out and cleaning it).
    Especially inconvenient during a woman's menstrual period, but not
    using birth control during a woman's period is extremely risky!
    
    Sterilization. Not available to us right now, since we plan to have
    children some day. My method of choice. I've proposed putting some
    sperm "on ice" and getting a vasectomy, but Janice doesn't want
    to risk it. We both consider sterilization to be unreversible, since
    assuming the contrary and being wrong has such a bad downside.
    	Side note: I have heard of the silicone plug tubal. As far as
    	I know, it is not considered reversible. A similar sort of thing
    	was available experimentally for men as well.
    
    Abstinence. You've got to be kidding. :-)
    
    Natural Family Planning. It was my understanding that natural family
    planning, used by itself, had a *much* higher failure rate than
    other methods. I'm referring to careful record keeping, combined
    with BOTH cervical mucus and basal body temperature. When an
    alternative form of birth control is used during a woman's most
    fertile period the reliability goes up, but the failure rate is
    too high for us to consider it.
    
    Foam alone, vaginal suppositories, sponges. Unacceptably high failure
    rate. Also messy and inconvenient.
    
    Long term hormones (Depo-Provera). Not available in the US. Possible
    side effects similar to the "normal" pill. (Actually may be available
    experimentally in the US.)
    
    Male pill (gossypol, possibly others). Not available in the US.
    Possible sterility as a result. Possible effects on libido.
    
    Cervical cap. Somewhat available in the US, as part of extended
    trials. Sounds great. We're looking into it.
    
    I highly recommend "The NEW Our Bodies Ourselves" as a sourcebook
    for this sort of information. Planned Parenthood has been very helpful
    too, but they aren't always up to date on the availability of alternate
    methods of birth control.
    
    	-- Charles

    The problems with Natural Family Planning that I've seen here (and
    heard elsewhere) include:
    		It doesn't work for women with irregular cycles
    		It is not reliable
    		It results in long periods of abstention 
    		It doesn't work for times of stress that mess up your
    			body
                                         
    My husband and I learned this method from an organization associated
    with Catholic Medical Center in Manchester, NH.  (There were no
    religious connections that we saw)  We went to private sessions
    with a teacher who reviewed our charts and the instructions, which
    were based entirely on observations of cervical mucus.
    
    This method charts your specific cycle, it doesn't depend on last
    month in any way, so irregular cycles are not a factor.  They claim
    it is more reliable than anything but sterilization.  They taught
    us how to identify "stress cycles" and use the method with them.
    There is abstention when learning this method, but once learned
    there are only a few fertile days to identify and avoid.  There
    is no guesswork involved.
    
    The drawbacks: There is no guesswork because you are identifying
    potentially fertile days and deciding not to "use" them.  In some
    situations (stress, etc) you are avoiding days that really aren't
    fertile, but you won't know that till later.  Also, this method
    is thrown off by other methods of birth control, so that limits
    your options on fertile days.
    
    We used this plan to "avoid" a pregnancy for 6 months and then we
    used it to "achieve" a pregnancy (1 month).  It's great for
    that too!                                              
    
    If you are interested, it is worth looking into.  I'm sure this
    group has lists of related organizations in other towns.
                                 

Long periods of abstinence from intercourse is not the same as long
 periods of abstinence from sex!  It may even be an opportunity to
  explore new things!
   <_Jym_>

re .7 (Cathy Giunta)

I am curious if anyone knows if there is (still) a recommended period of
time between stopping the Pill and trying to conceive.

Thinking ahead,
Jill

    RE: .48  (Jill)
    
    It is now either 3 or 6 months, depending on the pill and what doctor
    you ask.
    
    Elizabeth
    

>    It is now either 3 or 6 months, depending on the pill and what doctor
    you ask.
    
Hee hee.  It depends on one HELL of alot more than that!  My sister-in-law,
newly agreed to be my matron-of-honor, went off the Pill the first week in
January of 1985 due to complications she developed.  2 weeks later she was 
pregnant (How's that for complications?).  My wedding was November 2, 1985.
HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO FIT A GOWN FOR A WOMAN WHO WAS THEN PREGNANT
BUT WOULDN'T BE (HOPEFULLY) AT YOUR WEDDING????

Their daughter was born on September 16, 1985.

Based on that, I'd say that anything goes, which somehow shouldn't surprise
any of us!

Karen    

    I was told by my doctor that I really didn't have to wait at all
    but that it would be useful to wait at least one full cycle so you
    have a real "last menstrual period" to calculate a due date from.  I
    went off the pill in November, went off birth control in January,
    got pregnant in April, and we're having a baby next month.  I'd been on
    the pill for years and thought my age (30 at the time) might be
    a factor but apparently not.  My sister-in-law started trying to
    get pregnant immediately after getting off the pill.  Worked twice,
    took her 4 months each time as well.
    
    So don't worry about it - good luck!
    
    SHL
    

re .50 (Karen)

I think you misunderstood the question.  I wanted to know how soon after
going off the Pill it was considered "safe" to conceive (re: the health of
the baby).  I'd also be interested in knowing how important it is to wait
this length of time, but I'm sure that's as controversial as the Pill in
the first place!

I also know of one or two people who became pregnant right after stopping the
Pill, although I had heard that it may take a while to become pregnant if
you really want to.  :-)

Jill

    I remember that the house parents in my dorm, my freshman year of
    college (1969) were using the pill for b.c.  They decided one night
    to see just how fertile they were.  It was her ovulation time, so
    she skipped one (1) pill that day and made love all night... and
    nine months later, had a healthy baby boy.
    
    Now, I wouldn't do that myself, nor recommend it, but it points
    out that many dangers of various things we are warned about, though
    the dangers are real enough, are of a ->statistically significant<-
    nature.  Even if (the generic) you were to get pregnant while on
    the pill -- all methods have a failure rate -- the chances are pretty
    good that your baby would suffer no ill effect.
    
    I have 2 kids, and I am diabetic when pregnant, which means I gain
    50 lbs and have huge kids, the first by C-sect.  I (not seriously!)
    considered smoking cigarrettes during my 2nd pregnancy, since the
    statistics say that smoking would make my baby smaller!  (They were
    9lb8.5oz and 8lb13oz)
    
    No slings and arrows, please.
    

    I agree with .53.  From everything I've heard and read, it's 
    perfectly safe although my personal preference was to wait a 
    month or two.  
    
    SHL
    

    From what I have read and heard from my doctor, the chances of having
    birth defects if you don't wait til you get the pill out of your
    system are only about 2 or 3 percentage points higher than the normal
    rate.  That's not much, so it's really a personal choice on how
    long you want to wait once you've gotten all the information.  For
    me, that is significant, and I chose to wait the 6 months.   However,
    my sister-in-law got pregnant while she was on the pill, and her
    daughther was fine.  It's kind of interesting because her son was
    conceived while using an IUD, so needless to say, she's got no
    faith whatsoever in birth control methods.
    
    Cathy

Thank you, everyone, for the answers to my question on the Pill and a
"waiting period".  I got the kind of responses I was expecting (varied!),
and am glad I don't have to decide for quite a while. :-)

I also know several women who were on the Pill when they conceived.  Actually,
at least one of them was honest enough to say she was "sort of" taking it,
which is, alas, like being "sort of" pregnant.  They also had healthy babies;
one even had twins.

Jill

    I worked in a hospital for a few years, after hearing on OB/GYN
    tell a patient that she should not get pregnant right after stopping
    the pill, after she left I asked why?  He said that a one cycle
    wait ensures that the extra hormones are out of the mothers system
    but there were no problems if they got pregnant right away, they
    just prefered not to have any extras in the system.  
    
    re:56  Sometimes doctors have a tendancy to test the correct dosage
    of pill on a patient, mostly looking for reactions.  There are some
    very low dosage pills that are mostly prescribed for regulating
    cycles, that are not adaquate for birth control.  Don't know if
    that's what happened with you friends, just thought I'd mention
    it.  My sister was on the light dosage and asked me if it would
    be strong enough for safety.  I asked her if her doctor had asked
    her if she was sexually active and what her answer was.  She said
    she was too embarased to say yes so she said no.  So I took her
    back to the doctor and asked him if the pill was sufficient for
    birth control.  The answer was no, she had to get a new prescription.
    
    Live and learn.
    
    Vivian

    Re: 57
    
    Vivian is right about the PILL not being a standard doage. My sister
    was taking what they once called the mini pill. It was supposed
    to protect you and cause less side affects. The only side effect
    she got turned out to be my nephew. Liesl

    Just a note of surprise, after finally catching up with some notes
    since I first started reading this conference -- why not more replies
    recommending the diaphragm?
    
    It's safe (no side effects), effective if used properly, and really
    not that much of an inconvenience.  I consider the use and care
    of the diaphragm much as I do other parts of my personal hygiene,
    not a horrible intrusion just because it relates to sex. 
    
    Yes, it does mean that I am primarily responsible for birth control,
    but in a long-term caring relationship, it doesn't really interrupt
    that much.  It can even increase my pulse rate if I'm enjoying a
    quiet evening at home, and my husband walks into the room carrying
    the cosmetic bag I keep the diaphragm and gel in!

