contraception

[Cherry.Chops]

yo Raw foodies!

I have a question for you (raw foodists only)

What kind of contraception do you prefer to use?

Thanks for anwsering such a personal question.

[Mr Flibble]

Possibly missing the point here, but a bit confused - what does contraception have to do with raw?

[Cherry.Chops]

because most raw foodists are against most tablets, and any kind of substance that contains toxins that can be absorbed such as spermicides and hormones.

so im wondering if they make an exeption..or use any other type of birth control such as the IUD....catch my drift?

[herbwormwood]

Please don't worry what other people think or what other people "are against".
Make decisions about your health and future based on informed choice, there is enough information out there.
Its your body, you decide.

[harpy]

Possibly missing the point here, but a bit confused - what does contraception have to do with raw?

Well, you could =CENSORED=

[Mr Flibble]

Well, you could =CENSORED=

try not deep frying condoms before I use them?

point taken

[Zorillo]

http://www.thepregnancytester.com/

[snivelingchild]

^haha. love it.

[Ms_Derious]

I find a stern look and a sensible wool skirt works. That or an IUD.

[Mr Flibble]

Careful, some people might find stern looks and sensible clothing arrousing

[Kitteh]

Fertility Awareness Method I use paper charts not the computer software.

[Zorillo]

Avoiding men is a good one. If you say no or something else, they ignore you

[LunaC]

I prefer the pull and pray myself.

[Roxy]

LOL LunaC - I've never heard it called that before. But that's the method we use too

[phact0rri]

http://www.thepregnancytester.com/

too funny.

[veganf]

I use a BabyComp. Google it, it's awesome.

[vegcurry]

x snip x

[Mahk]

We all have to weigh many factors in selecting BC (birth control) such as religious convictions, cost, medical access, allergies to latex, IUD sensitivity, etc, but I did consider it my civic duty to mention the statistics of it, which I've studied.

Statistically it has been shown that FAM and withdrawl ("pull and pray", ha-ha, that's a good one) are less reliable forms of birth control, compared to condoms, the pill, IUD, etc, so much so that many doctors are reluctant to even suggest them to the majority of their patients except under conditions such as a religious conviction that condoms, the pill etc are sinful or in war torn/ poverty stricken parts of the world where there simply are no resources for anything that isn't 100% free, needing zero supplies or medical attention.

From the FAQ of that above FAM link for example:

"15. Is FAM a good method for everybody?

No, not as a method of birth control."

FAM is however one of the very best methods for couples who are trying to conceive in order to determine when they are the most fertile.

The most recent FAM studies show that in typical use it has a 25% failure rate, per year of use, in couples who use it for BC. That means over the course of a year 1 in 4 couples using it alone, without condoms or any other form of BC, will become pregnant; almost all will be pregnant within 4 to 5 years use.

Withdrawl studies show it to have a similar failure rate in typical use of around 27%.

[Roxy]

Wow! Those are suprising statistics Mahk. Thanks for posting.

[For The World]

I guess your only two options for birth control with the lowest rate of pregnancy are condoms (unless you or your partner don't like the water based lubricant used in them or have a regligious aversion to them), or abstinence. I'm a guy, and condoms have worked fine for me so far.

To the pull and pray people - obviously you don't want to have children, hence the pulling and subsequent praying. So what happens when you eventually conceive?

[kaybee]

Mahk's statistics are inaccurate, if the method is USED CORRECTLY. USED CORRECTLY there is no way there is a 25% statistic failure rate. NFP or FAM rely on a variety of indicators of fertility and when more than one indicator is used, the number of surprise pregnancies can be much lower. Perhaps only depending on one factor might give a higher failure rate, but when a combination of the calendar of the woman's cycle, attention to the changes in cervical mucus, and temperature are used, it is possible to fairly accurately pinpoint a woman's days of fertility, in most cases. The key is that if the couple wishes to not become pregnant, they need to abstain during the time of the woman's fertility, which many people are not willing to do. That is where most of the failure comes in; that, and using the method incorrectly; i.e. not being fully attentive to the indicators.

I think its a shame that inaccurate statistics are being given in this thread that will deter people from using NFP/FAM, particularly since it is a method that doesnt require us to put bad stuff into our bodies and it also places fertility awareness into the hands of the couple, instead of depending on a doctor or a drug or a drugstore or an implant or etc.

[Manzana]

The most recent FAM studies show that in typical use it has a 25% failure rate, per year of use, in couples who use it for BC. That means over the course of a year 1 in 4 couples using it alone, without condoms or any other form of BC, will become pregnant; almost all will be pregnant within 4 to 5 years use.

Withdrawl studies show it to have a similar failure rate in typical use of around 27%.

Hi Mahk,

The first thing to say is that there are many methods in what is called "FAM" and they all have different reliability. The Basal Body Temperature for example has statistics of 1 pregnancy per 100 women over the first year.I have taken this number from here http://info.k4health.org/globalhandbook/handbook.pdf which is a document from the World Health Organisation.

The second, is that I disagree that after 4 years most women using this method will be pregnant, the reason being that this is a method that relies on observation and the more experience you have the less mistakes you are likely to make (hence why the first year of use statistics are more useful IMO)

THere have also been studies such as this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6375261.stm that put pregnancy rates to as little as 0.4 pregnancies per 100 women.

As a last point, most people using these methods have not received any formal training which leads to statistics being misleading and not consistent when you compare people that are just counting the days to their "supposed ovulation day" or people that are actually charting parameters.

[Manzana]

it is a method that doesnt require us to put bad stuff into our bodies and it also places fertility awareness into the hands of the couple, instead of depending on a doctor or a drug or a drugstore or an implant or etc.

Agree

[kaybee]

Manzana--thanks for adding the stats, i didnt have time to find them.



ALSO, on this topic of contraception, re: birth control pills, it might be pertinent to add here that ENVIRONMENTALLY, BC pills are not cool... the synthetic estrogens and other steroid hormones from pills and patches end up leaching out into the environment because they remain in our urine, which then goes into municipal septic systems, whose runoff then ends up in waterways... causing "intersexing" in fish (ie. hermaphrodites) etc., and even affecting the masculine sex characteristics of frogs and river otters, etc. and not only does it affect the environment, but traces of these even end up in our water supplies...which means we could be taking them in whether we want to or not...so these pills/methods are not benign environmentally either, and in fact could be a threat to health on a broader scale, even affecting people who dont actually use them...

[Sarah_]

Erm, I use the pill.