ACOG: Women think birth control is better than it really is
There’s a good chunk of women who overestimate the effectiveness of the pill and condoms. About 45% of a group of 4,500 women looking to use these methods as a way to not have babies, put too much faith in these anti-baby having products. problem, science says, is that people conflate “ideal use” and “typical use.”
“We need to do a better job of educating the public – women and men – on the failure rates with typical use,” explains researcher David Eisenberg.
So here’s some education, ladies. On the Pill, the pregnancy rate with “typical use” is about 9% per year and using condoms, it’s between 18-21%. A lot higher than you thought, right?
~ The Atlantic Wire, April 27
[Photo via Reuters]
Apr.28, 2012 3:13 pm |
Contraception |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I think those figures will be sobering to many women relying on them to keep them from getting pregnant. We’ve got to encourage women to DOUBLE up on contraceptive use: insist on a condom while being on the Pill.
We’ve also got to encourage alternative sexual expressions.
Ultimately, of course, women need to be able to live without intimate and romantic heterosexual relationships.
I still got pregnant on Yaz with “ideal use”. I took it at the same time every day, never skipped a pill, never was on antibiotics etc…
And yet my “mistake” is about to go to kindergarten this Fall. SO THANKFUL the pill failed. I would never take that cancer causing crap again.
Women (and men) over estimate the effectiveness of contraceptives and birth control because the indoctrination centers, excuse me, the public schools, have been spoon feeding the laboratory ‘perfect use’ figures as absolute truth for at least the last 15 years. Even the ‘typical use’ figures given above (9% and 18-21% respectively) aren’t truly correct as they average all ‘typical use’ when in actuality certain demographics have much higher averages of failure rate among ‘typical use’. If teenagers were given a strong abstinence message with *real world* failure rates for pregnany and STD transmission (remember a girl can only get pregnant about 3 days out of the month but can get an STD *every day*, some STD transmission rates actually *increase* with contraception or birth control use!) then a hugely smaller number of people would enage in risky sexual practices. “Risky sexual practices” being any sexual contact outside of a life-long monogamous marriage.
The IUD failure rate is less than 1%. I agree with the ACOG’s conclusion that doctors should recommend IUDs & implants, not just lazily hand out pill prescriptions.
And of course this is why making contraception widely and cheaply available does not stop abortions. It is also what makes the merchants of death that run Planned Parenthood so effective in their mission to destroy life. Obviously, they understand these failure rates. And yet they keep pushing their contraceptive agenda. After all, every contraceptive failure among their clients is high probability cash flow.
Reality, ignoring the ethical problems with IUDs for a moment, they aren’t recommended for women who have not yet been pregnant nor as shorter term birth control. That means they are ill advized for a large percentage of birth control users, those teenagers and young adults trying to avoid a first pregnancy as well as women just trying to space their kids a couple years apart. And implants (again ignoring ethical concerns for the moment) have pretty extreme side effects for many and also have a ‘real world’ failure rate (mostly due to drug interactions) that differs from the ‘ideal’ failure rate.
They are more effective than a daily pill or a barrier method, but neither are ‘good’ choices.
I wonder what the pregnancy rate is with “typical use” of abstinence as BC.. Considering that 95% of people have sex before marriage, sounds like the pregnancy rate would be pretty high without those pesky pills, condoms, and IUDs.
To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, abstinence has not been tried and found ineffective; it has been found difficult and left untried.
Abstinence has a failure rate, just like any other bc method, when typical use is factored in. The only question is, when it fails, which backups are being used?
“Abstinence has a failure rate,”
Then it isn’t abstinence.
AnnaAnaatasia (I love your name by the way!), you bring up a relevant point but one questions if by definition someone is still using abstinence when they have sex. I mean if someone normally wear’s condoms but has sex without one the odd time would that count towards the failure rate of condoms?
“Abstinence has a failure rate” — that makes no sense.
When we say a condom has a “failure rate,” do we mean that when a person isn’t wearing it, the condom is failing them? No, of course not. When we say a diaphragm has a “failure rate”, do we mean that when a woman doesn’t use one that constitutes a “failure” for the diaphragm, and that the aggregate of such “failures” will tell us the failure rate?
What meaning does “failure rate” have when not using something constitutes a failure? An act of unprotected sex, by such a rubric, would constitute a “failure” of every method, inasmuch as none of them are in use.
When abstinence “fails,” I’d suppose that this is because it’s “not being used.” How can abstinence, if one is not abstaining, fail? If one isn’t abstaining, there’s no abstinence occurring to foist failure, any more than when one isn’t actually using the pill, it’s ridiculous to say “the pill failed me!”
Abstinence is 100% fail-proof. If someone wishes to claim otherwise, then apply the principle by which you claim so to other methods as well, and speak of them failing precisely when they’re not actually used. See how much sense that makes. But be consistent in what you think of as failure; if not using a method is a failure of that method, so be it — for all methods.
Abstinence isn’t, properly speaking, a “method.” A method is how you do something. But abstinence is precisely not doing a thing. Every other “method” is a way to do a thing in a controlled way. Abstinence, by contrast, is simply not doing a thing.
How do we persuade young women to eschew heterosexual relationships?
It’s pretty asanine to say 95% of people have premarital sex, but even if we allowed for a (false) reality where 95% of people stop being abstinent and have premarital sex…people choose actions based upon expected risk/benefit analysis. If the risk is high it takes a great deal of reward to balance it and have a person choose the action. If the risk is preceived as low then the reward can be equally low to balance it. In today’s day and age with all those ‘pesky’ pills and condoms the risks to sex seem much lower than the rewards, so it takes little to push a person to choosing the activity. But without those items, or with more realistic knowledge of the risks involved, then the risks of sex goes up greatly, making the choice to engage in sex much less appealing.