    G

I've been waiting for a good time to share my favorite birth control
story, and I guess this is the best time...

My mother had 6 children in 8 years and my father was in the Army,
both the Phillipines and Korea.  Once, during a late "after a date"
discussion (Mom usually waited up for me), I happened to mention to
my mother that I had gone to my gyn and gotten a diaphragm.

"Oh, no!! You didn't!! Those things are AWFUL!!! They never work!"

Seeing her vehement opposition, I asked her why she thought they
didn't work.

"I used one!! Nearly all the time I used one!! They were an awful
aggravation, and you see just where it got me!! I don't trust them.."

To which I asked," Well, I still don't understand... What kind of
jelly were you using?"

Her face went blank, the expression changed to confusion, and she said,

	"Jelly?????"

It seems that the good doctor never explained to Mommo that the diaphragm
is NOT a birth control device, but only a tool by which you hold the
jelly in place.  He must have assumed that my mother knew about
spermicidal jellies.

She's from a tiny town in Upper State New York, and she'd never even
seen a condom until she met my father!  Good old Dad.  Too bad he didn't
keep jelly on hand.  Who knows which of my brothers and I wouldn't be
here?

Bugs  :*)

>It seems that the good doctor never explained to Mommo that the diaphragm
>is NOT a birth control device, but only a tool by which you hold the
>jelly in place.  He must have assumed that my mother knew about
>spermicidal jellies.

Hilarious, I never knew that either. 

Dave (who wants to know, funny how nobody told me?)

    Also you never wash a diaphragm with any oil based soap.
    (such as palmolive) because it deteriorates the rubber, and
    you always get a new one after each baby because the old
    one will no longer fit. (Not to mention you should hold it
    up to the light every so often to check for pin holes!)
    
    Bonnie
    
    Who had a very thorough, female gynocologist when she was first
    married.

    If the diaphragm got in the way it was badly fitted. My Gyn was
    an older woman (she was the doctor that worked with Margaret Sanger),
    and she told me that in her opinion most younger gyns, *especailly
    the men* (her emphasis) simply did not know how to fit one correctly.
    
    Bonnie

    p.s. and NEVER use vaseline with a diaphragm if you want it to
    work.

    don't use acetone either!
    

    AND don't get the jelly mixed up with the grape jelly!
    
    -bs
    

    Also,  if you gain or lose 15 pounds, you may need a refitting.
    
    SM
    

    Thanks, everyone, for adding the details on the diaphragm.  Funny,
    but it doesn't seem like that much work to me!  Guess it's because
    it's become routine.   
    
    Unfortunately, a lot of women seeking birth control get shunted
    out of their gynecologist's offices quickly with a prescription
    for birth control pills because that's the easiest for the *doctor*.
    Women should insist that their doctors give them full information
    on options, and in the case of a method like the diaphragm, full
    instructions on the use and care of it.  
    
    When I got my diaphragm, I had already decided on that method of
    birth control and done a lot of reading to be sure I knew what it
    would involve.  But I still had my doctor review everything again
    for me.
    
    G

The diaphragm  _should_  come  with  directions,  about recommended jellies,
creams,  etc, and care. A major problem with these, as with any instructions
is  that people don't always read them.

I have  been  told  that  if the woman is on top the diaphragm can slip (and
thus become ineffective). My gynecologist did not know if you can feel this.
Can  anyone  tell  me? (Also, is it really obvious, or do you have to really
pay attention to notice it?)

    I was plagued with urinary tract infections during the few years
    I used a diaphragm. I've read that many women have the same problem.
    Unfortunately, none of the doctors who treated me for UTI thought
    to recommend trying another method of birth control.
    
    					Val

Of course, if you're not keen on all the hassles that come with a diaphragm,
 but still want a method that works along the same lines, there's the good
  old cervical cap.
   <_Jym_>

    I've heard good things about the cervical cap.  I've also heard
    that most doctors don't give them out.  I'm sort of interested in
    trying it after I give birth next month but haven't talked to my
    doctor.  
    
    Any experiences people want to share?
    
    SHL
    

    Re .71
    
    The diaphragm shouldn't be causing urinary tract infections unless
    the women using it doesn't void her bladder before and after
    intercourse (within a reasonable time frame -- like a half hour).
    Because of the position of the diagphragm there is pressure on the
    bladder, and this combined with any bacteria that may get pushed
    into the urinary tract during intercourse, can lead to infections.
    But do doctors tell you this?  
    
    G
    

    My younger sister is constantly going to the doctor for UTI's
    and when we were talking about this, I asked her if her GYN ever
    told her about voiding after intercouse.  She had never heard of
    it.  She is on the pill, has been for years and since she started
    being *active* she has had UTI's.  Don't know if it's just the 
    younger generation of doctors who don't explain about the importance
    of voiding or not, maybe they feel that with sex education in 
    school they don't need to explain.  Since she has changed her 
    habits, she has stopped getting UTI's.  Such an easy precaution.
    Don't know why doctors don't talk about it.
    
    vivian
    

    re .75:
    
    If she is on the pill, how does voiding before and after "the act"
    have any effect on UTI's. As I understood .74, it is the diaphram
    that is doing something wierd to the bladder, and if it is nearly
    full can encourage a latent infection.
    Sorry to get clinical, but I'm puzzled, so I have to ask.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .76
    
    The problem is that bacteria can be pushed into the urethera during
    intercourse -- the diaphragm pressing on the bladder just aggravates
    the irritation.   Birth control methods have little to do with it.
    
    G

    rep .76
    
    UTI's that seem to occur during times of "frequent" intercourse
    are sometimes labeled as "honeymoon cystitis".  Doctors really should
    inform women that they should void before and after intercouse.
    Several years back I had a fairly good (?) UTI, and my mother said
    to me with a smile "honeymoon cystitis" huh?
    
    CMac
    

Wow, the things I'm learning here!  This is the first I've *ever* heard about
voiding the bladder before or after intercourse to prevent UTI's.  And I've
been to at least 4 GYN's, not to mention "regular" doctors/nurse practitioners.
(I've also done quite a bit of reading, but apparently not enough!)

I guess I've been lucky never to have had a UTI.  Or maybe I have, but don't
know the symptoms.  Can someone please post them for me?

And all these years I've been voiding my bladder after intercourse just because
it needed voiding. :-)  Maybe that's what has spared me...

Jill

    painful, burning urination for one...

Yes, a UTI isn't something you have without knowing it.  Jill, if you
drink alot of water you may be helping yourself.  I don't drink enough,
and have to remind myself to do so, especially in the summer.

CQ

It looks like there's a need to disseminate information on UTI.
To help others find the information, can we hold the UTI discussion
in another note? I've started topic #143 for discussion of UTI.

					Val

    Re .56, .57, etc., my 13 yr. old daughter was conceived while I
    was on the pill.  My ex-husband and I had gone on a 3 day camping
    trip and I forgot to pack them.  I knew that if I admitted this
    to my ex (he was my husband then of course) that he would get mad
    and yell at me, so I decided to keep it quiet and take a chance.
     So, I wound up missing 3 pills in a row and discovered I was 2
    months pregnant 2 months later.  What a surprise to the prospective
    father!  (We had only been married 6 mos. and had planned on waiting
    a few years.)  When I told him I was pregnant he said, but why didn't
    you tell me about missing the pills so we could take precautions?
     My answer, Because you would have yelled at me and called me stupid.
    Small wonder we're divorced now, huh.
    
    But, my daughter was born perfectly healthy and has been ever since.
    
    Lorna
    

    After the birth of our fourth child, the Doctor in Texas told
    us either my wife or myself needed to make a decision to be
    sterilized.  It was out of the question for my wife and since
    I love her I took the vas. route. simple, and sure.
    
    I did have some discomfort but not like having my wife die in 
    childbirth, so the comfort afforded after against the small
    pain was very small indeed, and contrary to the belief there
    is no difference to speak of..  
    
    
    dr.

    [this discussion has been moved from another note]
    
        On the contrary, vasectomies are in no way the safest form of birth
    control, and the health care professionals I have consulted say
    that continued checkups are necessary.  There are documented cases
    of vasectomies becoming ineffective, even without medical intervention.
    
    This is not to criticize dr. in 102.84 in any way, just to bring
    out in this note and in a discussion from the other note, that there
    is no safe form of birth control (sure, abstinence, but even that
    is ineffective in cases of force) except I believe radical
    hysterectomies.  I admire the courage of those who decide to go
    through the surgical procedures; but remember that unplanned
    pregnancies may still result.

Contraception is obviously a serious issue for women, involving 
difficult and often unsatisfactory decisions.  I don't wish to 
trivialize the issue, but I would like to suggest that it wouldn't be as 
big a problem if the society were not obsessd with heterosexist, 
reproductive sex.  

There are many alternatives to vaginal/penile intercourse, as any
lesbian or gay man well knows. In fact, if all the sexuality surveys are
to be believed, most women don't find this form of sexual behavior
terribly satisfying, and relatively few have orgasms from it. This being
the case, it would seem to indicate that most vaginal/penile sex is
occuring to satisfy the male, and not the female.  It seems that would
be a good argument for pushing the burden for contraception onto men,
rather than women. 

