Talk:Rhythm method

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What exactly IS the rhythm method?[edit]

For those of us who are not familiar with the rhythm method, it would be immensely helpful if said method and the reasons it is so ineffective were provided. - Gameboy (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. There are only 1.4 million sites mentioning it, so we should really become the go-to service about this technique. Real first name and last initial (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Because actually giving a description of the thing you want to criticize is so much to ask? Sheesh. (talk) 12:19, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Edit Warring re: CP.[edit]

I will not revert Brx again, but would like the community to weigh in on whether or not an article in the mainspace should really focus so strongly on CP. I say no. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 19:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he reverted himself. A large block of text about it does seem heavy, but a mention of it I'd allow. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 19:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
My own bias is that i'm in favor of virtually nothing related to cp specifically. we are (as i understand it) no longer "cp" focused. in our talk pages, and "whats goign on in" and the one or two "one liners" here and there are fine. but this is some serious stuff about CP that seems way over the top for such an article.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
BUT having said that, a header "conservatives weigh in" would add a lot. CP, but Maggie what's her puss, Bush, the Repblicans in general, Palin, etc. all have quotes on this, and they should be include. Sadly, it's election time, and i don't have time to edit anymore during the day. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That all being said, the CP article was deleted in March 2011 by Andy ("non-encyclopedic and statistical claims in this are debatable") so citing it seems a bit odd to begin with. --Sid (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


RW introduced me to, i.e. what should be in health class instead of abstinence-only misinformation. Although by reading it we see it's intended for girls, I did look around on its methods of birth control it lists. It gives the 98% effectiveness for properly-used condoms, just as Planned Parenthood uses, and it acknowledges that it's just a myth it's impossible to get pregnant during one's period. However, according to them, the rhythm method has a 97% effectiveness when done right and an average of 82%. The typical effectiveness for a cervical cap with spermicide is 79%, but I don't see any complaining. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how it could be "97% effective" when that very link says "it's a myth that you can't get pregnant during your period". so how could the numbers be nearly that of the pill? not buying that reference. Planned parenthood (when i was doing the BC page) put it at around 60-70%. It's also one that is very hard to study. --Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's not make the mistake of an argument from incredulity. But disregarding that (and I'll be annoyed if you go on about it), I found some more refs for you. Wikipedia has a section with citations to several studies. See here. Also, for an explanation of the basics of fertility awareness, see here. The assumptions of 12-48 hours for the lifetime of an egg, up to 5 days for a sperm, and 3 days uncertainty for the time of ovulation are all correctBiology: Life As We Know It! by Dan Green, 2008; Margin of error.. So it's been shown to work, as my first link to studies show, and the explanation makes sense. And, to top it all off, I just decided to look into pregnancy during "period". See here. You'd need to have a really short menstrual cycle or a really long period or just be completely out of whack. Please present any further questions in list form, please. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't put references in talk pages. Arguments from incredulity do not include arguments based oh having read studies and reports on the topic, thanks. Experts give the effective rate at 25%. And please don't tell me how to post questions. Studies around the world show that while the normal woman ovulates at a consistent time, more than 25% of women do not follow a standard pattern of menstruation or ovulation, especially in times of stress, or when changes to the body like dieting or high levels of sport activity are involved. If you don't have a normal, regular period, and if you don't ovulate when you are supposed to (a canadian study found that 2-5% of women ovulate ON THEIR PERIODS... they found this when trying to figure out why they were not getting pregnant).--Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 05:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to get back, but I'm annoyed when I immediately dropped the subject and explicitly stated I'd be annoyed if you went on. If you go on anymore about this one item, I will consider it to be a red herring. You claim to have "studies" and that the "experts" give the effectiveness at 25% (or 75%? wording's ambiguous). I linked you to all of the studies which I found. You can check them out for yourself. Now please either [ put up or shut up]. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes dear. --Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

For Dog's sake, you are really going to go here? Ok, Kid. [1], pretty much "the" guide for the CDC, Planned Parenthood, and AMA., when you look at how "perfect use" is defined in your studies you will see this: A woman's cycle must be monitored for 3-6 months prior to, and during the use of the Knaus method *or* take MONTHLY mucus tests to determine the day of fertility. if a woman does not have a consistent period within that time frame, the method cannot be performed according to the "perfect' model. This leads so some experts misrepresenting how actually effective it is. this article makes the assumption "based on medical studies" that a significant number of women have irregular periods. [org/content/51/4/578.short studies on ovulation during the menses itself]. Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC) -

