Talk:Birth control/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 2 August 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

CP

I also created a cp on this one...i'll go see...162.82.215.199 13:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Here's what I got axed for on CP:

Contraception (Lat. against conception) generally refers to methods of preventing pregnancy (birth control). There are many different methods, each having its own level of effectiveness and safety. The safest and only completely effective form of birth control is abstinence. The argument could be made that this is not actually "birth control" as there was never a risk for a pregnancy, but in common parlance, abstinence is the first line of protection. Except for condoms, most methods offer little protection against sexually transmitted diseases. and many STD's can be passed even with condom use as well,^{[citation needed]} although the probabilities are usually reduced.

merge?

I like most of what is above better than the way the article is currently set up. Anyone want to take on the chore of merging them? human 17:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Remember that I wrote if for CP, so we can sex it up a bit.-- -PalMD ^--Goatspeed! 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Ouch!

Shouldn't it just be withdrawal of the penis before ejaculation? Removal of the penis seems awfully drastic.Genghis ^Marauding 17:26, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Not according to assfly.-- -PalMD ^--Goatspeed! 17:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

That was what it struck me as at first. Anyway, you (or someone) fixed it. This needed a lot of fixing... Hmmm. Should we list castration? human 18:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I'd also thought about castration (in the context of the article - not personally) and hysterectomy. Although they are effective at preventing conception the're hardly voluntary methods of birth control. Genghis ^Marauding 18:08, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, hysterectomy should also be on the list. Although not "done" only for birth control, it is a reliable "method". Also, we need to add a subsection to abstinence - "Waiting for menarche" human 18:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Douching is not a method

It is not a method of birth control. I removed it; cite sources

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/birth-control-contraceptive-myths http://www.epigee.org/guide/none.html http://getcloser.in/myths_pregnancy_Contraception.html

If you want to re-add it, it would do better on a page of 'Contraception Myths' Original number said it was 60% successful, it is not even close to that. Seems it would be maybe .5% effective at the most, and that would just be pure luck.

Douching is also pretty bad for you, and not nearly as common as it once was. --Kels 21:41, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes... it should be in the article, but as mentioned, appropriately subheaded ("Useless methods"?). But since "withdrawal" is in there, with its really low usefulness rate ("grunt, grunt, oops, you're pregnant"), we should also cover ineffective methods in order to "debunk" them? PS, whoever you were that edited this, please sign talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~ human 22:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Success rate

I see that we give various percentages of "success rates" in the article for various types of contraception. Is "success rate" the best term to describe something which doesn't happen?--Bob^{bing up} 13:23, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Would "prevention rate" be a better choice? human 13:36, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

A wording of that sort would seem - at least to me - to be more appropriate. Or perhaps effectiveness? --Bob^{bing up} 14:27, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that works. I think I whitewashed out all the talk of "success rates". human 14:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Cover story

(Please do not archive this section)

This is going to look like shameless self-plugging, but what does the mob think of putting this on the front page as a random featured article? I believe that this article is informative enough in what people would need to know, and I cannot think of any significant ways in which this article can be expanded. Javasca₧ no hell below him

coughshamelessarticlepimpingcough. Just kidding. Yeah, sure, why not. What cat, though? The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 14:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)

I'm fine with it being featured content, but I have one small reservation in that, because of the way it's laid out, the opening section that's going to appear most prominently on the front page is abstinence, which possibly doen't give quite the right message about us as a site. Anyway, it's just a thought; if nobody else has a problem with it, then I don't either. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Actually, having just reread that section, I don't think it's a problem at all. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:02, 1 March 2009 (EST)

I support the addition of this article to our cover stories. I find it informative enough, and certainly it is among our better articles. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:11, 1 March 2009 (EST)

I support, this has had quite a bit of work put into it and is nicely and clearly informative. ħuman 20:13, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Thats five for, zero against. What sayest the rest of the mob? Javasca₧ no hell below him

Five is plenty. I've marked it as a cover story. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Implant

