Talk:Birth control/Archive 2

message: I plan to delete the words "from both partners" from the sentence "However, with this method, discipline is required from both partners to prevent the progression to intercourse." in the "Avoiding vaginal intercourse" section, on the grounds that I believe the sentence as it stands is false and it is not supported by a citation.  I believe that discipline from both partners may not always be required.  In some cases, discipline may only be required by the physically stronger person or by the one in a stronger position (e.g. on top).  In some cases, discipline may only be required by the more passionate person.  No proof has been provided that discipline from both partners is required. Furthermore:  if one partner maintains discipline and maintains the intention not to have intercourse and intercourse nevertheless occurs, then that is rape and should be referred to as such.  So, it could say something about "the risk of progressing to either consensual sex or rape," if we can find any citation providing any fact about such risk.  Even if the sentence were true I object to the current wording as trivializing rape.  --Coppertwig 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discipline "from both partners" 

message: Absentence is not having sex, that is not a form of birth control anymore than saying Riding a bike is a form of birth control because if you're busy peddling a bike you can't be having intercourse. It should be removed. Absentence is a form of SEX education not birth control. 
4.142.90.229 05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While there are organizations that group abstinence as a similar method to outercourse (Association of Reproductive Health Care Professionals), it seems more common to treat them as completely separate methods (Planned Parenthood, About.com, Campaign For Our Children).  All of these sites list abstinence as a birth control option - Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, does not decide on the categorization of methods.  It only reports on how methods are categorized by others.  A Google search for "sexual abstinence methods" yields 3 hits.  This is not an established category of birth control.  Absent some compelling reason, I believe Wikipedia should follow the most common practice and list "avoiding vaginal intercourse"/"outercourse" under a different heading than "abstinence". LyrlTalk     C   02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: seems to me that it is worth adding this after the word "Abstinence": ("some organizations group abstinence as a similar method to outercourse Association of Reproductive Health Care Professionals). This should satisfy everyone. Basicdesign (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Methods

message: *Stop Terrible Human Over Population Disasters (eCards website to limit human population growth)
*WiseArt Cybernetics (On-line artistic slideshow about limiting human population growth)
Hallo Joyous! I have a question about your message: You ask me not to add inappropriate external links to wikipedia.
When I compare the 2 links I added to other existing external links on certain webpages, I see that the 'appropriate' links (i.e the ones you leave alone), are also links to external -third party- organisations, such as our European organisation (STHOPD) is too. Our non-profit organisation works with volunteers and stands for certain principles which are similar to the 'appropriate' organisations on the webpages concerned, such as: Decreasing human overpopulation in an ethical way, having no children, warnings about the worldwide consequences of overpopulation such as the destruction of ecosystems.
Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, 213.84.166.83 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other external links provide information about birth control methods.  Your external links advocate for birth control to be used in a certain way.  I don't feel this is on-topic to the subject of birth control.  They might be appropriate in an article on a different topic such as population control or overpopulation.  Although they appear to be off-line now so I cannot view the sites, if they solicit for monetary donations or sell items to raise money, that is generally against Wikipedia policy for external links. Lyrl    Talk     C   22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The "three colored condoms" image was deleted on Commons as a copyright violation.  Commons has some other pictures of condoms, but I'm not sure which one to use to replace the deleted image.  Do others have a preference?  Or some other source of a GNU-released picture? Lyrl    Talk     C   15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best one, IMO, on the commons is :Image:Préservatif enroulé.jpg. -Andrew c 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't an unrolled condom be useful?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.144.184 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condom image 

message: im taking a minipill since january and my period was become abnormal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.255.33.57 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should contact your pharmacist or prescribing physician for matters of medical importance. Wikipedia should not be the place to go for personal medical advice. If you believe your primary method of birth control (the minipill) is failing and you are concerned about becoming pregnant, the best thing to do is to use a back of method of contraception (or two) to lower your chances of pregnancy (or stop having sex). However, please seek the advice of a medical professional in this matter.-Andrew c 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  im taking a minipill since january and my period was become abnormal it is possible to mke me pregnant? 