I don't want to start any flames, it's just an interesting thought...

    re .86
    
    I agree, at least for myself, that the act of intercourse is better
    for the male than for the female.  But I realize that if I want
    to get pleasure, I should give it.  Most men like it, so I do it
    and in return they do what they can for me.
    
    On the subject of women not having an orgasm during the act of
    intercourse, I remember a story about Doctor Freud.  (Note, this is
    what Freud believed, not what Sharon Taubenfeld believes, just want
    to get that straight before I'm called a clitorous hater or something)
    A woman came to Freud complaining that she could not have an orgasm
    during intercourse.  He decided that her clitorous had to be moved
    down and performed the operation on her.  She died of infection
    (or shock, I'm not sure) and he blamed her death on her bad attitude
    towards sex.
    
    I remember reading it in some woman's magazine a few years ago.

    RE: .86

    What a bunch of garbage.  If a woman conede's to intercourse 
    then it is HER responsibility for protection from getting pregnant
    since it is HER body.  To suggest that the man should take
    responsibility is a denial of responsibility.  Ironically,
    the safest form of contraception in current use [safety here,
    not effectiveness] is a male form, namely the condomn.

    If she doesn't want to take the responsibility, then
    do what Nancy Reagan suggests and just say NO.

    In regards to intercourse being only for males satisfaction,
    then either you've met 'boys not men' or YOU just odn't get off
    on intercourse, but that's YOUR situation and is no valid
    reason to go making wild and generic extrapolations about
    men being the only ones who enjoy it.

    re .86, .88

    no, no, no!
    ideally, the burden should be SHARED by both PARTNERS, not dumped
    on one or the other.
    
    liz

    Re: .88
    
    Oh my! I could heat my office with that one!
    
    Ahem. I (as a man) would GLADLY "take responsibility" for contraception
    if there were a safe, effective (male) contraceptive. [I've in fact
    offered to get a vasectomy and have sperm kept frozen. My SO rejects
    that alternative.]
    
    Since there is no safe, effective, form of contraception for either
    males or females, we share responsibility. The fact that one or
    the other of us enjoys the act more isn't REALLY relevant. The fact
    that I like to drive doesn't mean I fasten my passenger's seatbelts...
    (though given how I like to drive, maybe I should! (-:)
    
    Anyway, this is all fine and good. But when I think about
    contraception, and what the situation in this country was like not
    too many years ago (illegal to buy contraceptives in many states,
    regardless of your age) and the fact that our Supreme Court is what
    decided many of these issues...
    
    I just can't get as worked up over who puts on the condom (or puts
    in the diaphram) when there are people trying to take them away
    from me entirely.
    
    You think this is farfetched? Check out the RECENT history of
    contraception in this country. Less than 20 years ago it was illegal
    for MARRIED COUPLES to obtain contraceptives (the pill) in some states.
    How long do Supreme Court Justices sit? How old are Scalia and Bork?

        'scuse me, I gotta phone call to make, some letters to write...
    
    	-- Charles

    Re: .86
    
    > There are many alternatives to vaginal/penile intercourse
    
    Although I enjoy a wide verity of sexual activity other than
    intercourse I have a strong preference for it.  I have been satisfied
    by encounters that did not include much other than intercourse but
    have been disappointed by some that lacked intercourse.  I suppose
    that this makes me "obsessed with heterosexist, reproductive sex."
    
    > In fact, if all the sexuality surveys are to be believed, most women
    > don't find this form of sexual behavior terribly satisfying, and
    > relatively few have orgasms from it.
    
    I would be disappointed in myself if I did not try to balance my
    satisfaction with some other activity that would satisfy my
    partner.
    
    But what about the main point:

    > It seems that would be a good argument for pushing the burden for
    > contraception onto men, rather than women.
    
    I have several arguments with this.  
    
    First - it is likely to work only in the cases where the woman knows
    that she is with a man she can trust.  It is still possible for a man
    to inseminate and disappear. 
    
    Second - there are just too few options for men.  I may be willing to
    take a once-a-day pill to protect my wife or to have some device
    inserted to temporarily make infertile but such things do not exist
    for men.  Considering the female options gives a much greater choice.
    This may change if the number of female options continues to fall.
    
    Third - One of the advantages of female contraception, that is not
    of the use-as-you go type, is that it also prevents my SO from getting
    pregnant by another man.  This would not be the case if I were the
    one who was using the protection.
    
    Fourth - I think that human failings would cause a man to be less
    dedicated to protecting another person (wife or SO) than the woman
    herself would be to protecting herself.  Self preservation has got
    to be more deeply ingrained.  (Put this down as fear of failure)


    						MJC O->

RE: < Note 102.91 by VINO::MCARLETON "Reality; what a concept!" >
                      -< Other reasons why it's her job >-

>>    Third - One of the advantages of female contraception, that is not
>>    of the use-as-you go type, is that it also prevents my SO from getting
>>    pregnant by another man.  This would not be the case if I were the
>>    one who was using the protection.
    
Say what? Isn't this the same as saying you should be in charge of 
contraception to prevent yourself from making some other woman pregnant?
Or are you saying your SO should be in charge because you don't trust her, 
or am I missing something here? 

Jenna

    
    re: .92
    
    It might mean that his SO has more than one partner, with his
    knowledge, and that if she takes the responsibility for birth control,
    she only has to depend on one person (herself) instead of worrying
    about what measures the next guy is taking.
    
    DFW

    Re: .86
    
    	Catherine, you have shaken my sexual and intellectual foundation.
    I understand and appreciate some alternatives to vaginal/penile
    intercourse but have never been told or read that such was not
    particularly satisfying to many woman.  Can you please direct me
    to some responsible writings on the subject matter.
    
    	I ask in honesty, wanting to minimize an ignorance.
    
    Douglas

    Re: responsibility
    
    In a couple situation responsibility is best shared.  This would
    mean discussing choices (various barrier methods, pill, vasectomy) 
    and then deciding together.  There is no perfect choice today as
    far as I can see, but you can choose from what there is, alternate
    when one of you needs a break.
    
    When I was single, I took the responsibility because I knew if *I*
    didn't, no one would.  Of course, at times when I didn't happen to 
    be on the pill, this meant I had condoms around.  If their use was 
    rejected, so was the guy.   No apologies.  I had far more at risk
    than he did.
    

    I did not consider myself an anomaly, but perhaps I am.  I am extremely
    satisfied by all forms of "activity" my SO and I participate in.
     It is mutual, and sharing, and the lines of communication are always
    open if there is the slightest dissatisfaction or discomfort (either
    physical or emotional).  
    
    A reference I have read on how women really feel about sex is the
    Hite Report on Female Sexuality.  Most libraries have it.  It's
    a lot of statistics, but it breaks some of them down and discusses
    what those surveyed had to say about the various aspects.
    
    There are also many books on how to increase satisfaction (on either
    partner's part) available at most bookstores. 
    
    There were partners I had that were unsatisfying, and moreover,
    did not seem to care that they had not given me the same amount
    of pleasure I had given them.....but that is all over now.
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s. as for contraceptives, there are many I cannot use for one
    physical reason or other.  However, it would seem that science is
    bent on developing more items for women than men (for whatever reason),
    and that one of their claims as to why is that it is easier to stop
    or intervene on behalf of a single egg, rather than 50 million sperm.
    A male pill was developed in Europe called Gossypol - anyone know
    what happened to it?
    
    
     
    
    

    RE: male pill
    
    I heard a few years ago that a ""male "pill" had been developed,
    but when it was tested, it turned out to react unfavorably with
    alcohol intake; so the men taking it couldn't drink (alcohol).
    
    SO - it was never marketed. 
    
    I've heard nothing since then.
    
    Dawn
    

    Reacted unfavorably - how ? 
    Pill didn't work ?
    Alcohol didn't work ?
    penis didn't work ? 

    re .98
    There is a male contraceptive that causes persons to become
    ill when they drink alcohol. It is used in alcohol adversion
    programs under the name of Antibuse. It does cause a man to
    be sterile while taking it.
    
    The drug Glossypol (sp?) was developed in China from (I think)
    sunflower seeds. I do not know why it is not currently being used.
    I have a vague memory that there maybe some question of reversibilty.
    
    One idea that was touted many years ago as the ideal male contraceptive
    was that of putting a small valve in place. Open and the man was
    fertile, closed he was not. I believe that this failed because in
    readsorbing the sperm cells the men developed anitbodies against
    them (as may happen in the case of a vasectomy) and were no longer
    able to produce viable cells.
    
    It is indeed much more difficult to produce a good chemical
    contraceptive for men because of their cycles. Men produce spermatozoa
    continually so there is no convenient hormone cycle to supress.
    Since women do naturally stop producing eggs when they are pregnant
    the pill simply mimics a biological process. That is much easier
    to do than to interrupt a biological process and assure that it
    will start up again later.

    Bonnie J

    The "Around Town" portion of this week's _New_Yorker_ magazine was
    devoted to the Supreme Court nomination of Bork.  It is particular
    relevance to this topic, since therein is cited Bork's past opinions
    (and from what can be determined, current opinions) about
    contraceptives: Bork would happily support a state that wanted to
    outlaw the *use* of contraceptives by consenting adults.

