ask jane - birth control
So, i have received several awesome questions today. thought some of you might be interested in this particular inquiry.
*what is the best form of non-hormonal birth control?*
non-hormonal or non-combined-hormonal?
non-hormonal leaves you with the copper iud, diaphragm, caps, shields, and condoms. not to mention abstinence and "the rhythm method" (if i find out you're doing the rhythm method, i will personally spank you and your inevitable babies). the iud and condoms are the most effective of the bunch, condoms' efficacy increasing with lube and withdrawal. diaphragms, caps, and shields all require spermicidal lubricant to work (gross and bad for cunt).
non-combined-hormonal, aka progestin-only has a few more options. there's a progestin-only iud (which i'm getting this spring), the shot (i veto because it thins your bones if you use for more than two years), and progestin-only pills (POPs). now, pops have far less side-effects than combined hormone pills. but you have to take them at the same time every day. seriously. you miss one dose by three hours and you have to use a back-up method (condoms) for the next 48 hours. no fun.
yes, we need another option. but until one shows up, there you go.
for more precise stats, check out www.plannedparenthood.org. facts about birth control and your contraceptive choices are two good brochures they have posted. they also have method-specific brochures.
smooch, darling. i hope this helps.
*what is the best form of non-hormonal birth control?*
non-hormonal or non-combined-hormonal?
non-hormonal leaves you with the copper iud, diaphragm, caps, shields, and condoms. not to mention abstinence and "the rhythm method" (if i find out you're doing the rhythm method, i will personally spank you and your inevitable babies). the iud and condoms are the most effective of the bunch, condoms' efficacy increasing with lube and withdrawal. diaphragms, caps, and shields all require spermicidal lubricant to work (gross and bad for cunt).
non-combined-hormonal, aka progestin-only has a few more options. there's a progestin-only iud (which i'm getting this spring), the shot (i veto because it thins your bones if you use for more than two years), and progestin-only pills (POPs). now, pops have far less side-effects than combined hormone pills. but you have to take them at the same time every day. seriously. you miss one dose by three hours and you have to use a back-up method (condoms) for the next 48 hours. no fun.
yes, we need another option. but until one shows up, there you go.
for more precise stats, check out www.plannedparenthood.org. facts about birth control and your contraceptive choices are two good brochures they have posted. they also have method-specific brochures.
smooch, darling. i hope this helps.
posted by Jane Vincent at 6:20 PM
6 Comments:
Combined hormonal is still hormonal, and it seems to be worse in the long run that combined hormonal.
i think you meant progestin-only/non-combination hormonal. Yes, progestin-only bc is still hormonal. But it relies on one type of hormone, progestin, as opposed to a combination of two, progestin and estrogen. Many people have fewer side effects with the progestin-only methods than combined methods. For example, i have massive panic attacks and hallucinations and nauseau on combination bc pills. however, my body can handle progestin-only pills. it's just another option.
Wait just a minute, Jane ... You seem to leave open the possibility that you don't always use a condom when having sex with a guy. Please tell me I am wrong.
brainhell, baby.
i ALWAYS use condoms with boys and sex toys and vegetables and other stuff. condoms are the most effective means of reducing the risk of sti transmission (next to abstinence). however, in terms of birth control, there are other options. for people in fluid-bound relationships who wish to have sex without condoms and without babies there are options, expounded upon above. combining condoms and a bc method keeps you super low risk on both counts.
on my super-secret livejournal, where i often cross post, http://www.livejournal.com/users/rainbowk/ brought up a really great point.
*and it's important to know the difference between that and the Fertility Awareness Method (including periodic abstinence), which is actually at least as efficacious as condom use with no other method. Combined with condom use it's even higher.
FAM isn't counting days and pretending/hoping you have a textbook cycle and you'll be lucky. It's keeping track of signs of fertility (mucous, temperature, cervical changes, among others) to track fertile and infertile periods of time to have sex. I know lots of people, including myself, who have used this for years without getting pregnant.
I understand that some people wouldn't want to bother with this one because they wouldn't want to have to keep track of such things and/or periodically abstain from penis-in-vagina sex (as opposed to all the other kinds which there's no need to abstain from), and so it wouldn't work for them.
However, it does work for a lot of people and there's no need for you to spank either them or their not-so-inevitable-and-nonexistant babies cuz... there ain't no babies.*
i agree with you. fertility awareness-based methods are highly effective when used correctly. the perfect use efficacy rate is wonderful. it's the typical use that isn't so high, because many people (unlike yourself) do not take the time to track their cervical mucus, basal body temperature, etc. additionally, one must moniter their cycles for a few months before relying on FAMs as a primary form of bc. plus cycles can get thrown for a loop by illness, stress, and other factors. FAMs make me nervous. Sorry for the prejudice.
jane
So where is this super-secret LJ? And what could it possibly have in it that your blogger doesn't? I know: details of your sex life!
P.S., my wife used FAM to get pregnant the second time. Yes, I am the father!
Post a Comment
<< Home