message: Why does Contraception redirect to Birth Control?  Isn't contraception a specific subset of birth control? --Llewdor 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overlap is fuzzy because of the does-hormonal-contraception-prevent-implantation-and-if-so-is-that-abortion debate.  Where to put hormonal methods, and also IUDs, if a contraception article was created would be a mess. Lyrl    Talk     C   00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be safe to put hormonal methods and IUDs in contraception... Contraception covers the means and methods to prevent conception. Contra - against (i.e. contrary to). Ception - as in "conception"... The hormonal pill acts PRIOR to conception thus it is "contra-conceptive"... Conception does not occur until the zygote has formed and implanted. Birth control includes such things as laws disallowing multiple offspring (such as in many parts of China). I think that is definitely FAR BROADER than the issue of condoms, pills, femidoms and IUDs! Cultural mandates should not come into this...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Control equivalent to contraception? 

message: According to the Cervical Barrier Advancement Society, SILCS is a diaphragm.  To my understanding, its unique characteristics are that it is one-size-fits-all, and has a hook in the rim for easier removal.  If this is correct, I'm uncertain about listing it as a separate kind of birth control. Lyrl    Talk     C   03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also feel that SILCS intravaginal barrier contraceptive should be merged with Diaphragm_%28contraceptive%29#Types. The former does not seem foreseeably expandable, and the latter contains specific brands/styles that do not have their own article. That said, I wouldn't mind having a line or two (maybe a little less than what we have now) about this specific brand in development in this article. (I wouldn't mind if it was completely removed, either way works). -Andrew c 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what it is called, I think its design is different enough to warrant its own mention; just as the Lea's shield has.  Joie de Vivre 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Lea's shield article should be merged into cervical cap, but that's not something I'm motivated to pursue at this time.  A mention of SILCS is fine, in the barriers section with the diaphragm.  I oppose SILCS having its very own section. Lyrl    Talk     C   00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it does not need its very own section.  The SILCS diaphragm is mentioned briefly under Barrier methods, with an internal link to its listing in the "Methods in development" section.  Joie de Vivre 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Your comment about diaphragms not being in development is an association fallacy.  The SILCS diaphraghm is still in testing.  Your suggestion that the results of the SILCS study should be be applied to all diaphragms is not shared by any medical or statistical authority that I am aware of.  There is no onus on me to prove why such associations should not be made.  The SILCS device has not been approved by medical authorities.  My guess is that if the SILCS device was the same as other diaphragms it would have already been approved on the grounds that it is no different from other diaphragms.  Even if the reason the SILCS device is not yet approved is unrelated to any differences from other diaphragms, we can return to the fact that the SILCS diaphragm is still in testing.  Thus it is categorized and described appropriately.  Joie de Vivre 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the "still in testing" argument: Condoms were studied for effectiveness as recently as 2004 ().  Does that mean they were "in development" until then?  On the "medical authority" argument: This pdf article implies that testing of the SILCS is primarily because of its one-size nature: "One randomized, controlled trial now in the late planning stages at Ibis Reproductive Health intends to test the need for fitting the Ortho All-Flex, the diaphragm market leader. If the device performs well without clinician fitting, that diaphragm and perhaps others could be offered in a standard size. Participants at the 2002 meeting also placed priority on evaluating the effectiveness of new one-size or two-size devices such as Lea’s Shield, BufferGel Cup, and the SILCS diaphragm." Lyrl    Talk     C   03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If condoms were not yet on the market, such an argument about continued testing might be relevant.  The SILCS diaphragm is not yet available and thus the "still in development" categorization is appropriate.  I don't really care to discuss implications regarding the reasons behind the continued testing; I don't see the relevance.  The placement of the description of the SILCS device, under "Methods in development", is appropriate.  Joie de Vivre 03:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "if the SILCS device was the same as other diaphragms it would have already been approved on the grounds that it is no different from other diaphragms."  Its only difference in every document I have read is the lack of sizing.  No diaphragm anywhere in the world is approved for use without a clinician fitting.  We're not going to agree with each other on this.  As a second choice position, I have added other currently researched but so far unapproved methods (like new brands of spermicide, and the new rim type of the Duet diaphragm) so SILCS won't be the only thing in that section. Lyrl    Talk     C   11:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other difference, other than the lack of sizing, is that the device has not been approved. It is still in development; there is nothing that changes the fact.  I find your choice, to add a string of other items as a reaction to the inclusion of the SILCS device, to be unsavory.  Joie de Vivre 13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SILCS device 

message: In fiction, population control has appeared in TV-series as Sliders, and movies as Fortress (1993 film).
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is worth mentioning as all Women are required to take birth control pills and encourageed to engage in sexual play.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.144.184 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population control in fiction 