    Gossypol was in wide use in China, one of the side effects discovered
    there was that some percentage of the men using gossypol did not regain
    fertility upon ceasing to take it. I believe the percentage was
    somewhere around 10% but it might have been as high as 30%. This was
    not viewed as a disadvantage by many of the men taking the pill... 
    
    	-- Charles

	The male pill never made it to market because it reacts badly
with booze? So do sleeping pills, antihistamines, and a slew of other
widely available prescription and OTC drugs. Hardly reason in itself to
keep a drug off the market, in my view. Meanwhile, certain female
pills/devices have been required to amass *tons* of incriminating evidence
at the expense of *great numbers* of women before their demarketing is
even considered...says where this issue is at, doesn't it?

    The male pill is on the market - as Antibuse. It makes a person
    who drinks alcohol violently ill. I don't know if the dose used
    in alcoholism therapy is the same does that prevents sperm 
    formation but if there is a man who doesn't drink at all who
    is interested I am sure he can find a doctor to perscribe it
    for birth control.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .104
    
    Before jumping to wild conclusions about sinister motives, I
    suggest checking the facts and also trying to attain some
    perspective.  If this drug really does cause a serious reaction
    with alcohol, just how popular do you expect it to be, considering
    the widespread use of alcohol in our society?
    
    If there were a "male pill" that was as safe as the "female pill",
    I'd be happy to use it.
    				Steve

    Re:   .86 and 102.91
    
    Personally, I find it difficult to push the burden of contraception
    on either men or women.  I think it is the responsibility of fertile
    PEOPLE to be concerned about the consequences of their pleasure.
    
    Corresponding to your point #1:  True, women seem to have more
    responsibility because they are the ones left with the children
    (biologically, men can shirk their responsibilities more easily
    than women).  However, just because it is expedient and easy does
    not mean it is right, nor acceptable.  I think most women (oops,
    :-) hope I'm not overgeneralizing) are more upset that men seem
    to abdicate all responsibility by saying, "You women have the children,
    therefore, you need to worry about contraception -- not us.  In
    other words, it's not fair.  Women are asking men to begin to shoulder
    half the burden of contraception.  
    
    Point #2:  I agree that (as someone else here has stated) it is
    probably easier to find birth control for women, but I also have
    this feeling that I can't shake.  The risks to women are enormous
    (heart attacks, strokes).  The risks to men are few (sterility,
    upset stomach).  Research concentrates on finding a better 
    contraceptive for women, ostensibly because it is easier than to 
    find one for men.  I ask you -- where is the justice in this??  
    Women should risk their lives because men may become sterile?  Or, 
    is it -- we should concentrate on finding alternatives for women 
    because it's easier *even though it is riskier* and because it is 
    too difficult to find one that won't make men sterile or sick to
    their stomachs?  I find these choices our society has made
    favors men and not women.  I would like to see our society favor
    all of us -- not men over women or women over men.  (I am not trying
    to enrage anyone, just to put out some food for thought).
    
    Point #3:  I don't understand your point. "One of the advantages
    of female contraception, that is not of the use-as-you go type,
    is that it also prevents my SO from getting pregnant by another
    man.  This would not be the case if I were the one who was using
    the protection."  Yes, but why couldn't the other man use protection
    or the woman?  I don't understand your point.
    
    Point #4:  I agree, but personally, I feel each person should be
    just as responsible as the other person.  
    
    And now, for a dose of reality...unfortunately, utopia
    doesn't exist.  And women had better look out for themselves or
    they will more than likely wind up with an unwanted pregnancy.
    
    Melanie
    
        

    As safe as the female pill?  I assume you mean safe in regards to
    not making you violently ill if drinking alchohol.  I haven't had
    the chance to read this entire topic, but what are the side effects
    of the pill?  I am told that if you smoke, as I do, it increases
    the chance of a heart attack.  Also if you take it for a long time
    (and what is a long time?) you decrease the chances of getting
    pregnant.  Oh, and gaining weight, something I'm sure I would be
    be doing anyways. ;-)

    So with just these few things in mind, I wouldn't call the female
    pill safe.
    

    As to the safety of the female pill, it is *far* safer than being
    pregnant by close to a factor of 100. Inother words a woman is
    100X as likely to die as the result of pregancy complications than
    she is of pill related complications.
    
    Again most men who would be using a pill in our society would be
    using it as a temporary fertility suppressant. A pill that offered
    a high risk of not being temporary doesn't fit these requirements.
    Men who wish to make infertility permanent can be sterilized just
    as a woman can, and this operation is simplier and less risky than
    the equivalent female operation. 
    
    I would be interested to hear if Antibuse can be obtained as a 
    male contraceptive, I suspect that it hasn't been approved by the
    FDA for that purpose.
    
    Also, given what knowledge I do have of the different degree of
    complexity of the cycles of egg and of sperm production, I would
    have to agree with Steve that we shouldn't be looking for sinister
    motives, especially where simple biology offers a reasonable
    explaination.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie understood what I meant.  The current female pill IS safer
    than unprotected sex.  The pill has also been refined dramatically
    over the years since its introduction to make it even safer.
    
    But, my friends, NOTHING in this universe is 100% safe.  With every
    breath we take, we accept some risk.  Risk is relative, and has
    to be compared to benefits if any rational decision is to be
    attempted.
    
    Yes, there are some nasty side-effects that have been linked to
    the pill.  There are also some significant benefits.  But the risks
    are absurdly low compared to the benefits, and even compared to
    the risks of NOT using the pill while still engaging in sex.
    
    I'm all for continuing research into improving the safety of any
    product, and I am reasonably confident that this is being done
    in the area of contraception.  The money that is to be made by
    a significantly safer contraceptive is enormous, and attracts
    a lot of attention.
    
    However, seeing that I, if a woman, would be in the low risk
    category for the pill (under 40, non-smoker), I say again that
    I would indeed use a "male pill" that was no safer than the
    female pill in use today.
    
    But, though I willing accept responsibility for contraception
    (and do so today through other means), one can't escape the fact
    that it is the woman who will get pregnant.  This does not mean
    that the woman is the one who ought to use contraception, but it
    is in her interest to make sure that an acceptable method is being
    used.  As a conscientious man, I have a similar interest in making
    sure that an acceptable method is being used, and if my partner
    is not using protection, I will, but this interest comes from
    my own morals, not my body.

    					Steve

    It is probably easier for a man to 'forget' his pill than it is
    for a woman.  I suspect the fear of an unwanted pregnancy is stonger
    in a woman than in a man.
    
    Elizabeth
    

Re: several    

I don't consider birth control a burden, I consider it an inconvenient
privilege.  (Meaning not always as fun as it could be.)

I find it fascinating that some women are "outraged" at being the 
majority responsible for birth control.  I find it a great advantage 
that I, as a woman, have so many options at my disposal.  

If men were so selfish, as has been said, why didn't they just come up 
with birth control options for THEMSELVES and none for women at all?  
I may be out of line here, as I do not know who invented birth control 
pills  - male or female,  but wouldn't it be worse if only the men had 
the option to be fertile or not fertile?  

I think *that* would limit my sexual freedom and then the flames would
really get hot.

Just on off-beat thought.......

CC

    It has been my position for some time that, were a male pill
    introduced, (assuming reversability and "relative safety") that I would
    be willing to take it. 
    
    However, I have, at the same time,  maintained that no woman in her
    right mind would trust a male to be responsible for birth control in
    anything even resembling a casual relationship.  I formulated this
    opinion in college where a more casual sexual attitude prevailed than
    out here in the real world, but I still believe that most women would
    rather not trust a man. 
    
    As far as responsibility goes, I believe that my responsiblity includes
    my saying "no" if I do not feel that we are adequately protected [and I
    have done so.]  Method of choice depends heavily on the other person. 
                      
    				--Doug

    I thought the pill also presented some risk to women with family
    history of heart disease?

    I also would never trust a man to be the one with the birth control.
    I'm not saying that men can't be trusted, but being a realist I
    know that if I am the one at risk of getting pregnant then I have
    to take care of the precautions.
    
    When I was younger (not that long ago ;-) guys never asked if I
    was protected, it was assumed that I took care of it or I didn't,
    because that was my problem, not his.  But in the last few years
    more men are asking if I am protected and some even ask details
    as to how I am protecting myself.  I don't know to what to attribute
    that, maybe the high rate of teen pregnancy and the awareness that
    it is society's problem, maybe men are starting to realize that
    if a woman gets pregnant it's his problem too, or maybe just more
    respect for women.  Who knows, but it's a pleasant change.
    

    
    I think I've said this before, but I'm gonna ask it again anyway...
    
    How can two people that can't get together on this issue even be
    thinking about doing the horizontal bop?
    
    Must just be dumb,
    DFW

    re .114 The pill is a problem with women with a family history
    of heart disease, but so it pregnancy. Basically the pill mimics
    a state of permanent pregnancy (which is how nature turns off
    producing eggs). So any problem that the pill causes or exacerbates
    would would also becaused or exacerbated by pregnancy.

    Finally caught up with this note.  Time to clear things up from way
    back at .91.
    