Since "perfect use" requires you have a regular period, let's talk about how unlikely that is if you are not on hormones. What causes irregularities in periods and how common are they? Sports: Any high level of activity, more than 2-3 hours a day, can fuck with the menstrual cycle.[2] Weight, both too much fat and too low fat: [3], [4], diabeties [5], Stress [6], diet;jsessionid=XM90t8jhdcZ4qRQxHdT0.2 and dieting. And of course a host of women's issues like fibroids, endometriosis, polysystic ovarian syndrom, etc. You talked red herring, there is a very real reason that medical science rates teh effectivness of the rythem method at 25%.Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looked at your first chart, and it agrees with me in that, used correctly and consistently (how the chart defines "perfect"), the ovulatory method is 97% effective. Other methods of birth control are more effective, hence why this isn't preferred. Yes, a lot of things can mess with menstruation, but are preventable for most: sports, weight issues/diet, and to some extent stress. Also, these methods do include a margin of error for the inevitable variations in the menstrual cycle due to real life. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they don't inclue "real life", that is the ENTIRE point of the medical estabishment's disagreement with teh "if done perfectly" description. virtually no woman "can do it perfectly", cause almost no woman has regular periods. You say all these things are "choice', but they really aren't. How much fat you eat in your diet, if you take aspirin, if you've had a cold that month, if you've taken most any drug from recreational to prescription. I don't know where you got the idea that women's bodies are these well run clocks, but they really aren't. it's one reason so many of us like being on the pill, cause "it should start today" actually MEANS something. When you are going "as is", you are often a day early here, a day late there for no reason that makes any sense to anyone. And this doesn't even begin to address the fact that women do not ovulate the way science says they should. cause we are living beings. some women ovulate ON THEIR PERIODS. (you can find this out when you read about fertility treatments, cause it's one of the more strange causes of women being infertile). your application of information is really just bad, here. --Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Irregular menstruation is a common medical condition for idiopathic reasons, not simply for alterable lifestyle conditions. I'll address the other concerns here when I'm done nesting for the day. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a gynecologist, and if you only give alterable lifestyles as causes of irregular periods, then I'll talk about alterable lifestyles that cause irregular periods. Also, I'd like to state I prefer the ovulatory method to the "standard days" method, the former being more reliable than the latter. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh fuck off HBK, you're not gonna win this and you are only making yourself look like an ass infront of the lady--il'Dictator Mikal 19:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thing is, all contraception is 100% effective when "done correctly/perfectly". Even the failure rate of condoms is due to incorrect use, splitting, or perhaps foreplay getting a little out-of-hand before one of the little dudes comes out of the packet. Because sperm doesn't just magically transport itself across an impermeable rubber barrier - and if the effectiveness was 98% without taking this into account, let's just say from my personal experience I would have expected quite a number of failures by now. That's entirely the point about studying these things in the real world rather than in perfect conditions because you'll find that there are so many more things to take into account. It's the same reason we don't roll out an anti-cancer drug to everyone just because an in vitro trial shows it works. Scarlet A.pngsshole 19:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's clarify what "done correctly/perfectly" means. From what I've read here (which The World has used as a citation before), it means:

  1. You correctly perform the procedure needed for the B.C. method to work properly. For instance, with condoms, this would be putting it on right, i.e. not putting it on so tight it bursts easily or so loose it falls off easily.
  2. You consistently use the method of B.C.. With condoms, this would mean making sure you put it on every time you have fun.
  3. Given that Items 1 and 2 are performed, there are still some problems as no method of birth control is absolutely perfect. A condom can sometimes break even if it's put on right.
  4. With Items 1 through 3, we can figure out a "perfect use" percent effectiveness. For a condom, this is 98%.
  5. Sometimes, people fail to follow through with Items 1 or 2. They put a condom on wrong, or they forget to put on one at all.
  6. With Items 1-3 and 5, we can figure out a "typical use" percent effectiveness, which takes into account that people don't always consistently and correctly use birth control. Hence, the "typical use" effectiveness for a condom would be 85%.

Now, according to the citations I've shown and the table, the ovulatory method is 97% effective when done perfectly. The chart itself doesn't give a "typical effectiveness" for any form of fertility awareness for some reason, but other sources which both of us have shared have shown that the typical effectiveness is 75 to 82%. Now, I agree that the rhythm method should not be preferred to things like condoms or pills. However, I feel that this article is misleading in that it's saying that fertility awareness does not work. It does, but a little less well than other more preferable methods. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Oh how exciting, another Heidelberg Kid vs. the World edit war. Heidelberg Kid, try using pubmed and real science to read up on this stuff. nobody considers the rhythm method 97% effective, not unless they're defining it across uselessly narrow constraints. Would you please lay off? ERK! | Complaints Hotline 18:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice most of my citations did link to pubmed. The reason fertility awareness is not generally recommended is because things like the pill or implants are even more effective in perfect and typical use. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need to be this dismissive of it?[edit]

If you figure out a woman's menstrual cycle and take account of how long sperm cells can survive, isn't it perfectly possible to use this kind of birth control? I imagine a lot of the people who use this method and fail to avert pregnancy botch the menstrual-cycle-figuring-out part or weren't really following the 'rhythm' rigorously. I'd expect most people to muck it up eventually, but that doesn't mean the theory behind it isn't sound. (talk) 08:10, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'm certified to teach Natural Family Planning. It is is highly effective, especially if combined with "soft contraceptives" around the iffy days, and avoiding the 3-4 peak fertility days. It's not rhythm. Of course, Catholics do not accept that one may combine NFP with any "unnatural" contraception. But still, even used alone NFP is far, far more effective than rhythm. There's some good science behind it.---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)