Through most of recorded history sex before marriage was fairly rare (in most cultures) because the risks greatly outweigh the benefits. Even *if* 95% of people *right now* have premarital sex, that’s because they preceive the reward to outweigh the risks. Give them better understanding of the risks involved and that number will plummet.
It’s not like the exact same amount of people will have sex before marriage regardless of circumstances. People aren’t mindless, will-less beings without any ability to control themselves.
Denise, ‘heterosexual’ relationships are not to be discouraged. Irrisponsible relationships are to be discouraged. It is the natural order of things for men and women to fall into close relationships, the closest of which ending in marriage and sex. It is necessary both for society, the continuation of the species, and, for the vast majority of people, for healthy development and proper emotional and mental health. The problem is “heterosexual relationships”, it’s society pushing two things 1) historically and physiologically extremely late marriage and 2) irresponsible ‘practice’ before marriage.
Proper relationships between young men and young women should be fostered, encouraged, and protected and when the young men and women so involved have shown sufficient physical and mental maturity and, in some ways even more importantly, sufficient physical and emotional want for a partner, they should be bound in proper marriage and allowed to follow the perfectly normal and physiologically correct course of life.
One thing the sexual ‘revolution’ destroyed as a normal expectation of how life flows. Our mental and physical maturity are closely linked. All those late teens and young twenty-somethings are buring with desire and finding it nearly impossible to saty chaste because they aren’t *supposed* to be chaste, their minds and bodies are ready for marriage, sex, and, in the natural course of things, children. It’s not ‘revolutionary’ nor ‘progress’ to deny basic biology.
Nor is it good or proper to respond to the denial of basic biology by suggesting something even more unnatural, such as your oft-repeated suggestions of ‘alternatives’ to heterosexual relationships and marrital sex. The proper response is to reinstate realistic expectations based upon normal physiological development, in this case proper courting and marriage within the physiological normal age of doing so.
The long term ingestion of high dose hormones for the purpose of disrupting a woman’s natural biortythm throughout the fertile periods of her life is likely to cause health problems throughout the rest of her life.
The younger you are, the higher the failure rate.
“The IUD failure rate is less than 1%.”
True, but IUD’s are for old married people. Just read the the manufacturers’ information.
Teens won’t be using IUD’s because they get to many STD’s.
Natural Family Planning…vastly misunderstood and under utilized.
http://www.popepaulvi.com/
And
http://www.creightonmodel.com/
Did I mention that ingesting hormonal birth control makes it harder to prevent pregnancy by disrupting a woman’s biorythm and making it harder to determine when ovulation occurs?
The primary function of IUDs is to cause early abortion by disrupting the uterine lining. Whereas hormonal contraceptives cause abortion some of the time, IUDs cause abortion all of the time.
Sylvia, technically IUDs first attempt to avoid pregnancy is making the womb inhospitable to sperm. And most IUDs today release hormones as well to attempt to stop ovulation. Either way they certainly do *intend* to cause early abortion by disallowing implantation or starving the newly implanted embroy by causing an inhospital environment. But it’s inacurate to say that’s their first or primary function. It’s an intended back-up function, but even the old first-on-the-scene copper IUDs first intended to destroy sperm. Of course there really isn’t a way to judge how often their primary function fails, thus resorting to the back-up function, but if it’s even 1:1000 that’s one too many to approve the product if you are against intentional abortion. I just would recommend extreme hesitation is proclaiming that to be the primary function because then a women has a conversation like this with her doctor: ‘i don’t want an IUD, I know those cause early abortions by effecting the uterine lining’ doc: ‘that’s just the old ones, don’t worry, this one stops sperm and ovulation’ woman: ‘oh, okay then.’
Is the person wearing the gloves and the mask to protect the product or to protect herself?
“Abstinence is 100% fail-proof.”
Rasqual, I read that and felt I should share an amusing thing I saw once with regards to that.
A friend was wearing a shirt with a picture of the Virgin Mary on the front.
Underneath, the caption read, “Abstinence: 99.9999999% effective”
I thought it was a little funny, mostly because it’s true. 8P
Barring divine intervention or rudely-invasive technology, though, abstinence is indeed absolutely 100% effective in preventing pregnancy … and pretty much any STD, for that matter (this guarantee does not extend to certain behaviours including the sharing of needles).
It’s unfortunate (but not unexpected) how some people claim that it has a failure rate when it clearly does not. There is no misuse with abstinence; either you do it or you don’t. I’ve met plenty of people who regret their unchaste sexual decisions, whether they resulted in diseases and/or unexpected children (who, by the way, they still love anyway, being the good people that they are). On the other hand, I’ve never met or even heard of anyone who lives or has lived by abstinence and chastity and regrets it. I know it’s done wonders for me, as I’ve had two girlfriends but never had any worries whatsoever about STD’s or unexpected pregnancies. Any other “method” and the odds are not in my favor that this would still be the case.
We’re discussing sex in youth group at the church. Our youth director announced to the high schoolers last week (it’s not just church kids, but lots of outside youth who enjoy the activities and are respectful of the teaching/discussion time — she also insists they be honest about their spiritual state as they understand it) that a panel this week would include people with several different life experiences. When the kids discovered that a couple virgins well out of their teens would be impaneled, they freaked out as if someone had just announced that a circus had just pitched camp outside of town and had a world-class freak show on one side.