    Re: .107    

    Point 1
    > In other words, it's not fair.  Women are asking men to begin to
    > shoulder half the burden of contraception.
    
    Yes, it's not fair that men can so easily escape the risk of pregnancy.
    I can try to do something about making sure that I don't get anyone
    pregnant but other men will make their own choices about protection.
    I think it is perfectly reasonable for a woman to tell a man "Put
    this on or leave".
    
    Point 2    The shortage of birth control for men

    I have to agree with other noters here.  Stopping an egg is easy,
    stopping 1E6 sperm is much tougher.  I would like there to be
    more male options.  Would such options sell well enough to turn
    a profit?  As it is most condoms are bought by women.  If the
    method is a pill that must be taken a week in advance would the
    woman buy it?  Some men in committed relationships might but
    the market would still be less than the current condom market.
    
    Point 3
    > Yes, but why couldn't the other man use protection or the woman?
    
    You have to see birth control from the man's perspective.  Assuming
    that I am supporting the family, I would like to be sure that the
    children I pay to bring up are actually my children.  If my wife
    is taking the pill I don't have to fear that she has a man on the
    side.  If I were the one responsible for birth control the risk
    of pregnancy by another man still exists.  She can control that
    risk but I cannot.  I can control the risk for my own affairs
    by using my own protection.  Think of the case where she would
    like to have more children (or another sooner) but I would not.
    I don't see this as a very important feature of women using the
    pill but it is a feature.
    
    						MJC O->

    Re: .106
    
    	If there were a "male pill" that was as safe as the "female
    	pill" I'd be happy to use it.
    
    If the male pill was only as safe as the female pill I wouldn't
    take it on a bet.
    
    Re: .109
    
    	As to the safety of the female pill, it is *far* safer...
    
    The "safest" form of birth control is condom/diaphram combined with
    abortion on demand... For women over 30, using only abortion is safer
    than the pill... Condoms/foam are safer than the pill. The *only*
    form of "birth control" more dangerous than the pill, is no
    contraception at all. [Ref: 320.28] Unfortunately the table doesn't
    include risks associated with sterilization, I suspect that is safest
    of all.
    
    	-- Charles

    re .119
    
    Remember the female pill is safer in comparison to being pregnant.
    Since men don't get pregnant, using a male pill that is only as
    safe as the female pill would indeed be more dangerous for a man
    than doing nothing at all. This is one case where Biology does make
    a difference in the *relative* risks.
    
    Once a sterilization operation is completed the side effects go
    down to near zero, which indeed would make it the safest since
    the failure rate that applies to other forms would not be present.
    
    Bonnie

    re .120  (Bonnie)
    
    Sterilization is not completely safe after you have recovered from
    the operation.  There is evidence that female sterilization sometimes
    leads to a need for a hysterectomy within five years of the
    sterilization.  So, nothing is safe, except perhaps living in a
    secured separatist community.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re: .121
    
      >There is evidence that female sterilization sometimes leads to
      >a need for a hysterectomy within 5 years of the sterilization.
    
    More facts, please?  I had mine done about 4 years ago...
    
    CQ

    I'm confused about the way people are using the word "safe".
    
    Some people seem to define safe in terms of risk of pregnancy.
    Some people seem to define safe in terms of medical risks to the
    user: complications, side effects, etc.
    One person seemed to use the word both ways in the same note.

    So, let's define "medically safe" to mean the second.
    
    	-Ellen

*< Note 102.120 by STUBBI::B_REINKE "where the side walk ends" >
*                            -< a little relativity >-
*
*    re .119
*    
*    Remember the female pill is safer in comparison to being pregnant.
*    Since men don't get pregnant, using a male pill that is only as
*    safe as the female pill would indeed be more dangerous for a man
*    than doing nothing at all. This is one case where Biology does make
*    a difference in the *relative* risks.
*    
*    Once a sterilization operation is completed the side effects go
*    down to near zero, which indeed would make it the safest since
*    the failure rate that applies to other forms would not be present.
*    
*    Bonnie
*

There is one fairly frequent side-effect of the vasectomy process.

Since the testicles haven't been officially notified that their "outlet to
the sea" has been cut, they keep right on making spermatozoa.  Since the
spermatozoa have no place to go, they tend to sick around to be joined
by even more spermatozoa.  In about 20% (if I mind correctly) of all men
this leads to a condition known as epiditimitis - which is a painful
inflamation of the epiditimus, the lining of the testicles.  In most
cases, it goes away by itself.  But in some cases (including mine) it
does not and one is left with recurring painful attacks.  In some *extremely*
rare cases it can cause the testicle(s) to die.  Not fun!

As I said, it is not that often serious - but it just goes to prove that
"it's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"  

In love and peace!

Dirk

    Re: .119
    
    I think we've gotten off track a bit. Yes the pill is safer than
    getting pregnant, but that doesn't make it safe. If I were a woman I
    would be using some sort of birth control other than the pill. Probably
    Condom and Foam ( :-) or diaphragm, let's be honest, I don't use
    condoms...), plus abortion if necessary. My personal feeling is
    that the pill is too risky.
    
    Furthermore, I have a good friend who had her last child *after*
    having a tubal... sterilization is NOT 100% foolproof.
    
    Re: .123
    
    Sorry to disagree Ellen, the reason that there is confusion is that one
    of the most dangerous "side-effects" of most forms of birth control is
    getting pregnant. The problem is that if your birth control fails and
    you decide to carry to term, the risks involved in pregnancy usually
    far outweigh any intrinsic risk of the birth control method itself (the
    pill excepted). Thus the medical risks of a particular form of birth
    control should include the risk of getting pregnant. I agree that it
    would be nice to know the separate risks, but I don't offhand.
    
    The major thing the pill has going for it is convenience. I'm not
    running down the convenience, but there are *safer* forms of birth
    control...
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. I claim that abstinence is one of the most dangerous forms
    of birth control, it produces mild to severe insanity... at least
    in me!

    Charles, being being pregnant is on the order of 100X more
    dangerous than the pill. The pill is *not* more dangerous
    than being pregnant.
    Bonnie

    Ok, we've talked about the bad side effects of the pill, now for
    the good ones.
    
    First it depends on the pill.  The kind I use is 777 (I believe)
    which is somewhat new (a year or so?) and was made to reduce the
    side effects.  I believe they do this by lowering the amount of
    estrogen.  The pill has helped incredibly with cramps, more so if
    you use the higher dose pills (but the side effects...).  It also
    helps if you have a cyst that comes and goes every other month.
    It seems to fool the cyst into not growing and thus reduces even
    more pain.  And then there's the part about never having your .
    on the weekend, never comes by surprise, and never lasts longer
    than 5 days.  Considering all the problems I had BEFORE the pill,
    I won't complain.
    
    I've heard many horror stories about the IUD, from slipping and
    the resultant pregnancy to the wires actually cutting you.  Are
    doctors not recommending this anymore because of all the dangers?
    My doctors never even brought it up as a choice.
    

    re .127:
    
    I don't believe there is an IUD currently on the market, nor are
    there any planned - it is believed too dangerous for the drug companies
    to market it.
    
    That's probably why your doctor didn't offer it as a choice.
    
    Elizabeth

    There is still (or was a few months ago) *one* form of IUD available.
    It was one that released small amounts of (progesterone?
    something-erone) over the course of a year, and then it needs to
    be replaced. When I had to replace my Cu7 I looked over the release
    forms (release manual is more like it) for the new IUD; in trying
    to cover their asses they put in more caveats than were in my
    house-buying papers! Every other paragraph emphasized the possibility
    of unfortunate side effects, including discomfort, sterility, or
    death, and a signature was required on each paragraph and each page...
    
    So yes, there's still one IUD available, but the fear of massive
    liability suits - which do not seem to be hampered by any amount
    of signed waivers - may induce the manufacturers to drop it, too,
    as they did all the others.
    
    -b

    Recently a good friend of mine had abdominal surgery.  while mucking
    around inside her, her present doctor found that her previous doctor
    while performing her tubal, and acutually cauterized a tendon instead
    of her tube.  We were wondering how many babies could have been
    cause of one idiot doctor.  she KNOWS how lucky she has been.
    We laugh about it now, but when she found out while in the hospital,
    everyone of the female staff members came in to talk to her and were
    quite relieved to find out that the idiot doctor wasn't in colorado.  

    vivian

    Ah, yes.  Advantages of the Pill.  Another one is that it
    eliminates the emotional state associated with estrus (not
    everyone gets it) which helps keep me out of unfortunate
    situations.
    
    My nurse midwife has informed me that the newest class of
    aspirin-substitutes, such as Motrin (sp?), will, like antibiotics,
    ah, limit the effectiveness of the Pill.
    
    You have been warned.
    
    							Ann B.

    Really?  They dole that out at WPI like candy.  Do you have or could
    you find an article on this Motrin side effect?
    

< Note 102.128 by SSDEVO::YOUNGER "This statement is false" >
>                              -< None available >-
>
>    re .127:
>    
>    I don't believe there is an IUD currently on the market, nor are
>    there any planned - it is believed too dangerous for the drug companies
>    to market it.