I am positive that the contraceptive implant is much more effective than 90%, more like 99% or more, as I just had one put in a week ago and I did plenty of research beforehand. I am quite busy and I shouldn't even be slacking off from my Engineering homework to even be reading this, so can someone find a source for the right number? I know that the vast majority of studies had 0 pregnancies, and they can attribute the few pregnancies to being there prior to implantation or to the times where the implant fell out of the needle before being inserted. Just thought I'd let you know so someone with more time on their hands could fix that! ^{— Unsigned, by: 164.107.93.204 / talk / contribs 23:46, 10 March 2009}

I agree, you're probably correct. Both for Norplant and the injection... Depo Provera. Surely they are at least as effective as the Pill, taken correctly? ħuman 01:47, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Latest edit about jebus

There are other reported virgin births, like Adonis or Attis. Possibly even Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great. Neveruse513 16:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

I rolled it back, the simple joke is enough without going further. ħuman 17:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

And going into mythology reveals a lot more virgin births. -- 17:12, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Coke heads and Revolting Cocks shows

I had a friend with a girlfriend who got knocked up and she insured inappropriate conditions by maintaining a high level o' drunkenness, intoxication on controlled substances, and getting her ass kicked at industrial shows in Chicago in the early 90s. Would the church approve? It was 100% effective. User:Nutty Roux/signature 03:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-defining birth control is needed, I think

if the definition is "the practice of taking steps to prevent pregnancy whilst engaging in sexual activity" then how does "Abstinence" (NOT engaging in sexual activity) being a form of birth control? Thieh 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstinence perhaps needs to be more clearly defined - it does not mean "no sexual activity" so much as "no penis/vagina sex". Although it can mean the former, it doesn't have to. ħuman 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the intro to "the practice of taking steps to prevent pregnancy or childbirth as a result of sexual activity", which allows for the inclusion of abstinence as well as abortion, which I've added. I'm surprised it wasn't there already. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Where else is abortion classified as a form of birth control?

I simply ask; I honestly don't know.--Earthland 20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard people say they aren't against abortion "except when people use it as a form of birth control". It's not contraception, obviously, but it certainly "controls" at least one birth. ħuman 20:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists abortion as an uncommon method of birth control. --Earthland 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When you ask "where else" - you mean in addition to here? Do we actually call it a method of contraception?--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Although most abortions are performed for birth control, they are by no means contraceptive." - from Contracept.org, emphasis added by me in response to the queries above. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Batteries

"Men, Make sure to dispose of your batteries in an environmentally friendly manner." - Shouldn't this be for "women", or am I missing out on the latest male jax0ring craze? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, it looks like an editing error, since "Make" is capitalized. I turned it from a command to a request, too. ħuman 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh

http://www.bypassfanpages.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Funny-Motivational-Posters-4.jpg ^sshole 13:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nearly 100%

Okay, so I understand why this article doesn't say abstinence is 100% and I guess that it's similarly acceptable for mf anal sex to be nearly 100% effective, but has anyone really gotten pregnant from oral sex or non-mutual masturbation? I know how their's inertia to writing down 100% and people want to always make it "nearly 100%", but come on.

That being said, if anybody can cite a source for people getting pregnant from oral or non-mutual masturbation, I will be highly amused. Perceptron (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Source duly cited, sir. ^EXTERMINATE 05:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't artificial insemination also count as getting pregnant while maintaining abstinence? Dendlai (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not if you're the camerlengo from Angels and Demons. Wait, you probably aren't. Blue (is useful) 00:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic Order at RW

I was curious, given our focus at RW as a challenge to stupid ideas, bad science, conspiracy theories and other such malarky, might this article be more effective if we highly the Right Wing view, and the push to have contraception made illegal in the US and other areas by brining that to the top, and pushing down the "wikipedia esque" facts? I'd never make that change without discussion - but it seems to me, we aren't as complete as WP on facts, and we are pretty good about calling out the uber idiots who want to make it their legal right not to serve me my damned morning after pill, cause it's "effects their morals' or some such.--En attendant Godot 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On that same note, if no one cares, I'd like to add something about the modern legal challenges to contraception in the US, at least, as well as something about the silly "moral objection" laws popping up.--En attendant Godot 17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Percents