message: ... would folks mind stepping in to review my question about the sorting of the comparison table at Comparison of birth control methods?  Please see my question here.  Thank you.  (Very nice work on the above, Lyrl!)  Joie de Vivre T 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As long as we're discussing method comparison

message: I've modified the recently rewritten introduction in several ways:
*I removed the references to Ancient Greece and Rome - these civilizations did not even begin to exist for many centuries after the Kahun Papyrus was written.
*I listed the two ancient contraceptive methods (withdrawal and pessaries) together, followed by the possibly abortifacient herbal methods.
*I removed the reference to absorbents - I believe the description "pessary" includes things like pieces of wool soaked in (supposed) spermicide, which like modern contraceptive sponges work both spermicidally and also by absorbing semen.
*I removed the references to the earliest hormonal contraceptive and earliest condoms.  Condoms were a comparatively unpopular method of birth control prior to the development of modern manufacturing techniques by Julius Fromm - I think the 16th century date for a linen condom implies an undue level of importance to these early devices.  Hormonal contraceptives and condoms are the most widely used methods today, but in a historical context the development of spermicides, the female barriers of diaphragms (more important in the U.S.) and cervical caps (more important in Europe), and IUDs were also significant developments.  I believe it's better to leave this discussion to the history section, rather than selectively mentioning these two methods in the introduction.
*I removed the discussion focused on effectiveness and just straight linked to the "comparisons" article.  In addition to being false (the IUS has a lower failure rate than sterilization) and misleading (LAM and strict forms of fertility awareness also have pregnancy rates lower than 1% per year), it completely ignored other factors people use in choosing their birth control method such as ease of use and level of side effects.
*I also shortened the paragraph on religious and cultural attitudes and added a section link.  The introduction was almost going into more detail on this topic than the section did - for example, attitudes concerning open discussions of sex are not currently mentioned in the "attitudes" section at all.
LyrlTalk     C   14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the introduction to help comply with WP:LEAD; I'm fine with what you've done. I have a tendency to ramble. I was basing the birth control effectiveness off of typical (rather than perfect) use ranges. I also completely forgot to distinguish between IUS and IUD- I would qualify the IUS as "hormonal" but that's probably unnecessarily pedantic.-Wafulz 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for being a little harsh describing my reasons for the changes - I've gotten into disputes over several of these issues in the past and let my emotional reaction get away with me.  You're right about the IUS being hormonal, too, I hadn't really thought that statement through. Thank you for explaining your edits, also - despite my being nitpicky on some issues, I believe they improved the lead significantly. LyrlTalk     C   14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to introduction 

message: I think in section (i think) 26, about birth control education, it says std's, i think it shuld say STI's, isn't that the proper term?
--Jameogle 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article is currently located at sexually transmitted disease, so I think it's currently fine to use STD.  I suspect eventually the Wikipedia article will be moved to sexually transmitted infection (which is currently a redirect), and at that point I would support changing other articles to use STI instead. (You could suggest that at Talk:Sexually transmitted disease, if you're interested - it looks like the last time this was discussed was in March 2006, although at that time the move was rejected because STD is the more commonly used term.) LyrlTalk     C   22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sti's, std's 

message: Just added to the Jatropha article about the nuts and seeds used as a contraceptive in South Sudan. What about a paragraphe listing whatever plant (or other) turns up?
Adding at beginning of paragraph (written in red and bold, possibly, or some other way of alert) a serious warning, mini skull-and-bones sign in front of each plant maybe also, and whatever else in that line.
Could be a table, with columns for 1-the name(s) of the product; 2- reference(s) of where it is said to be used as such; 3-side-effects known; if we don't know of any, make it clear what is meant exactly, by writing "side-effects unknown - caution is required" (or similar) by default, or changing that into "no known side-effects" when we are absolutely sure that it has none (probably not that many if not very few).  4 - anything else that may be thought of. 
Made a link to here, but the feed-back from here to the plant is amiss.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicdesign (talk • contribs) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plants or other natural products used as contraceptives? 