    The problem  is  one  of  liability, not safety. The Dalkon Shield
    (D.H.  Robbins  Co.  who  also  bring  you  Robitussin),  was very
    dangerous  and  caused many women to be permanently infertile, and
    killed  some of them. The Cu-7 (Copper 7) was quite safe, but G.D.
    Searle  got  tired  of  fighting liability suits, even though they
    never  lost  a  suit,  the cost of defending themselves made it no
    longer  profitable to market the Cu-7. As that was the last IUD on
    the  market  in  the  states, a sometimes reasonable birth control
    option is gone.

    This is  the  forerunner  of  more such problems. There was a suit
    that  Ortho lost about a birth defects in a child whose mother had
    used  ortho-gynol  with  her  diaphram.  It's  not likely that the
    spermicide  was  the real problem, but juries are awarding damages
    to  anyone  who had some bad luck. The judgement was for more than
    half the profits from their spermicides that year, so if there are
    a  few  more  such  cases  it  won't  be profitable to stay in the
    contraceptive business much longer.

    Most drug  companies  have  announced that they will not introduce
    any  new contraceptives in this country as the risk of lawsuits is
    too high.

--David

    
    
    Question:
    
    Given that (many if not all) IUDs and the pill are unsafe to women,
    and given that the condom is highly regarded as making sex involving
    men (either with women or men) safer, why aren't more men and women
    using condoms to prevent pregnancy?
    
    I think if I were involved sexually with men, I would never go anywhere
    without a condom in my wallet.  :-)
    
    Justine

    Re: .131
    
    	"... it eliminates the emotional state associated with estrus..."
    
    True, unfortunately in some women (my SO for example) it MIMICS
    the emotional state associated with estrus. The pill, emulating
    as it does the hormonal environment present in pregnanacy causes
    emotional side effects in quite a few women.
    
    I guess the bottom line is that the pill is great if it works for
    you, but that it is by no means a panacea.
    
    Re: .134
     
    	"... why aren't more men and women using condoms to prevent
	pregnancy?"
    
    They are. Condoms have become much more popular recently, and many
    condom manufacturers are espectially targeting women buyers. Condoms
    aren't universally acclaimed for a couple of reasons. 1) They aren't
    trivial to use, the potential for error [ screwing up? :-) ] is higher.
    2) They reduce "spontaneity" (as do diaphrams, sponges, vaginal
    suppositories, foam, and cream) 3) They reduce sensation for the
    man, [ this isn't always a disadvantage... :-) ]
    
    All this notwithstanding, they *are* being used more for exactly
    the reasons you cite.
    
    If *I* were sexually involved with men, I'd never be without a condom
    either! :-)/2
    
    	-- Charles

    Although the interruption factor is just as great with condoms as
    with a diaphragm, condoms are "ickier". The ones I've dealt with
    are wet and gloopy, and they don't always stay on, and some of them
    are cold, and then you have to do something with them when you're 
    done. (I had one friend who would toss them out into his room, much to 
    the disgust of his roommate, who would find them the next day). 
    I realize all these problems can be overcome with a little thought 
    (or tolerance), but they (condoms) do have a high inconvenience
    and "yuk" factor. On the other hand, they can be purchased without
    a prescription (as can foam -- foam and condoms are a rather reliable
    b.c. method), so they can be gotten on short notice.
    
    liz

    So how cum there's a sales tax on condoms?  Since they are made
    to be worn, doesn't that make them clothes?
    							Ann B.

    re .137

    re .116  Waaaayull, you don't have to be intelligent to want to have
    sex.  :-)  Slightly more seriously: I've run into some interesting
    characters who'd --um-- well (I'll come right out with it)
    lie and cheat to convince another party that sex was safe (or safe).  Or,
    more gently: fib and justify the fib, affect an unprovable confidence.
    Sometimes even if you think you know someone well, you could be
    mistaken.
    
    re aspirin substitutes: Ibuprofen has also been cited as inducing
    moodiness and depression, lethargy, and, in women...well, I've read
    tell and seen myself, that it can relieve cramps...stop them in
    fact...well, even just plain stop the menstrual flow, altogether,
    right then.  It wasn't a permanent affect, though, it was just for
    that cycle.  (And I'm pretty sure it *was* the cause--I can usually
    set my watch by my cycle--only a mild exaggeration--and it's _never_
    less than a day!!)
    This was a little scary.  And causes me to believe that
    it might affect the effectiveness of oral contraceptives.
    
    I'm going to repeat myself: vasectomies are not necessarily forever;
    the health care professionals I've asked state that regular checkups
    for sperm counts are recommended (forever).
    
    Condoms are medically safer, but, well, they sort of limit things.
     
    re .137  I think the laws are stricter than just "clothing".  I've
    been taxed for yarn if I said I was going to make an afghan out
    of it, but if I told them it was for socks, they sometimes didn't
    tax it. [I fully intend to knit a vest out of mag tape some day,
    and see if I can't get cassettes untaxed by claiming I intend to
    make clothing. :-) ]  My barrettes are taxed in Massachusetts, and
    so is jewelry, no?...I suppose this means that condoms are supposed to
    be decorative!  Maybe they could be claimed as medical expenses,
    and itemizable deduction on your federal income tax forms.
                               

    re .116 Dave, have you never been overcome by carbonized hormones?
    
    and re the clothing item and Lisa's comment on yarn, I know that
    if I tell them at the store that I am going to eat certain flowers
    like nasturtiums they don't tax them. Maybe you need to point
    out that the item is worn :-) ;-} etc

    
    Carbonized?  Yow!  Talk about the flame of love. I think you meant
    carbonated, but I won't quibble... :-)
    
    Anyway, Bonnie, to answer your question, yes I have, but:
    
    a) It's usually a unary operator and
    
    b) Even when it's a binary operator, there's more than one edge
       to that node on the graph.
    
    Wow.  Talked about mixed metaphors.  I gotta stop working on weekends.
    Nonetheless, I see your point.
    
    DFW

    set soul == bared
    
    brass tacks, folks....gorey detail.
    
    I was once on the pill.  So were 4 friends.  We all, for one reason
    or other, were ordered off of it by our doctors.  I cannot speak
    for them, but my doctor found an elevated prolactin level in my
    blood which may be associated with tumors of some gland or
    other...whatever.  There was my method - shot down.
    
    Then I tried some other things.  I discovered nonoxynol (the leading
    spermicide) gives me yeast infections.  yech.  Strike that method.
    
    Condom worked well, and once you get used to the routine it is not
    so yucky or messy or unpleasant that it can't be dealt with (dmn
    expensive, some of 'em)
    
    Then I returned to my doctor - and asked if I could try the pill
    again.  After careful testing, I was put on the mini-pill (low hormonal
    levels), and have had my blood tested monthly.  Crossed fingers.
    
    It is troublesome to take precautions - it takes time and money
    and effort and inconvenience.  But think of the alternatives....
    
    
p.s.  I read recently in a hi-tech magazine that they are working on
    a ring to go near the cervix that will project electromagnetic waves
    which seem to repel sperm.  I suppose you just can't wear 'em near
    microwave ovens, though :-)
    
    
    -Jody

    yep, I was dragged off the pill because I had a low PIF
    (prolactin-inhibiting factor). AKA milk.
    
    Now my IUD needs replacement.  Great.
    
    Lee

    
    ref .137:
    
    It's actually an amusement tax...

    not an amusement tax, a syn-tax.
    
    they've taxed nearly everything else pleasurable - why not this?
    
    -Jody
    

    In regard to sharing the burden of birth control, I get really upset
    at men who just *assume* when they decide to have sex with a new
    woman, that it is up to the woman to take care of birth control.
     I think it is usually more of a problem for people who are not
    in long term relationships, and may be having "casual sex".  I'm
    talking about cases where I've heard of/or heard men, who got somebody
    they didn't want a relationship with pregnant, say something like,
    well, I thought she was on the pill, making it sound as though they
    have no responsibility.  I agree that, as a woman, I would never
    just trust birth control to a man (since they don't have to actually
    have the kid it just can't be as real of a danger to them), but
    I also believe that if a man knows he does not want to father children
    (at least at this time with any woman he knows), then HE should
    make certain that HE DOESN'T.  That may be easy if he knows the
    woman is using birth control, but if she isn't, and he doesn't want
    kids, then it's up to him to make sure he doesn't have any!  I've
    just heard of too many cases in my life of men who fathered children
    (some of them were very young and were never told it was their
    responsibilty too) just because the woman didn't use birth control
    and they seemed to feel that there was nothing they could do - as
    though they had no more control of getting somebody pregnant than
    whether the sun shines or it rains out.  I think it's up to each
    individual, male or female, that if you don't want a kid, make sure
    you don't make one.  I hope the boys growing up today will have
    a little better attitude about taking their share of the "blame"
    for unwanted pregnancies.  If a girl or woman is too dumb to use
    birth control, boys and men should either not have sex with her
    or use something themselves!
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .146, I didn't mean to infer that everybody who accidently gets
    pregnant is "dumb", since no method is totally foolproof, and some
    people can't take the pill, etc.  I was thinking of young girls
    who take chances thinking it won't happen to them.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .146
    
    Agree with you Lorna.  It is sad the number of men (no, I won't
    tell how many or few) I have had to chide for being all hot to trot,
    without ever (before or after) asking if I was using birth control.
    