Anyone want to discuss this edit war on a cover article? No? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

THIS is a cover article??? are we that desperate? I'd rather discuss that this isn't such a great article for a cover. But I don't really know RW's standards. The main point is that the tone of the article is flippant, slightly fun. Percents aren't necessary and don't add anything to what had already been written.GodotGrow a vagina 04:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently we were, back in '09. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Godot attack! Ty^Annoy 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Godot RW has both a snarky and scientific POV. Re-read the community standards, like you told me to. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hindenburg, did you take WfG's statement that "The main point is that the tone of the article is flippant, slightly fun" as a criticism? Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover Story - NOT

This is not really up to par for a cover story. It might have been, but there are sections (some, mine) that are badly written, sections that are vague, and others that are just jumbled. I pulled the gold for a short time by commeting it out, but I'm not sure that actually removes it from the random cover stories. does it? GodotGrow a vagina 04:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not. Ty^Annoy 04:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that. Can we temp remove it from "cover stories"? I'm going to try to clean it up a bit, but I'm not the best writer. GodotGrow a vagina 04:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I dropped it to silver + cover story nominee. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic opposition to birth control

This bit has always bothered me, so I've taken it out:

[[Image:Sperm.jpg|thumb|upright=0.6|A fully differentiated embryo was thought to exist inside each male gamete]]

The prohibition on most methods of birth control by the Roman Catholic Church is based on a faulty understanding of human biology which dates back to an ancient theory of human reproduction. It was once believed that male seed contained a complete (but microscopic) human being, and the only contribution of the woman was to provide fertile ground to allow it to grow to the size of an infant. The Church no longer holds this to be true, but opposition to the practice remains due to inertia.

While this theory may have been held at some point in history, the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception in modern times has nothing whatsoever to do with it (would they really advocate the rhythm method if this is what they believed?). The RCC still holds that sex must only take place within marriage & is intended for procreation, and it attached a lot of guilt to notions of sin surrounding casual sex & sexual desire. This is why they oppose artificial contraception, for theological reasons rather than biological ones. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover story - revisisted

As far as I can tell, this is still a cover story. Anyone want to weight in on things that are missing, things that need to be rewritten, etc? I cleaned up what I could as far as facts, but it really needs a once over from someone with an "eye on the writing style'. GodotGrow a vagina 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Locked

For a day, until the Rickroller quits. One of the IPs used has a history of vandalism. Copperhead^Hisssssss 21:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh? Тy^rannis 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye...!@#$!@#$ -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is patrol, we have an attack on an officer in Birth Control. Dispatch air unit from Fun Space. Dispatch NOOSE unit from WIGO CP. 146.185.23.179 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Call the FIB!!!!

Somebody maniac's wandalizing us with RR links! 96.44.163.76 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Copperhead^Hisssssss 21:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Godot will like this one

The Brookings Institution has released a new study that basically says it's significanly cheaper for taxpayers to pay for family planning services (than the alternative of having a baby). The article here does a good summary of the lengthy and verbose original report. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what Obama said, when he bypassed the religious right's whinying by saying "Fine, you wont' pay but insurance companies will be obligated to offer it for free". They were on board, cause it's far cheeper to pay for several years birth control, than one routine pregnancy.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Especially if you are talking unwated babies.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Another article about the economic benefits the country has received since birth control became popular. These two definitely need to be integrated into this article. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to mention the whole "personal responsibility" argument

Hey good Jesus-loving Americans! If women want to have the right to speak and vote, they should suck it up and not ask the gubmint nanny state to pay for their vagina pills, y'all! They're hypocrites, our Viagra pills aren't being covered by someone else! Go Santorum! Osaka Sun (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Secular arguments against birth control

I have significant issues with this section - bear in mind the high profile of this article.

