Ship of Fools: No pill, pull-out: where are we going with sex?

Thread: No pill, pull-out: where are we going with sex? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026436

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

In my youth getting condoms was a troublesome thing. You got them from a pharmacy, they were behind the prescription counter, they were expensive, and like swimming in your clothes. So back then, often people did what apparently people are doing again (but believe, not nearly so soon and not nearly so often). This time because the Pill messes with hormones and people don't want that, plus risks re clots, cancer, heart...

Couple of links: Rebelling against the pill: 'Pulling-Out' of conventional birth control.

No Pill? No Prob. Meet the Pullout Generation

What do you think of "modern" birth control? Mechanical? Hormonal? Vasectomy? Tubal ligation? Are we going through a change away from the interference with nature? I've wondered if porno "money shots" have made people more comfortable and expectant of extra-vaginal ejaculation, and then there's the rise of oral sex which avoid the prego risk entirely if that's the main activity, an activity which was much rarer in the past. So where are we at, and where are we headed?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Couple of links: Rebelling against the pill: 'Pulling-Out' of conventional birth control.

No Pill? No Prob. Meet the Pullout Generation

Sounds like a reporter trying to manufacture a new trend out of a couple anecdotes and a study that doesn't say what most of the reporting on it says it says. "The investigators found that 31 percent of the women used withdrawal as a form of birth control at least once" according to an article in U.S. News & World Report linked to in the New York Magazine article cited. This becomes simplified to a much more absolute "1 in 3 Young U.S. Women Uses 'Withdrawal' for Birth Control" in the title. Given that none of the articles provides a direct link to the abstract of the cited study and that mainstream journalism has a terrible record for presenting the findings of scientific or academic papers, I'm highly skeptical that this is a widespread trend.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Journalist's definition of "trend": two anecdotes and a deadline.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

There's a name for people who use pull out as a method of contraception ---

Parents!

Huia

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
There's a name for people who use pull out as a method of contraception ---

Parents!

Huia

Got it in one!

I have friends who have four children because of this - you'd think experience would help them to learn ...

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

The withdrawal method isn't particularly bad. It's 96% reliable, if used correctly. The problem is, as with any method of contraception, people cannot be relied upon to use it correctly.

But that does mean something for comparators. One should use either "if used correctly" or user data for all methods compared. One cannot say that condoms are 98% reliable if used correctly, then cite user data for the withdrawal method.

Here's a useful table of data on this.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The withdrawal method isn't particularly bad. It's 96% reliable, if used correctly. The problem is, as with any method of contraception, people cannot be relied upon to use it correctly.

But that does mean something for comparators. One should use either "if used correctly" or user data for all methods compared. One cannot say that condoms are 98% reliable if used correctly, then cite user data for the withdrawal method.

Here's a useful table of data on this.

That's 96% theoretically. Apart from the "nothing at all" option, actual use reduces effectiveness considerably, and the effectiveness of withdrawal is reduced almost seven-fold (96% to 73%).

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The withdrawal method isn't particularly bad. It's 96% reliable, if used correctly. The problem is, as with any method of contraception, people cannot be relied upon to use it correctly.

But that does mean something for comparators. One should use either "if used correctly" or user data for all methods compared. One cannot say that condoms are 98% reliable if used correctly, then cite user data for the withdrawal method.

Here's a useful table of data on this.

What there needs to be is a table of "chances of you getting it wrong when you have the raging horn".

Implants, medical interventions and medicines will always score much, much higher.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The withdrawal method isn't particularly bad. It's 96% reliable, if used correctly. The problem is, as with any method of contraception, people cannot be relied upon to use it correctly.

Oh rubbish!

The withdrawl method is 73% reliable under normal circumstances - and that's the value that matters (for both the withdrawl method and the fertility awareness method). And as a rule people don't fuck up with vasectomies or IUDs because they don't have to get it right "while they have a raging horn". Which is why vasectomies, IUDs, and tubal ligations have an effectiveness rate about equal to the theory.

[ 07. November 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Not just the raging horn, but six pints of Guinness tends to reduce the efficacy of withdrawal; although it may in the Shakespearean gloss, 'provoke the desire, but take away the performance', none the less, it can, at the supreme moment of crisis, make people think, oh what the fuck, live now, knit the bootees tomorrow. Again, as old Bill said, 'drink is an equivocator with lechery'.

[ 07. November 2013, 14:20: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think what gets some people is the supposed lack of "spontaneity" - in other words, these are the people who think that a woman taking the contraceptive pill makes sex somehow" calculating.

As for the hormones messing up how they feel about sex, there may be a little truth in this but not a lot: the old contraceptive pills, because of their action in duping the body into thinking it was alredy pregnant, were far more likely to cause the sort of hormonal imbalance likely to impede the female response than the modern low-dose pill.

In this, as in most discussions about contraception, the most reliable method - other than surgical or pharmacological intervention - is being ignored: the diaphragm or Dutch Cap.

The use of caps is straightforward, doesn't interrupt the sex act and doesn't interfere with the body's hormone balance. Used in conjunction with spermicide it can be 100% reliable.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

If you want to use the fertility awaress method, you need to fulfill three conditions:

The women has to have a very regular period.
You have to be able to count very well.
You have to love children very much.

(Dutch comedian Youp van 't Hek)

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I belong to a community on livejournal that is dedicated to things related to female sexuality, and I find it astonishing how many of the people who ask questions use withdrawal _along with_ another birth control method on a regular basis. Talk about ruining things, ugh. I just don't get it.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The withdrawl method is 73% reliable under normal circumstances - and that's the value that matters (for both the withdrawl method and the fertility awareness method).