    Lee

    Whenever the situation would arise with someone I cared about
                    - I would never hesitate to mention something
    like birth control - more often then not I would carry "protection"
    with me - generally a condom at that point in my life, or a
    contraceptive sponge.  Yes, sometimes it was embarassing to say
    (as gently as possible) "gee, we're getting intimate here in bed, would
    you like to provide the safety-catch, or should I?", but I never
    regretted it.  As a matter of fact, if I had a sexual relationship
    with someone for a month or more, I would also discuss what would
    happen were I to become pregnant, what he would want to do about
    it, what I would want to do about it.  It was really not even a
    question of finding the courage to ask, or needing them to bring
    their own protection, I honestly had to lay my fears at rest
    if the closeness was to continue...
    
    -Jody

    I believe the issue of making sure you discuss whether or not to
    use birth control and discussing who should be the one to use it
    (the man or the woman) should be as seriously discussed by a married
    couple as by single people (whether the single people are adults
    or younger). I've known more than one couple where neither person
    used birth control and yet the husband and wife had never made a
    real decision about whether or not to have children. In at least
    one case the couple did have a child. Thank goodness the child is
    loved and cared for and wanted, but this might not always be the
    case (unfortunately even children who are "planned" are not always
    loved). Anyway, I agree that the use of contraceptives (or lack
    thereof) has to be mutually understood by the two people in a couple,
    and I feel this extends to all couples, married or not...
    
    Elisabeth
    

    re: last few
    
    A man who is known quite well to me recently went through a paternity
    suit.  The mother of the child, who had have a brief relationship
    with this man, sued to establish paternity and get child support.
    He "lost" the case; ie, the court determined he was the parent and
    set child support payments.  

    When he complained to me about the situation, I found it very hard
    to feel sorry for him.  It is his child (and he knows it), but he
    doesn't feel any responsibility for its conception because he had
    assumed the woman was on birth control.  In his opinion, she was
    the one who was irresponsible (she was, but he was equally so).
    
    
    

    
    
    I have never been asked by a lover in bed (or before getting to
    that point) if I used any form of birth control and no lover has
    volunteered to use any form of birth control themselves - except
    (he he he) "withdrawal".
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	

    also re: last few
    
    Thanks to all for yet another "eye-opener", though I confess 
    a certain amount of astonishment (and not a little of the
    "am-I-on-the-right-planet" kind of feeling).  I was raised to
    believe that birth control was *entirely* the man's responsibility.
    
    The explanation (such as it was) went that a woman, in the
    heat of passion, couldn't/wouldn't exercise the needed forethought
    or restraint to prevent pregnancy.  And I knew I was getting
    the "gospel", because it was my mother(!) who explained all this
    me.
    
    I just know we shoulda taken a left at Alpha Ceti instead of
    a right. . .
    
    Steve

    i have only been asked by one man before hand about birth control
    kelly

    re last several
    
    Only once *didn't* the man ask me what/if I was using, long before
    we were ready to use it.
    
    I believe that the responsibility for birth control rests entirely
    on both people - if the two people can't discuss birth control,
    what are they doing going to bed together???
    
    Elizabeth
    

    I have never had a man ask me about birth control before hand. 
    They usually seem to ask around an hour or so afterwards, sort of
    a "by the way, are you on the pill or anything?"  I've always found
    it amusing that they think of it after the event.
    
    Lorna
    

    Interesting, I  always  thought  that  contraception  was a shared
    responsibility,  and  I  *always*  ask before hand if I don't have
    condoms  handy.  In  fact,  in  most of my relationships I've been
    responsible  for purchasing contraceptives (pharmacists still give
    a  man  funny  looks  when he comes in with a prescription for the
    pill for a woman with a different last name.)  

--David

    I just say "hey, do I need to use something or are you OK?" - no
    sweat ('cept once I'd left em out in the car (and it was raining))
    - sure hope no-one was looking out their window :-)
    
    Dave

    Just tell 'em it's raining, and your mom always made you wear 'em
    in the rain.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Oh. *those* kind!
    I get it now.
    ;-)
    

    I'd just like to bring in a different opinion to that expressed
    a few notes earlier re the tri-phasic pill (I believe you also call
    it the mini-pill). I have been on the mini-pill for 7 years, with
    no after effects (like pregnancy!). I have felt very well on it,
    and if it is true that my period is pretty short (2-3 days), it
    has never stopped completely, and I consider that a short period
    is definitely a blessing!
    
    As we all react differently to any type of medicine, I'd still think
    it worth it for anyone interested to try it, in view of my positive
    experience of it. At worst, you can just drop it if it doesn't suit.
                                    
    Joana
    

    
    	While i've never asked, I DID take care of being responsible
    	and have never been sorry for it (the big V). Course, with
    	the problems of today, I'd never go with the use of a condom
    	anyways.

    
    re: .161
    
    	That should have read WITHOUT the use....
    
    
    	Darn fingers have a mind of their own.. :^}

    I read in one of the replies way back in this note that it takes
    two weeks or a month for the pill to start being effective.  Does
    anyone know what exactly the start-up procedure is for the pill?
    
    Tom

    re. .163  - I think it must depend on the pill.  When I started
    the pill, I was told I was protected from Day 1.  (Triphasil 28)
    That was a while ago, so either the doctor was right, or I was lucky.
    
    Lynne
    

    I've always heard that you should use "backup" contraception during
    the first month of being on the pill. Best to ask the prescribing
    doctor or look in the new "Our Bodies Ourselves" for more info.
    
    liz

    The pill prevents a new egg from maturing and being ovulated.
    When you start the pill there may be a nearly ripe egg from
    the previous cycle that won't be affected by the homones
    from the pill. Thus the need for backup contraception. BE SURE
    to check this with your doctor.
    
    Bonnie

This is intended to be humorous.  Men as well as women are welcome to
    read it (warning at the beginning may safely be ignored).  Don't
    be offended, just laugh at the parts you find funny, okay?  The
    views reflected herein are not entirely representative of the beliefs
    of the poster (moi).
    
    -Jody
    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources say: A Girl's Guide To Condoms
	-- by Mimi Coucher
 
	WARNING: Boys cannot read this.  If you are a boy and are reading this,
stop immediately.  The following article is chock-full of highly intimate girl
secrets that will be 10 times more embarrassing than any TV commercial for
feminine-hygiene products you've ever seen.  So quit it.  I mean it.  You'll
be sorry.
 
We've Come A Long Way...
	We thought we were pretty darn smart, all right.  In the '60s we
became liberated and bravely marched into our neighborhood women's-health
collective, had our blood tested and our bodies examined, and marched out
armed with a pink carousel of little tablets and a new attitude.  We related
to our sex partners, we discovered the joys of uninhibited physical thrills,
we took our pills regularly.  In the '70s we were sorry for it and went en
masse to our gynecologists to be fitted for diaphragms.  We carried
them everywhere, became geniuses of delicate timing.  We tried IUDs, flirted
with cervical caps worn at jaunty angles.  We researched and discussed the
issues with candor and aplomb; ask any high-spirited modern girl and she'll
tell you all about the G-spot, male menopause, the Hite report, impotence,
arousal, pregnancy, the Kama Sutra, birth control.
	Ready for the '80s?  Hell, we thought we were ready for anything.
Anything but this.  No woman, not even the most avid reader of sex manuals
or sophisticated connoisseur of amour, is prepared for the experience of
walking to the corner drugstore and asking the freckle-faced adolescent
behind the counter for a package of... condoms.
	OLD FACT: Condoms aren't sexy.  Neither are rubbers, sheaths,
prophylactics, Coney Island white fish, raincoats, skins, safes, rubber
booties, socks.  The package says, "Sold for the prevention of venereal
disease."  The boys say, Sold for the prevention of love.  Oft compared to
taking a bath with socks on, the condom ritual was the classic bane to the
romantic advances of bumbling '50s teens.
	NEW FACT: Unless you can account for all the blood transfusions,
intravenous activities, and sexual escapades of your partner and your
partner's partners, you'd best get used to the idea, right now.  "Say," you
blink innocently, "shouldn't the boy be taking some responsibility for this
dangerous transaction?"  Yes, of course.  But I wouldn't count on it.  You
know how they are.  And here's a horrifying thought: not only are you
protecting yourself against your partner, you're protecting your partner
against *you*.
	Oh, cheer up.  It beats abstinence.
 