Secular arguments are generally not against birth control, but its overuse or misuse.

• Demographic collapse - the opposite of overpopulation, whereby longevity coupled with overuse of birth control leads to an aging population, which has to be looked after by a dwindling number of able-bodied or employed people. This is not a argument against birth control any more than it's an argument against cures for cancer. Both lead to an aging population

• Many forms of birth control, such as the piil or abortion do not prevent the spread of STDs. Neither do they promote peace in the middle east - if you're trying to say that birth control encourages promiscuous sex without protecting against some of the consequences - that's a different argument

• There are health and hormonal issues connected with certain remedies. OK, this has some validity but it's not an argument agains birth control, per se, as against some forms of birth control

• Some forms of birth control are costly for poorer people. So? Make it cheaper!

• In some parts of the world, such as India, abortion has been used to weed out female children. Not only does this create gender imbalance, it also perpetuates sexism. Again, sex selective abortion is a completely different argument than the one about birth control. Most would agree that abortion is the last resourt when it comes to birth control but that doesn't make it bad. Misusing it for sex selection makes it bad

Comments in itallics by Jack Hughes (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since my browser doesn't display italics, I don't know which bits you object to, but there are arguments beyond the religious ones. Demographic problems are already happening in this part of the world - we aren't producing enough children to look after/support the eldery - this is directly connected to birth control. Japan, China and Italy are all facing worse problems. The USA is an anomaly in the west, and even there I think immigration masks this issue. Africa and the Middle East have too little birth control, Europe and north Asia have too much.

Sex evolved not only for recreation but the replacement of the dead. The world is overpopulated, but not everywhere.

The cancer analogy is false, since it only explains aging not lack f reproduction.

The cost argument is made against manufacturers. Comes under misuse.

Gender based abortion is misuse, mentioned in opening para.

Albannach (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Firstly it assumes that an aging population is a 'bad thing' as opposed to something that we have to adjust to. "

It IS a bad thing. Who looks after them? Who pays for them? Who provides their healthcare? Retired, decrepit and senile people need support from elsewhere.

It's major economic issue and puts additional pressure on a dwindling younger population.

Equilibrium, not decline is the answer.

"Secondly, logically, the same argument could me made against curing cancer, that too promotes an aging population."

Nonsense, the aging demographic is when an increasing proportion of the population is elderly. Quite different.

"Thirdly, even, if an aging population is a 'bad thing' is it neccessarily worse than uncontrolled population explosion?"

The areas with demographic problems are the ones with overuse of birth control. Not the ones with the exploding populations. Japan, China and Italy have declining populations. The Middle East, South Asia and Africa have population explosions.

The arguments about aging population are separate from the arguments about birth control. We will have to learn to cope with the results of an aging population, sure, and it is going to have some issues, but it it not an argument against birth control any more than overpopulation is an argument against having sex. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, your other arguments are equally spurious. Some birth control doesn't protect against STDs - that isn't an argument against birth control. Maybe you can explain to me why it is.

The whole cost thing - well, that's why I'm glad that I live in a society where reliable birth control is free. And even a packet of three isn't exactly costly. But even if it were, it isn't an argument against birth control, it's an argument abut birth control availability. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And then you mention sex selective abortion - using this as an argument against birth control is stretching thing to the limit and then a million miles beyond. Yes, it is generally agreed that sex selective abortions are 'a bad thing' but that is, almost by definition, an abuse of one form. It's like saying that table knives are a bad thing because jack knives are used by street gangs. Come on.

Now, if you want your list of 'arguments' to be included, then, well, it's a collaborative wiki, but I also have equal right to point out how ridiculous they might seem. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The arguments about an aging population are not separate. If you are not producing enough young people, the older people cannot be looked after properly. This results directly from birth control. It's already happening in many parts of the world, but presuably not the USA. China is already having major issues about the neglect of the elderly thanks to its one child policy. Not enough children are there to look after them.

You obviously completely misunderstood the purpose of that section.