These are youth whose unself-consciousness will let them ask for prayer for all the ludicrous hassles their sin has gotten them into (an autobiographical memory for many of us here as well, obviously), not excluding sexual sin and its consequences. Yet the moment they hear that people exist who are still virgins into their twenties, their first response is not to ponder “wow, there’s someone who’s avoided the pitfalls I’ve idiotically stumbled into” — no, the reaction is incredulity that something so unrealistic actually exists.
It’s a stunningly upside-down world.
How can failure to take a pill (or taking it with antibiotics) be considered “typical use”, but failure to abstain not be considered “typical use” of abstinence? Even NFP is basically periodic abstinence, and everyone agrees that it has a “perfect use” rate and a “typical use” rate. How does that work, if abstinence can’t have a failure rate?
Anastasia,
You can not get pregnant from abstinence. You only get pregnant from non-abstinence.
You can get pregnant while taking the pill perfectly. You can get pregnant by typical use of the pill.
See the difference?
AnnaAnastasia: The pill is a method to control a consequence of sex. Abstinence is simply not engaging in the activity for which these other methods offer control of consequences.
“You better have really good airbags if you’re going to drive over train tracks when the gates are down!’
Just don’t drive over the tracks when the gates are down.
No one in their right mind would say “see? abstaining from driving over the tracks when the gates are down is ineffective, because some people who usually don’t, sometimes do!”
But it would be perfectly sensible to say that anyone stupid enough to do so might not find their airbags operating quite at 100% in the lifesaving department.
If people are going to compare “perfect” abstinence with “typical” pill, condom, etc. use, then that’s disingenuous. If abstinence, when practiced perfectly, is 100% effective against pregnancy, then compare it with perfect pill use (99.5-99.9%) and condom use (96%).
But if we’re talking typical rates, then get some data on typical abstinence users and their pregnancy rate per year, just like every other method. The effectiveness is less than 100%.
(PS depending on the definition of abstinence, it’s not effective against disease, even when practiced perfectly. Plenty of people “abstain” while having oral and anal sex.)
WHAT’s disingenuous? By all means do compare perfect uses.
And be sure in the disease compartment, you’re consistent as well — oral and anal users don’t always use condoms and the pill sure doesn’t help there either.
Again, what’s disingenuous?
Because birth control is not 100 percent effective is the perfect reason to keep abortion legal. Also, it may not be 100 percent effective, however, every time it does work it prevents a potential abortion, which you would think may you all happy.
Right, intellectual Jake: For people who believe that abortion is the unwarranted killing of human life, the lack of perfection of a method to prevent their existence is the “perfect REASON” to keep their willful destruction legal.
I take it all back. It was an insult to trolls to number you among them.
Jake, that thinking would work excepting two facts. 1) hormonal birth control causes abortions so therefore one can not (consistantly and logically) be against abortions and for hormonal birth control. It’s as hypocritical as saying ‘i’m against abortion, unless the mother chooses it’. And 2) study after study, place after place, year after year the abortion rate has only *risen* with increased birth control use. It *sounds* good to say that birth control lowers abortions or keeps abortions from happening, but the *fact* is that increased birth control leads to increased abortions. It’s that whole pesky risk vs reward thing again. Birth control leads to an underestimation of the risks which leads to more of the action (in this case ‘risky’ sex) which leads to more unintended pregnancies. Pregnancies that *wouldn’t* occur in the first place if birth control wasn’t availible to begin with. Birth control does nothing to reduce the statistical, real world cases of unintended pregnancies, it *seems* like it should, but it doesn’t. What it does do is cause those unintended pregnancies to occur in a situation where the mother/father consider pregnancy a negative ‘failure’ that they shouldn’t be ‘punished’ with as opposed to a realistic if surprising outcome of acts willingly preformed.
So your argument sounds lovely, but has nothing to do with the real world and the real world effects of birth control. With the exception of strict Catholics the average pro-lifer would be thrilled to embrace *contraceptives* (that is stopping a conception rather than simply birth control preventing live birth) if it actually lowered the abortion rate. But it doesn’t. It’s kind of like legalizing prositution. It *sounds* like a good idea, give prositutes the protection of the law, give patrons some protection of licensing, give the government some new taxable revenue. But places that legalize prostitution don’t see that, what they see in the real world is that the side effects of legalizing prostitution makes the inherent problems with prositition *worse* and drives up the underground market for more extreme forms of it (like child prostitution). Theory and reality don’t always intersect.
“WHAT’s disingenuous? By all means do compare perfect uses.”
OK, then all the people who’ve commented about abstinence being 100% effective, rather than citing its typical use effectiveness, are comparing apples to oranges.
Jespren:
“1) hormonal birth control causes abortions so therefore one can not (consistantly and logically) be against abortions and for hormonal birth control.”
Actually, NFP (and other periodic abstinence methods) cause far more fertilized eggs to be created and destroyed than hormonal birth control. Hormonal BC’s primary method of effectiveness is to keep eggs from ever being released, and also to make uterine lining inhospitable to sperm to keep them from fertilizing the egg. It has never been shown to cause fertilized eggs not to implant, although theoretically it’s possible (so is anything). So if fertilized eggs are being destroyed (and that’s a big if), it’s a pretty small chance. BTW, “fertilized egg” is not the definition of when pregnancy begins, but since most commenters here place some sort of moral significance on fertilized eggs, we can change the definition for purposes of discussion here.