Buy Now, Lay Later
	Don't even pretend for one minute that you're never going to do "it"
again.  You will.  So brace yourself for the new shopping experience of the
'80s.
	First take: you enter a quiet, out-of-the-way drugstore that has a
display of walkers and bedpans in the window.  Confident that no one you
know will ever spot you here, you stride over to the kindly old pharmacist
at the back of the store.  "Excuse me," you venture a little shakily.
"Where are your rubbers?"  You are gently guided to a Totes display in Aisle
Three.  To save face, you buy a pair of men's size 11s and ditch them in a
corner trash can, determined to do better next time.
	Second take: the next store you choose is a little larger, and
crowded.  But you can't find the condoms anywhere.  There is a line at the
cash register.  You stand in it, patiently, rehearsing your lines.  You
arrive.  "Excuse me," you politely whisper to the surly loud-mouthed Iranian
behind the counter, "where are your prophylactics?"
	"Right here," he shouts.  "What kind ya want?"
	"Uh, Trojans, I guess."
	"Lubricated or nonlubricated?" he bellows.  "Ya want ribs?  We got
the ribs kinds."  By this time, the entire store is involved in the drama,
the crowd behind you is silently hanging on your every word, and you're sure
that that's your third-grade teacher who just walked in.  "Oh, uh, skip it,
thanks.  I'll just tell my little brother that he'll have to buy his own."
	Don't be discouraged.  Buying condoms is a tough job, but somebody's
got to do it.  And here's a heartening fact that I bet even *you* didn't
know, Ms. Modern: marketing tests prove that women buy more condoms than men
do, and have for years.  That's why, ever since the late '70s, condom
packages have featured air-brushed photos of couples holding hands at
sunset.  They thought we'd like that.  We don't, but it will have to do till
pictures of Mick Jagger, Mel Gibson, or beautiful shoes come along.
 
Condoms Demystified
	There are basically three kinds of condoms: unlubricated latex,
lubricated latex, and lambskin.  The lambskins are no good because they
haven't been proven to be a barrier to infection.  Anyway, they're really
made of lambies and that makes us sad, especially around Easter time.  (The
real reason we don't like them is that they actually smell like lamb.  One
is tempted to lubricate them with mint jelly.)
	There are variations on the basic latex condoms.  Some condoms are
prelubricated, with spermicidal jelly, even.  Others are not.  Strictly
B.Y.O.K.Y.
	The strangest variation by far is the ribbed latex condom.  Why are
these condoms ribbed?  This is supposed to be stimulating?  Should one
attempt to play washboard tunes on it?  This is just part of a big problem
with condoms.  Condoms were, and are, designed by men.
 
If Girls Designed Condoms...
	What a wonderful world it would be.  Skip the ribbing, skip the
lube.  If women designed condoms there is no question that they would be
padded.  "But size doesn't matter!" comes a chorus of voices.  (The loudest
voices come from boys who are peeking.  Stop that right now.  Turn to the
sports page immediately.)  Sure *length* doesn't matter.  But give any girl
a small dose of truth serum and ask her about width.  Admit it.  If padded
condoms were placed on the market, hordes of screaming women would storm
their local druggists and dash out with tote bags full.  Unfortunately, it
wouldn't work.  After all, there is that ticklish issue of boy sensitivity,
which we can't overlook, even if we occasionally want to.  Padded condoms
would rob boys of the skin-to-skin sensation they already claim condoms
rob them of.  And we can't have that.
	No, we modern women, being kind and sensitive lovers, would design
whisper-soft condoms, completely transparent and microscopically thin.  The
paisley, rainbow, and floral-print condoms we designed would be strictly
novelty items, kept for special occasions only.  Ditto the condoms with
cute sayings: "Hang in there, baby, Friday's coming"; "My girlfriend went
to Florida and all I got was this lousy condom"; and the classic "I'm with
stupid" (arrow pointing back toward the boy).  Other specialty items would
include the male-ego condom, which, like black olives, come in three sizes:
jumbo, colossal, and humongous.  Naughty subversives would enjoy the Karen
Finley assortment, colorful, decorative condoms that turn ordinary penises
into bananas, hotdogs, yams, and more.
	But I digress.  The best place to buy condoms is your local massive
drugstore that has them on display, self-serve, just like corn pads or
athlete's foot spray.
	So go shopping.  Dress cool, hold your head high, read labels, make
your selection.  Be assured that most popular brands come with little
instruction booklets much like the ones found in boxes of Tampax (uh oh --
don't mix them up!).  While at the drugstore, be sure to purchase at least
one of the following items: Tickle anti-perspirant, Ban Roll-on, or any of
the Calvin Klein line of men's grooming aids.  You'll need these for
important condom experiments at home.
	At home, be alone.  Light candles.  Play inspiring music; any
record by Rick James will do.  Remove one of the condoms from its packet.
Examine it carefully.  Then put it to work.  Experiment with your slippery
new friends; whip those sons-of-gummi-worms into shape.  Recruit those
deodorant bottles and practice, practice, practice.
	And how about some new nicknames for the old standbys?  Love skins.
Slicks.  Wet suits.  Silk stockings.  Eight-by-two glossies.
	Soon enough, you'll be happy and relaxed, perfectly in control of
those silly little slips o' sin.  But wait.  Something's missing.  Oh yes,
the hard part.  I mean the good part.  I mean, both.
 
The Condomed Man
	It is far, far easier to start them on condoms when the
relationship is young.  In fact, the condom is a terrific tool of seduction
when you're ready to make the leap between the sheets.  Call that someone
on the phone and say to him, casual-like, "I just bought a new kind of condom
and I'm dying to try it out... want to come over?"  Or when out on the town
with your paramour, and the clock on the clubhouse wall says thump thump
thump, push that hunk against the wall and growl, "Listen, buddy.  I've got
a condom in my pocket and I'm not afraid to use it.  We're going home."
 
Welcome To The Safety Patrol
	Before you know it, you'll be a veritable connoisseur of condoms.
You'll allow them to drop casually out of your purse in front of attractive
men at cocktail parties.  You'll dispense them to friends, give lessons,
perhaps even roll your own.  "Oh, handsome boyfriend," you'll soon sigh,
"I've always wanted to see you in rubber."
	And he won't mind one bit.
 
 

A friend of ours, who works at the county health department, told us of one
of her clients who had a purple discharge.  They couldn't find any abnormal
conditions, and so conducted an interview to attempt to find anything in her
medical history that might have contributed to the problem.  It turned out
that the lady's doctor had told her to use jelly as a contraceptive, so she
promptly went to the nearest grocery store and bought a jar of Welch's Grape.

/Mike

	Jody,

	I'm in stitches....That was really funny....

			m-

    RE .167  PRICELESS !  STOP/PROCESS=SIDESPLITTING 8-)
    
    But, umm eight by two glossies sounds a touch optimistic.
    
    May I extract this ? I'll noheader it if you wish. 
    
    Dana

    Eight by two isn't optimistic; it's artistic.  If you want to
    matte it and frame it you must leave a bit of a border or it will
    look terrible.
    
    							Ann B.

    
    *Excellent* article!  A real belly laugher!! :-)
    
    "Matte and Frame it" - Ouch!!!  That's what I call "Pop" art ;-)
    
    Dave
    

    you're welcome to extract it.  It's nice to hear the sounds of laughter
    in this file again.
    
    And as for the 8x2, that's as sold, not as worn.  
    flat area .ne. 3-D area.
    
    also, true story from the Los Angeles Times, Calendar Section Mon.
    Oct 5 1987.
    
    "The International Banana Association has protested to the Public
    Broadcasting Service because an upcoming program on safe sex features
    a condom being peeled over a banana, according to Reuters news service.
     During "AIDS: Changing the Rules," a show hosted by Ron Reagan
    Jr., that is set to air on PBS stations in November, a two minute
    sequence demonstrates in detail, with a banana, the right way for
    a man to don a condom.  "The banana is an important product and deserves
    to be treated with respect and consideration," wrote Robert Moore,
    president of the association representing U.S. banana importers,
    in an angry letter to PBS.  Moore said when he was in the military,
    health instructors used a broom handle as a prop for condom
    demonstrations, "and that seemed adequate to me."

    Also, I cannot verify this story (I think I got it from a mailing
    list of fairly reliable sources), but I heard that several years
    ago in some kind of cooperative project, the US shipped a box of
    condoms to the Russian military.  They were slightly taken aback,
    as the box contained 16" long condoms, and was clearly labeled on
    the outside "Medium".
    
    -Jody
    

    Great stuff; I'm still cackling.  I've been wondering who
    the female version of Dave Barry was (or who DB was the male
    version of).  More please!
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.   Extra funny for me as I grew up in the '50s & '60s (like
    	   before *anyone* was liberated); such drugstore experiences
    	   (esp. "take 2") were a principal reason for my sadly 
    	   *un*degenerate youth; abstinence was better by far than
    	   the humiliation of such a trip to the drugstore; remember,
    	   in those days all those things happened within the context
    	   of the well-known fact that "doing it" was dirty.  The other
    	   major factor was that for a 19 year old who was so baby-faced
    	   and lacking in "cool" that he couldn't *buy* a date with
    	   a high school sophomore, purchasing a condom could only be
    	   described as an act of profound wishful thinking.
    

I vaguely remember reading the "guide to condoms" in a recent(ish)
Boston Phoenix.

So, do any of the people in this community care to "rate" the various
brands?  My limited experience is that, as long as they don't fall off
or fall apart, they're all equally unpleasant.

Martin.

    the only differentiating factor I have really had the need to be
    aware of is the various sizes of various brands.  
    
    -Jody
    

    	An aside:  A word for "lust" in French is "lubricite."
    
    					Carla
    

    The "Grape Jelly" story is as old as the hills.

    	I'm not as old as the hills and I enjoyed reading it.
    
    					Carla