" And even a packet of three isn't exactly costly. But even if it were, it isn't an argument against birth control, it's an argument abut birth control availability. " - It's an argument against GREED, and the abuse of birth control in the third world. So it agrees completely with the misuse/overuse/abuse argument.

-Albannach (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see what a proper list looks like try here. Meanwhile please stop adding this section until some consensus is agreed. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an argument against GREED, and the abuse of birth control in the third world. So it agrees completely with the misuse/overuse/abuse argument. - I don't think we talk the same language. The fact that birth control can be costly for some is an argument to make it freely available. Greed has nothing to do with it. Can you be more specific when you talk about the abuse of birth control in the third world - (btw, developing nations is more PC). From my perspective it's the the abuse of prevention of birth control that is the problem. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Which of these words do you not understand - misuse, overuse or abuse?

A top heavy population is a disaster. Overpopulation arguments work globally, but not for every region. Some parts of the world are having too few children, some too many.

Equally some sections of western society are having too many children - teenage single mothers, whereas other sections are having too few - professional people, thanks directly to birth control, another social imbalance.

Religious fundamentalists are also outbreeding secularists, because they don't use birth control much.Albannach (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you're underlying prejudices are showing. So, you're saying that birth control is wrong 'Professional' people and yet it's OK for teenage single mums (who are never, ever the offspring of professional people, oh no.) Also, we 'right minded professionals' need to out-breed the fundies. Fuck directly off. Do not pass go and do NOT try to put this anywhere in this article. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually my god daughter was born to a teenaged single mother, so no, I am not prejudiced in that area, only a realist. A single parent has half the income of a working couple (if working) and double the workload. Also a teenager is not going to have the same money as a professional couple so that the child will be raised in poverty. We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe here, despite comprehensive sex ed.

I thank you for your assumption, but do not intend to fuck off. In future, stick to arguments and do not make rash judgments about editors.-Albannach (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC) ps I'm not a professional either. See my comments on your talk page.

Extreme birth control

(Please do not misunderstand my comments about homosexual acts below, I'm sure someone will claim I'm being homophobic)

I don't want to add these straight to the page, but they are worth mentioning. The second one is a horrific abuse of women but still occurs in some parts of Africa (it can be seen as an adjunct of female circumcision) I also list three diversionary acts.

• Castration - used in several ancient societies to prevent reproduction, or puberty, sometimes self-inflicted. Although it destroys the sex drive, castrated men are still capable of intercourse.
• Sewing up women's privates - this is still practiced in some parts of the world and is involuntary. Allows for urination. The woman is cut open again before marriage, and is unlikely to ever enjoy the sexual act.
• ?Infanticide - famously practiced by the Spartans. (This probably does not count as birth control, more population control as it occured shortly after birth)
• Chastity belt.

Diversionary acts -

• in some societies such as ancient Greece (especially Sparta), feudal Japan, and many modern Middle Eastern societies, homosexual relationships occur pre-marriage, but are not practiced so often after. As fundamentalists continually remind us, they do not produce children.
• Sex toys - deserve a brief mention.

• Gender separation - practiced consciously by some tribes today. In western society, some (boarding) schools, religious orders as well as prisons and the military separate men and women, or make sure they sleep in separate quarters.

-Albannach (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Male birth control and feminism

An MRA recently claimed to me that feminists in India have opposed male contraception. I was unable to find any reliable sources backing this claim up. Does anyone here know if this has any basis in fact? Mr. Anon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This story's been around a while & crops up in assorted variations on MRA sites. RISUG was devloped in India; I'm not sure about it being opposed in-country by feminists. It hasn't made it to the states or elsewhere, largely because of lack of funding/market. It's hard to know whether the alleged feminist arguments against it (e.g. men claiming to be on contraception & getting women pregnant) have actually been raised by feminists, as they appear mostly in MRA sources raging about it. This article covers some of the main points. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

BoN Edits 27 01 2014

Why were these reverted. They looked pretty reasonable to me. Knee jerk reversion of BoN edits is not a way to entice new editors. Placeholder (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

To me they looked suspicious. The constant references to STDs and specifically HPV didn't sit well with me. Zero (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, say that in the summary then. Not enough people state their reasons when they do something to an article. The BoN is also at fault for that.