In the case of NFP, an egg (or more) is released every month. If NFP fails and an egg is fertilized, the next step is implantation. Yet implantation naturally fails about 40% of the time. In other words, NFPers don’t just take advantage of a woman’s cycle, but they also use her body’s natural tendency to destroy fertilized eggs. Another way to put it: part of NFP’s effectiveness rate is due to “abortions” of fertilized eggs, although NFP certainly doesn’t advertize the potential rate of fertilized eggs that a couple is creating (vs. with the Pill). Those who rally against the “abortive” effects of the Pill should talk about the fact that NFP has a far greater chance of destroying fertilized eggs.
“2) study after study, place after place, year after year the abortion rate has only *risen* with increased birth control use.”
This is factually false.
AnnaAnastasia, the term ‘pregnancy’ (specifically ‘established pregnancy’, was changed by the manufacturers of hormonal birth control to mean ‘implantation’ instead of ‘conception’. Medical texts up until the mid 90’s still recognized the traditional definition, although the change started in the 70’s. Planned Parenthood and the manufacturers of hormonal birth control pushed the definition change, not some new medical discovery or better understanding of pregnancy. It was changed so they could market a drug they *knew* killed existing pregnancies legally as a ‘contraception’ rather than an (then mostly illegal) abortion-causing substance. As for NPF causing ‘more’ abortions, again, redefining a word does not change facts. Humans die, it’s tragic, but no one gets out of life alive. But that 100% of people die doesn’t excuse a single murder. During the natural course of life some (40% is incorrect as, at this time, we have no way of tracking that) embroys die pre-implantation or shortly there after. Just like some infants die of failure to thrive or SIDs or some teens die of natural but unknown causes, or some adults die of sudden heart failure. None of these deaths are murder, nor even intentionally caused. When you abort an offspring of any age 2 days post conception or 2 days pre-EDD, you are *intentionally killing* a living member of the human species. When one dies naturally it…died naturally. We call that a ‘miscarriage’ or a ‘spontaneous abortion’ or, if it happens later in the pregnancy a ‘stillbirth’. While tragic none of these is the intentional killing of a human being, it’s part of life. Pro-lifers aren’t trying to deny death itself, they are saying one can not intentionally kill another (innocent) living human being.
From France to UK to Montana to Brazil, the abortion rate (and unintended pregnancy rate) have gone up in direct corralation with the introduction and increased use of contraceptives and birth control. It has happened everywhere birth control has been introduced and has been happening since the 70’s. It’s well known, easily trackable, and repeatedly verified. It’s also very, very embarrassing for the pro-abortion/pro-birth control lobby so it has been reutinely ignored by the mainstream media since the 70’s too, although it does occassionally hit the presses. It takes only a brief search on the topic to find the constant rise of contraceptives/BC to corrilate with a similar rise in abortions and unintended pregnancies. You’ll have to pull your wool elsewhere, these eyes have seen the data from multiple countries, multiple studies, multiple ages, and multiple years.
There are absolutely no data that demonstrate hormonal contraception causes abortions. Study after study in humans, animals, and in vitro have demonstrated that hormonal contraception does NOT affect implantation. Even several reviews and meta analyses have come to the same conclusion, and the analyses or reviews that do support prevention of implantation PRIMARILY use the FDA-approved labeling of contraception as their “Level 1” evidence.
The FDA, while heavy handed and over regulating, is notorious for approving label information such as “implantation failure” with shoddy data from pharmaceutical companies for mechanism of action of a drug. Mechanism of action claims are not always reviewed by the FULL FDA panel, or studies supporting the claim are not referenced in the prescribing information. See Clozapine or Olanzapine as prime examples.
There are just no worthwhile data to support that hormonal contraception causes implantation failure. And currently approved hormonal contraception are exempt from recent FDA mandates that *ALL* post-marketing studies and clinical trials are to be reported, so it is unlikely that the prescribing information would be updated with accurate data that there is no data to support prevention of implantation.
AnnaAnastasia: “OK, then all the people who’ve commented about abstinence being 100% effective, rather than citing its typical use effectiveness, are comparing apples to oranges.”
Good grief, what kind of thinking is this.
If person A uses numbers in way B and person C uses numbers in way D and you happen to hear it all, you don’t hold A accountable for C’s use, nor C for A’s. You note the differences and call for them to compare notes if you wish, but you don’t say THEY are, collectively, comparing apples with oranges. That’s going on in YOUR head.
Reconcile it yourself, or ask others to suggest why apples are oranges should be settled on as the fruit worth havin’, but don’t externalize your own proper comparison as some other cohort’s collective incoherence.
Jespren:
“As for NPF causing ‘more’ abortions, again, redefining a word does not change facts.”
You and other commenters define “abortion” to include taking actions that may cause an embryo not to implant (which redefines the word “abortion” by any standard). NFPers should then know that their actions are likely to cause far more “aborted” embryos than users of the pill, condoms, etc. If NFPers are aware of that, and choose to use their method, sounds like they’re pretty intentionally causing embryo abortion.
“(40% is incorrect as, at this time, we have no way of tracking that)”
Sure we do. It’s a field within biology and medicine called embryology. Although there’s not an exact number (i.e. 1,247,356 per day), there is a generally accepted percentage of embryos that don’t implant. 40% is on the low end of that range.
“From France to UK to Montana to Brazil, the abortion rate (and unintended pregnancy rate) have gone up in direct corralation with the introduction and increased use of contraceptives and birth control.”
This is *factually incorrect*
rasqual:
“If person A uses numbers in way B and person C uses numbers in way D and you happen to hear it all, you don’t hold A accountable for C’s use, nor C for A’s.”