message: This article could really benefit from some stats on how many women use which method. If I missed that info, would someone mind pointing it out - thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of the sub-articles have a "prevalence" section which discusses how popular the method is: condom#Prevalence, female condom#Worldwide use, intrauterine device#Popularity, for example.  Fertility awareness does not have a section like that, but there is the related natural family planning#Prevalence.  The diaphragm and cervical cap articles discuss popularity in their "history" sections, and the pill article touches on it in the introductory paragraph.  If you think it would benefit this article, feel free to incorporate some of the information from the sub-articles. LyrlTalk     C   21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Although it primarily covers United States, this article  might also give some useful data. Zodon (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats on usage

message: I think it should be clarified that while douching with water, juice, milk, soda, etc. does not prevent pregnancy, it is inappropriate to clam douching with ANY liquid will not be effective.
Douching with rubbing alcohol for instance will not only prevent pregnancy (as well as being very painful), but it can also make a woman sterile.  And don't think no one is stupid enough to try it, I know that is not true. 74.240.193.57 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: During the 1930s, women attempted to avoid pregnancy by douching with toxic mercury compounds, or with Lysol.  Medical estimates at the time were that 70% of these women got pregnant each year. Article. While this may be a reduction from the pregnancy rate from doing nothing at all, I would hardly call a method with a 70% failure rate "effective". LyrlTalk     C   01:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Douching

message: The introduction of this article defines birth control as actions taken to prevent pregnancy.
Recently introduced to the "See also" section were links to the lifestyle choice of childfree (though oddly the actual link is a redirect to that page), and the social philosophy of natalism.  I propose that both of these links would be more appropriate for a "see also" section in the family planning article, not here.  Neither a discussion of a lifestyle or a social philosophy is directly related to the methods of birth control.  (This article should probably link to family planning, however, as it is a subset of that topic.)
What do others think?
LyrlTalk     C   13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Common thread seems to be employing contraception (or its opposite).  They seem at least as relevant to contraception as Population control and One-child policy (which are both social concepts that often employ contraception), which are also in the see also section.  I added childless by choice as a balance to these links.  Pop control and one child policy have some connotations of externally imposed restrictions, so for balance offering link that relates to personal freedom and choice enabled by contraception.  (Sorry about linking to redirect - that is the name I am most familiar with, so what I remember.)  If want to move Pop control and one-child policy to family planning (childfree and natalism already there) and remove them all here, that's fine by me.  If going to keep some and not others here, we probably need to formulate some guidelines to clarify what goes where. Zodon (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of see also section 

message: Interested in improving birth control articles?  I've proposed a task force to help coordinate work in this category: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine
I do not anticipate this being a high-workload task force.  Just having a few people to bounce ideas off of every once in a while would be great!  Please add your name to the proposal description if you're interested. LyrlTalk     C   00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This task force has been created.  The task force's page is here and all interested editors are welcome.  You don't have to be a medical expert -- just willing to put the talk page on your watchlist or to take a look at it every now and again.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force proposal 

message: In a non-random, Internet survey of 1,400 women who found and completed a 10-minute multiple-choice online questionnaire listed in one of several popular search engines, women who received sex education from schools providing primarily abstinence information, or contraception and abstinence information equally, reported fewer unplanned pregnancies than those who received primarily contraceptive information, who in turn reported fewer unplanned pregnancies than those who received no information.[45]
This sentence is very wordy.  What is the popular search engine?  What questionnaire did they complete?  It is my understanding that women, specifically teen girls who receive abstinence-only education have higher rates of teen pregnancy and STD's than those who receive medically accurate information regarding sexual intercourse.  This sentence makes absolutely no sense.  It states that women who received information about contraception, (i.e. they use it), are having more babies than those who don't use contraception?  With no method of birth control at all, 80% of women become pregnant within the first year of sexual intercourse with a partner/partners.
The pill(contraceptive) is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy.  A woman who takes the pill is much less likely to have a baby than a woman who relies on condoms or nothing at all. 
It's like a complicated story problem from math class in which you are asked to determine which group of women has had the fewest babies.  It is also very vague.  Fix it please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjanata (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this run-on sentence? 

message: According to  it's "about .014 (i.e., the odds are 1 in 70)." Could be mentioned somewhere in this article. 78.105.220.50 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a static number, though.  On the most fertile day of the menstrual cycle, odds are 2 in 3 ( odds ratio of .667 on peak day of cervical mucus).  Starting several days into the luteal phase, odds are more like 1 in 100,000.  The .014 average seems very useful for population and fertility studies, but given the wide day-to-day variation in female fertility, I'm not sure it would be helpful for those trying to learn about birth control. LyrlTalk     C   00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probability of pregnancy from single unprotected intercourse