And I actually agree with Zero. The edits don't look right to me. Unless he/she comes back with citations, that's not going to stay. At least the part about how pre-ejaculate fluid is from a previous orgasm is blatantly wrong and misrepresents the meaning. Nullahnung (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pressing "Rollback" doesn't allow for a summary. (Which sucks actually) Zero (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough.

I think Rollback was intended to save you time in reverting a vandal, so prompting you with the option to provide a summary would be a questionably useful feature. When I have something to say, I use 'undo' instead. Nullahnung (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That all sounds OK. I'll get back in my box. Placeholder (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Also 100% effective

Indulging in sexual activities that do not involve 'going to the expected point of contact between persons of the opposite gender' (LGT, BDSM etc). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you could assume this is covered under Birth_control#Diversionary_techniques. What would you write to include? Zero (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Write or like? (The latter is a matter of 'all tastes and some.') Where would 'Miss Wh#pl#sh' and assorted roleplay fit in? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Write. I mean, you brought it up, so I assume you could write a couple sentences and we could discuss it's inclusion. Zero (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Statistic discrepancy for condom success rate

For condoms (when used correctly) the success rate at preventing pregnancy is pegged at 85%, while our article on the condom says that it's actually at least 99%, with the 85% number being for STD prevention success rate. One of them has to be wrong. Nullahnung (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, sorta. The percentages don't necessarily reflect the same metric. I'm pretty sure 85% is an estimate in reduction of number of pregnancies per year versus no birth control, while 99% is the number of people who engage in proper condom usage who do not get pregnant each year. That might not be precisely right, but it's my recollection. Ikanreed (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well, not sure how to take into account this new notion of different metrics you've presented me with. Still, it seems to me that the figure on this page was not put in context correctly (according to what has been posted on this talk page above, anyways: "Male condom: latex condoms are the most effective method of preventing STDs. 85% effective against pregnancy, increased to 95% if used with intravaginal spermicide - higher effectiveness (99%) when used as directed."), so I'm going to do something about it. Nullahnung (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

100% effective, part 2

Reading Conservapedia. (Squick, squick, all is not to be pursued squick - even if God made us that way - and all those 'not in front of the children topics #ON THE FRONT PAGE# arg, keep the children away... (goes back to good clean Sunday Sport).)

'Making one little change on Wikipedia' (and spending the next few hours developing it). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude, they told us to stay away from the brown acid. Would you like me to take you to the Hog Farm tent? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

To quote Manuel from Fawlty Towers 'Que?'

(Sunday Sport - [bizarre object - statue of Elvis, London bus) found in more bizarre place (Mars, Moon, Antarctica). And persons of the female gender having wardrobe insufficiencies. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Which acid is brown? Lucy... refers to tangerine trees and marmalade skies. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What about Billings method?

I have heard about an effective NFP method that is Billings ovulation method. It is also recommended by WHO, but why RationalWiki didn't mention it? 210.186.109.179 - 06:51, 17 Dec 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article, under the term Rhythm method. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Preoccupation

What's the preoccupation with sex? Everyone knows that Condom is a small town in the Armagnac region of France where Janneau is produced. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:24, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah yes, you are correct of course. Fucking is also a town in Austria. Must correct the article right away. Secret Squirrel 22:26, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

A long but fascinating (and very NSFW) blog on condom use "...we cannot espouse a barrier-only model of sex education for the same reasons we cannot espouse an abstinence-only model of sex education either." Basically saying that in some cases people are just not going to use them (there are some interesting examples, not all are "condoms are yuck") and as a result any method of harm reduction is favourable over nothing. ^sshole 05:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Condom Materials

Most condoms are in fact made of natural rubber, however some are made of synthetic materials. The page at current suggests all condoms except "sheepskin" based ones are made of synthetic rubber, which is obviously incorrect.