Person A says bc stats are misleading, because most people don’t know typical use stats. Persons B, C, D, E, and F respond by saying abstinence is 100% effective, when used perfectly. Person A also discusses this on her site. Sounds like Persons B-F are directly comparing apples to oranges, and Person A is doing so indirectly, so that abstinence appears to be more effective than other forms of bc.
AnnaAnastasia says:
“…so that abstinence appears to be more effective than other forms of bc.”
Why do you consider abstinence to be a method of birth control? The natural result of abstaining from sex is that “birth” is not possible. There’s no birth to “control” if you are not having sex. It makes no sense to me to label abstinence as “birth control”. Now periodic continence/abstinence (such as NFP), that’s a different matter. Then I think a comparison with other forms of birth control makes more sense, since those that practice periodic continence/abstinence are actually having sex.
“Why do you consider abstinence to be a method of birth control?”
Because it is a means of controlling birth. And it’s regularly brought up as a solution to keep people from having unplanned children, often in contrast to pills, condoms, IUDs, implants, etc.
AnnaAnastasia says:
“Why do you consider abstinence to be a method of birth control?”
Because it is a means of controlling birth. And it’s regularly brought up as a solution to keep people from having unplanned children, often in contrast to pills, condoms, IUDs, implants, etc.
Wow. I guess all the celibate people in the world are actually practicing birth control. Who knew.
I’m not sure why you prefer such mental gymnastics to just admitting that abstinence is 100% successful in preventing pregnancy, but whatev. Have fun.
I’m not sure why you prefer giving inaccurate information about sexual health to people. But whatev. Have fun.
I’m not sure why you prefer giving inaccurate information about sexual health to people.
AnnaAnastasia, please tell us who (other than the Virgin Mary and those using artificial medical intervention) has gotten pregnant while remaining abstinent.
“Because birth control is not 100 percent effective is the perfect reason to keep abortion legal. Also, it may not be 100 percent effective, however, every time it does work it prevents a potential abortion, which you would think may you all happy.”
No it isn’t. Half of my friends have kids because their contraception failed, but they already knew they wouldn’t kill a baby if their contraceptive failed. These women were married and didn’t want kids or were trying to space, but it didn’t work and now they have one or two unplanned kids. It is a different way of looking at the whole thing. Contraception as a tool but not a guarantee vs. betting on contraception when you think you can’t afford to lose the bet. Contraception does fail. Don’t be so surprised when it happens to you. If you are operating contrary to the reality that contraception fails, then you are gambling. Killing someone doesn’t fix the problem you create by making babies with some guy you hate.
AnnaAnastasia, please tell us who (other than the Virgin Mary and those using artificial medical intervention) has gotten pregnant while remaining abstinent.
All those teenage girls who have to take off their purity rings because of pregnancy water weight?
“AnnaAnastasia, please tell us who (other than the Virgin Mary and those using artificial medical intervention) has gotten pregnant while remaining abstinent.
All those teenage girls who have to take off their purity rings because of pregnancy water weight?”
So, these teenage girls:
1) Did not have sexual relations
2) Were not artificially inseminated
3) Did not have children artificially implanted in their wombs
4) Were not subject to some other related medical procedure
5) Became pregnant anyway
…
I just know Chesterton had a great quote about this very situation, but I can’t think of it at the moment. Anyone?
@maestro: Nope. They were practicing abstinence, until it failed due to inconsistent use.
Unless, of course, we don’t want to count pill users as practicing a birth control method when they miss a pill…
They were practicing abstinence, until it failed due to inconsistent use.
No, they failed to practice abstinence. Abstinence does not fail. Contraception, however, can, even when used properly.
But the whole point of this post is that people often don’t use contraception properly, so people think contraception is “better than it is.”
I’d say the same thing goes for abstinence…
But the whole point of this post is that people often don’t use contraception properly, so people think contraception is “better than it is.”
I’d say the same thing goes for abstinence…
No, because here’s the thing – abstinence, as a principle, means you are not having sex. If you have sex at all, you are not practicing abstinence.
People who are “not using abstinence properly” are actually not abstinent.
Abstinence is 100% effective. Abstinence means you abstain from something completely. If you are wanting to compare “abstinence education” with “contraceptive education” or whatever, then you can compare the two. Abstinence does not fail. People fail to practice it.
“They were practicing abstinence, until it failed due to inconsistent use.”
That wasn’t the question. You were asked for those cases where they remained abstinent. The point was to show that even with “ideal use”, contraceptives will never match abstinence when it’s done faithfully.
“Unless, of course, we don’t want to count pill users as practicing a birth control method when they miss a pill…”
I’m fine with that; the numbers still clearly show abstinence to be the better option and the only sure thing, even with the numbers you gave.
“But the whole point of this post is that people often don’t use contraception properly, so people think contraception is “better than it is.”
I’d say the same thing goes for abstinence…”
I have yet to meet anyone who believes that abstinence is still 100% effective even when you don’t practice it diligently. If you believe this, then you’re the first one I’ve found.
That’s a main difference between those who advocate abstinence and those who advocate/promote contraceptives; anywhere I’ve seen or heard abstinence being discussed and promoted, it is presented not as merely an additive, so to speak, for one’s sexuality, but rather as a defining principle. It is not just something you do in conjunction with your sex life, but is instead everything you do with it in the first place.
AnnaAnastasia: “But the whole point of this post is that people often don’t use contraception properly, so people think contraception is ‘better than it is.’
I’d say the same thing goes for abstinence…”
I understand your point. And I understood your calibration of my ABCDE thing above. The post is much as you say; the commentary — including my own — is concerned with the matter a bit differently.
@AnnaAnastasia: You are being deliberately obtuse here. Most contraception methods have something of a “spectrum” of usage. Abstinence doesn’t because there is exactly one way to do it: have no sex. That’s the only way to abstain. If you are successfully not having sex, then you are using abstinence both “typically” and “perfectly.” Any sexual activity constitutes non-usage of abstinence.
This is not a complex concept.
If we were going to be slightly less technical and make an argument here to include people who practice abstinence but are forced into sex they do not consent to as “typical” users (since I don’t think that rape, however much it may be sexual activity, “counts” in terms of whether or not a person is abstinent given that that is not their fault) then you could make the claim that some people who practice abstinence may become pregnant with “typical” use. And I could agree with such a claim. And that would still make abstinence, far and away, the most effective form of birth control there is. And the least expensive. And the easiest to access.
I suppose some clarity could emerge by comparing other appetites — such as for food.
If you don’t want to get fat, you can fast. A failure of fasting might get you fat — but in what sense is pigging out a failure of fasting?
Perhaps it could be said that fasting increased the appetite to the point where a gustatory orgy was provoked (one remembers Reynaud in the film Chocolat, for example). This could be one way in which I could appreciate the proposition that abstinence can be implicated in its own failure. But I’m not certain I would not argue against this notion, which only superficially seems to be a failure of fasting, a thing ending itself by provoking its counterpart.
In another sense, fasting or abstinence may be understood spiritually or, to use secular language, rationally. Whether the mind can control the animal appetites seems hardly in question, it certainly can. Whether all minds WILL do so successfully, seems another. But is this a failure of mind or of method? Which should be taken as normative? Success and we seek to develop failing minds to do as well as succeeding ones with sound methods? Or failure — and we seek to develop methods to accommodate minds we suppose cannot be expected to learn to succeed?
I understand this is all complex. And its undeniable that emphases on each side of a point of view have some merit.
Abstinence is deemed unrealistic by many, and yet there are a few who demonstrate its practical character. It’s hardly a failure of those who succeed in appreciating the virtues of abstinence. If there’s failure to be spotted, it’s among those who can’t imagine the mind controlling the body, reason ruling the animal, and civilization conquering the barbarian.
If self-control isn’t acknowledged as an ideal worth extolling, maybe we should apologize to rapists for holding them in such contempt. They just can’t help it.
“Abstinence is deemed unrealistic by many”
One of the simplest analogies I’ve found is drinking alcohol.
Let’s say I want to avoid it altogether. Logically, I’m not going to immerse myself in an “alcoholic environment”, so to speak. In other words, I’m not going to spend all my time in bars, hang out with people who drink all the time, and so on. If these activities had been part of my life up to that point, it is easily conceivable that I would have to choose between my new intentions and my usual lifestyle.
Exercising incredible willpower is one thing; placing yourself in harm’s way is quite another.
So it is with abstinence. I have found that far too often, when people say they are unable to live chastely, the truth is that they are unwilling to remove themselves from the temptations – or even lessen them – that make it difficult. The reasons for this vary as much as the people who give them, including ignorance, laziness, all the way up to outright fear or even sheer pride, but they all have the same effect; in allowing oneself to be continually bombarded with that which you’re trying to avoid, failure is usually inevitable.
Were we citizens in a virtuous society, living chastely would be far more common, since there would be much less to tempt people otherwise. Sadly, that does not describe our society and consequently, living in such a way as to encourage sexual abstinence in one’s life (as well as in the other party) requires the adoption and implementation of an apparently uncommon attitude and lifestyle. This would include the removal of many things from one’s life, especially any presence of pornography, one of the more problematic stumbling blocks in this regard.
Now, granted, the strength of one person’s willpower will naturally differ from that of the next. For some people, for various reasons, it’s not even a matter of willpower. For example, for my part, abstaining from alcohol is not something that requires any willpower whatsoever; quite literally, I would rather be shot than drink alcohol.
For others, though, I can understand that it’s not so simple. For instance, I know some people who can’t take just one drink; for them, it’s a binge party or nothing. They’re disgusted with themselves afterwards, but they don’t have the willpower to stop once they start. For this reason, they never drink, they don’t like going to bars, and they are uncomfortable with people drinking around them. To support them in these efforts, many of their friends and family voluntarily choose not to drink around them or at least limit it. This shouldn’t be necessary, but nobody’s perfect.
Once again, it’s the same thing with abstinence. In this case, though, the roles are reversed for me personally.
In this, I know that my willpower is entirely and woefully insufficient to support my decision to live chastely. If I lived the life I see so many other people around me living, I would have failed long ago and, to be blunt, I would almost certainly be a diseased father by now. One of the primary reasons I have not failed, though, is because I do not live that life:
– I don’t read or even look at vulgar or pornographic publications, be they in print, video, or audio
– I don’t even make or encourage vulgar sexual jokes
– I consciously control my eyes and don’t let them wander, especially when talking to women
– I treat sexuality with respect deserving a core component of my being, not as a pleasure-seeking bonus it provides
– I attempt to control (with varying degrees of success, unfortunately) my thoughts regarding sexuality, seeking purity in this area especially
– I train myself to properly see the beauty in all women (once again, this should not be necessary, but I’m not perfect either) so that if I suddenly see an especially sexually attractive woman, I’m already used to seeing a higher degree of beauty anyway, so it’s not such a “shock” (for lack of a better term) and is therefore easier to handle
On rare occasions, living chastely has been easy for me. Usually, though, it’s something I struggle with, and I could foresee that being the case until I die.