Argumentum ad holocostum

With 1.8 million deaths from AIDS in 2009 alone, it probably has overtaken the Holocaust by some margin. However, I can't see the point in comparing the two in the article. Trying to imply that the Pope is as directly responsible for these deaths as Hitler was for those deaths is bad territory to step into. ADK^{...I'll swirl your book!} 09:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At least a few of those people -- or maybe most of them -- don't give a toss as to what the Pope says about anything. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 11:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just have to say

I love the not so subtle double entendres in the introduction StickySock (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone wrote all this

== Barrier Methods == *Male condom: latex condoms are the most effective method of preventing STDs. 85% effective against pregnancy, increased to 95% if used with intravaginal spermicide - higher effectiveness (99%) when used as directed. *Female Condom *Sponge: 85% effectiveness *Cervical cap: about 85% effectiveness *Diaphragm: about 84% effectiveness *Shield: 85% effectiveness == Hormonal Methods == *Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCPs): 92-99% effective when used as directed <-can we add a juvenile blow job joke here? And based on personal research, is every bit as effective. *Depoprogesterone (Depo-Provera): 97% effective *Vaginal ring (Nuva Ring): 92% effective *"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence"): low effectiveness *Patch: 99.7% effective == Other == *Copper Intrauterine device (IUD): 99% effectiveness *Hormonal Intrauterine device: over 99% effectiveness *Withdrawal: low effectiveness *Spermicide: about 70% effectiveness when used alone *Male Sterilization *Female Sterilization == Religious Perspectives == In general, the [[Catholic Church]] is opposed to contraception other than abstinence. Other [[Christian]] denominations vary. [[Judaism|Jewish]] Law traditionally opposes birth control although it is generally held that as long as a couple is planning to have children, the concept of planned parenthood or spacing of births does not constitute a religious problem. Some methods of contraception are not permitted because of the injunction against "the destruction of seed." For example, contemporary Orthodox rabbinical authority has expressed no objection to the use of the OCP but the use of condoms is forbidden, as are some IUDs.<ref>What is the Jewish position on contraception and abortion? [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/04-Observance/section-60.html SCJ FAQ] Accessed July 16 2007</ref> [[Islam]]ic views are quite diverse; there is no single attitude to contraception within Islam, however eight of the nine classic schools of Islamic law permit it. Egyptian scholars have argued that any method that has the same purpose as 'azl (the withdrawal method), that is, preventing conception, is acceptable, so long as it does not have a permanent effect.<ref>"Islamic views on contraception" [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/contraception.shtml BBC: Religion & Ethics] Accessed July 16 2007</ref> == References == <references/> [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/birthcontrol.html Information on Birth Control] - National Institute of Health

Nowikied. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

About Billings Method

Why the Billings Method is not mentioned in this article? It is tested as the most effective natural contraception method! ^{— Unsigned, by: 103.27.205.91 / talk / contribs} .

But we do Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 11:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording in criticism section

In the opening paragraph of the "Criticism of birth control" section the first sentence "Criticism of birth control has tended to formally come from religious institutions, especially the Roman Catholic Church in the US, Canada and Europe, but sociologically, a decent argument about birth control can be tied more directly to the long history of men controlling women's sexuality" seems a tad ambiguously worded. While I assume it's meant to mean that men's historical control over women's sexuality is a solid possibility as a cause for this criticism, it's worded in such a way that it could be interpreted as saying that avoiding women having more sexual freedom is a "decent" argument, which is messed up for a number of reasons. Should this be cleared up a bit to avoid potentially creepy ambiguity? (First time using the talk section - please feel free to let me know if this isn't the place for these kinds of discussions!)^{— Unsigned, by: Pattermat / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I corrected it, thanks for pointing it out. Christopher (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Also, seeing you've addressed this (and very quickly), is it considered polite to delete these kinds of minor discussions from otherwise very tidy talk pages? --Pattermat (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We never delete talk page comments unless they're blatant spam or wandalism (even if the article is deleted). Christopher (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)