But I have not failed. I make the changes in my life and it works.
Abstinence is entirely realistic if one truly wishes to live it, but it’s not just a pill you take once a day or a pep talk you give yourself each morning; it must be fundamental in your life. For the most part, sexuality is far too powerful a force in one’s life to be treated otherwise.
Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder of finding true love.
– I train myself to properly see the beauty in all women (once again, this should not be necessary, but I’m not perfect either) so that if I suddenly see an especially sexually attractive woman, I’m already used to seeing a higher degree of beauty anyway, so it’s not such a “shock” (for lack of a better term) and is therefore easier to handle
This may be one of the sweetest things I’ve read in a long time. Honestly, just reading it gave me warm fuzzies.
Maestro: So darned well said.
You are being deliberately obtuse here. Most contraception methods have something of a “spectrum” of usage. Abstinence doesn’t because there is exactly one way to do it: have no sex. That’s the only way to abstain. If you are successfully not having sex, then you are using abstinence both “typically” and “perfectly.” Any sexual activity constitutes non-usage of abstinence.
Then, that’s awfully convenient. Those who misuse/forget other methods of birth control are counted in the stats. Those who misuse abstinence aren’t counted.
@AnnaAnastasia: And now you are being deliberately ridiculous. The fact that the way a thing actually works is inconvenient for your argument does not entitle you to try and make claims that you should stack the math differently to be “more fair.” Indeed attempts to do so are precisely what creates the mentality the quote up top there is railing against. The fact that abstinence functions much more simply than any contraceptive methods (you either do abstain or you don’t; there is no option C) does not enter into it. Your dislike of this fact, leading to your desperate attempts to muddy the waters via semantics, is bizarre and illogical. Abstinence is counted the way it is counted because that is how it works. And if being accurate and honest is “convenient,” then that just proves what people have been saying for years: virtue is its own reward.
I think it’s interesting that anyone who isn’t abstinent can be counted as “unvirtuous,” and thus be ignored and disavowed by everyone who thinks that abstinence is simple and foolproof. Nice system, but it certainly doesn’t speak to reality. Y’all can just keep chanting “abstinence,” then act surprised at all the “abstinent” people who end up pregnant.
Also – how do married people fit into this equation? When they experience an unwanted pregnancy, are they unvirtuous?
AnnaAnastasia says:
Then, that’s awfully convenient. Those who misuse/forget other methods of birth control are counted in the stats. Those who misuse abstinence aren’t counted.
That’s a puzzling statement from someone that purports to value “accurate information about sexual health”. Shouldn’t you be celebrating the fact that there is a way to 100% avoid an unplanned pregnancy?
I’m not sure what is included in “typical use” stats, but if someone has sex without a condom, I wouldn’t count a resulting pregnancy as a failure of condoms. If someone has sex without their diaphragm I wouldn’t count a resulting pregnancy as diaphragm failure. The pill is a little different because it’s administered separately from the sex act. The important point is that people need to understand that the effectiveness of their bc is dependent on how they use it.
AnnaAnastasia says:
Y’all can just keep chanting “abstinence,” then act surprised at all the “abstinent” people who end up pregnant.
Abstinent people don’t end up pregnant. That’s an important fact for all people to know. That’s why I “chant” abstinence to my children.
I think it’s interesting that anyone who isn’t abstinent can be counted as “unvirtuous,” and thus be ignored and disavowed by everyone who thinks that abstinence is simple and foolproof.
And now you’re deliberately employing poor reading comprehension, since anyone with half a brain could see honesty was the virtue I was referring to. Are you allergic to having a good-faith conversation?
AnnaAnastasia: “I think it’s interesting that anyone who isn’t abstinent can be counted as ‘unvirtuous,’ and thus be ignored and disavowed by everyone who thinks that abstinence is simple and foolproof.”
I’d say that’s a bizarre work of inference from anything you might have read here, but that would be crediting it with too much use of reason. How on earth do you come by that thought? Not only the first phrase, but even were that granted, how the second would follow from it? Seriously.
virtue is its own reward.
I’d say it’s not poor reading comprehension, as much as unclear writing from you. If you’re referring to the “honesty” of abstinence promoters, what “reward” are you referring to? The only thing I can come up with is a feeling of moral superiority, especially when abstinence fails. “Oh look, another pregnant teenager who pledged to be abstinent! If I just ignore her commitment to abstinence and the fact that I preached the evils of other methods of bc (leaving her no other options when abstinence fails), the success of abstinence is still 100%! I’m proved right AGAIN!”
Of course, that assumes that abstinence promoters are being honest. They are not, because again, every time their method fails, they simply disavow that the person had been using abstinence.
Alice, Rasqual, happy to be of service. :-)
Of course, that assumes that abstinence promoters are being honest. They are not, because again, every time their method fails, they simply disavow that the person had been using abstinence.
Abstinence never fails. People fail to be abstinent.
If I just ignore her commitment to abstinence and the fact that I preached the evils of other methods of bc (leaving her no other options when abstinence fails), the success of abstinence is still 100%! I’m proved right AGAIN!”
This is just bizarre. If she chose to have sex, she wasn’t committed to abstinence. Again, abstinence doesn’t fail. It’s not a matter of being “right”, it’s a matter of truth and accuracy. My children need to understand how to be safe. The only true way to be safe is to be abstinent. Sex with any type of bc has risks.
If you’re referring to the “honesty” of abstinence promoters, what “reward” are you referring to?
You really are allergic to good-faith conversation. You claim it is “convenient” for advocates of abstience that it is a yes/no form of birth control (you either have sex or you abstain; simple, easy to remember). I say that if it is convenient, then that is only logical since that is how abstinence works and since I am accurately representing how it functions. Thus you, by attempting to make words mean things they don’t, have to work a lot harder to make your point (you are inconvenienced) as compared to those who deal in facts, whose task is much simpler (more convenient). QED, being honest off the top rewards you by you not needing to work as hard.
Everything else in your post about pregnant teens and abstinence failing (which as Lrning pointed out, is you, again, misrepresenting what things actually mean) and on and on is stuff you brought up. I didn’t say it, allude to it, discuss it, or so much as hint at it in any of my posts. In fact, if you’ll look over my posts on this thread, I have not once done anything but take exception to your blatant attempts to redefine words to suit your argument. You are not free to assign strawmen to me, and I reject all of your attempts to do so.
Everyone who is fertile is using some form of bc, unless they’re trying to cause pregnancy. Abstinence is one form of bc (and we both agree that it’s a form of bc) that’s used by everyone at some point in their lives. But there comes a point where almost everyone stops using it. For most people, that is by age 20, and for 95% of people, they stop using it before marriage.
Some people stop using abstinence intentionally and start using another form of bc, but others stop using it even though they have every intention of using it (just like other forms of bc that don’t get used, even with good intentions). I call that abstinence failure, you call that a failure to use abstinence. But leaving semantics aside (as you request), let’s get to the real issue: when someone isn’t abstinent, what do you hope happens in that case? Should they be armed with information about how to prevent pregnancy in other ways? Or should they have no other method, which virtually guarantees a pregnancy, given enough time? Especially given that most people stop being abstinent as unmarried teenagers? (This is why teenagers are relevant, btw.)
If you believe that when abstinence ends, people should be armed with information about other bc methods…what purpose does this blog post serve? It repeats the same information that’s on every pill insert, and every condom package, and every doctor’s release to insert an IUD.
What this post doesn’t include is information about rates of pregnancy when no bc method is used. Why? What is the author trying to get people to believe about bc by doing that? There are commenters in other posts who have stated that bc is a great weapon against abortion – do they agree with the impression of bc the author gives, by not including pregnancy rates for non-bc users?
Additionally, why are most of the commenters here content say only that “abstinence is 100% effective,” when abstinence is not reality for 95% of people at some point in their lives? What meaning does “100% effective” have, if that’s the case?
Accusations of “bad faith” and “strawmen” are good ways to shut down discussions in internet forums, but they’re not useful here. Is it dishonest for sites like this to point out typical use rates for other forms of bc, but not for abstinence? Yes, it is. If pointing that out is considered “bad faith” to you or other commenters, OK. But the accusation of bad faith certainly doesn’t further the discussion of abstinence’s place in this issue.
I’m done with this discussion, because it seems like my comments are of no use to most of the commenters here.
You’re right about one thing, your comments are for most part of no use.
@AnnaAnastasia: At last! A post where the discussion moves forward.
When someone isn’t abstinent, what do you hope happens in that case? Should they be armed with information about how to prevent pregnancy in other ways? Or should they have no other method, which virtually guarantees a pregnancy, given enough time? Especially given that most people stop being abstinent as unmarried teenagers? (This is why teenagers are relevant, btw.)
I have no personal objections to non-abortifacient methods of birth control. Which mainly comprise barrier methods like condoms and diaphragms, or spermicides. Nor do I have any personal opposition to people learning how to use/get them.
If you believe that when abstinence ends, people should be armed with information about other bc methods…what purpose does this blog post serve? It repeats the same information that’s on every pill insert, and every condom package, and every doctor’s release to insert an IUD.
Apparently it isn’t on there enough, seeing as people think that birth control methods are more effective than they are.
You still haven’t sourced your 95% statistic. I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I believe that’s true. Over 50%, I buy. Heck, I may even buy over 75%. 95% is pushing it (leik woah) and I want to see some methodology behind that.
Anastatia’s right, there IS a deliberate conflation here between abstinence-as-mindset and abstinence as-default-state-of-existence. Obviously the “failure rate” of abstinence is 0 if it’s defined as the opposite of the activity in question. The denominator is infinite: here I am, eating breakfast, being abstinent. Oh, there I am, driving to work, most certainly being abstinent. Hmm. It would be more intellectually honest of you to look at the success rate of an abstinent mindset. Let’s evaluate the purity ring balls, the anti-sex sex ed, at inculcating an abstinent mindset in adolescents. Why be so disingenuous with the definitions? What are y’all afraid of??
Megan says: Obviously the “failure rate” of abstinence is 0 if it’s defined as the opposite of the activity in question.
I just go by the standard dictionary definition. Are you suggesting we all subscribe to a new definition of abstinence? How would your new definition be helpful to people in evaluating sexual health choices?
It would be more intellectually honest of you to look at the success rate of an abstinent mindset. Let’s evaluate the purity ring balls, the anti-sex sex ed, at inculcating an abstinent mindset in adolescents. Why be so disingenuous with the definitions? What are y’all afraid of??
The failure of a person to maintain a “mindset” doesn’t impact the effectiveness of abstinence in preventing pregnancy. The persuasiveness of various educational and motivational approaches to foster embracing abstinence doesn’t impact the effectiveness of abstinence in preventing pregnancy. If you abstain from sex, you won’t become pregnant. No lack of adherence to abstinence can change the fact that abstaining from sex is the only way to 100% avoid pregnancy. What is there for us to be afraid of?