Then that is the metric you have to use for all other methods. For instance, condoms are then only 85% reliable, because of exactly the same normal circumstances. (The main things going for condoms really are that they're cheap and easily-distributed, and that they block STDs.)

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In this, as in most discussions about contraception, the most reliable method - other than surgical or pharmacological intervention - is being ignored: the diaphragm or Dutch Cap.

Again, those suffer from not being used properly in practice, with the result that they're about as effective as condoms if the woman has not had children. If the woman has had children, then they're even worse (even if she had a Caesarean), because of the effect on the cervix of having a considerable weight on top of it for some months.

Short of surgery, IUDs are by far the most effective form of contraception in practice, followed closely by implants (Implanon/Nexplanon) and injections (Depo-Provera). This shouldn't be surprising, as these are the forms least reliant on user intervention.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I belong to a community on livejournal that is dedicated to things related to female sexuality, and I find it astonishing how many of the people who ask questions use withdrawal _along with_ another birth control method on a regular basis. Talk about ruining things, ugh. I just don't get it.

I'm confused. How does using withdrawal along with another birth control method ruin things? If there's no or little risk of pregnancy, what's ruined?

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

The article makes it sound like women in their late 20s and 30s who while not admitting to be planning a pregnancy are actually open to the possibility of an "oops".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jade Constable: I'm confused. How does using withdrawal along with another birth control method ruin things? If there's no or little risk of pregnancy, what's ruined?

If you're already using another birth control method and you're using withdrawal just to be sure, you're going to ruin your sex.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

LeRoc got it in one. Ugh. Yes, I have used withdrawal (TMI, I know) and it sucks.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

It should be noted that most of what's being described in New York Magazine's "Pullout Generation" article seems to be a combination of the rhythm method (note the three separate mentions of the period-tracker app) and condom use at certain times of the month. I'm not sure how much actual withdrawal is going on here.

I'm also not certain what to make of women who say they're leary of hormonal contraceptives and yet also make sure to keep Plan B on hand.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Nicolemr: I have used withdrawal (TMI, I know) and it sucks.

Sometimes quite literally.

(Couldn't resist)

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Personally I find that a much more satisfactory solution to the problem, Le Roc. But that really _is_ TMI.

[ 08. November 2013, 00:04: Message edited by: Nicolemr ]

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The withdrawal method isn't particularly bad. It's 96% reliable, if used correctly. The problem is, as with any method of contraception, people cannot be relied upon to use it correctly.

I can concur. I had a flatmate who had sex with 25 women during the time I knew him and the last one was a pregnancy. He was a strong advocate of the pull-out method. Oh yes.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The withdrawal method isn't particularly bad. It's 96% reliable, if used correctly. The problem is, as with any method of contraception, people cannot be relied upon to use it correctly.

I can concur. I had a flatmate who had sex with 25 women during the time I knew him and the last one was a pregnancy. He was a strong advocate of the pull-out method. Oh yes.

With a 96% non-pregnancy rate there he was obviously using that method correctly.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Used in conjunction with spermicide it can be 100% reliable.

'Can' is a very dangerous word. And there is not any evidenced based medical article that I could find to support it. It is not a bad technique. But no technique, no matter how practiced, is 100% to the best of my knowledge.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The article makes it sound like women in their late 20s and 30s who while not admitting to be planning a pregnancy are actually open to the possibility of an "oops".

Biologically, that would be about as surprising as their eating ice cream. There's only so much cultural pressure can do.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
With a 96% non-pregnancy rate there he was obviously using that method correctly.

I believe the standard figure used is the chance of pregnancy occurring in a relationship where that method is used for one year, rather than one night. I mean it's possible that this guy did date each of these 25 women for a year each... not using condoms in this situation, though, is spectacularly irresponsible given the risk of STIs.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

I used the Persona monitor which has a 94% rate. You use this to test urine samples for hormone levels throughout the cycle and it gives red or green signals for having sex. I used the successfully both as a contraceptive device and for planning my pregnancies. I do have 2 friends who got pregnant using Persona, one cheated and had sex on a 'red' day the other used it without waiting for it to learn her hormone cycle (honeymoon baby). I have other Christian friends who used Persona, and a Muslim couple bought theirs at the same time as me.
We were keen to look into natural fertility methods as we wanted to avoid artificial hormones for health reasons. If we hadn't used this I probably would have used a diaphragm.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

My most successful method was breast-feeding. The doctor was horrified when, at my 8 week check up after having my son I said I intended to rely on breast-feeding, and that we were aiming for a "golden gap" of 2 years, 10 weeks. We actually have a gap of 2 years 6 weeks.

But we wanted another baby and would have been relaxed about a much shorter gap; we were "birth-spacing" rather than "birth-avoiding." The fact that we got our ideal spacing using a no hassle whatsoever method was a bonus.

I know several women, all sensible and responsible, who fell pregnant while using condoms. That would include me, twice.

[ 08. November 2013, 10:58: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Jade Constable: I'm confused. How does using withdrawal along with another birth control method ruin things? If there's no or little risk of pregnancy, what's ruined?
If you're already using another birth control method and you're using withdrawal just to be sure, you're going to ruin your sex.

But that's nonsense. Some people prefer it like that, so it cannot be objectively true that it 'ruins' anything at all.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
LeRoc got it in one. Ugh. Yes, I have used withdrawal (TMI, I know) and it sucks.

It sucked for you personally, not for everyone who uses it.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The article makes it sound like women in their late 20s and 30s who while not admitting to be planning a pregnancy are actually open to the possibility of an "oops".
Biologically, that would be about as surprising as their eating ice cream. There's only so much cultural pressure can do.

So women in their 20s and 30s who do not want children don't exist?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The withdrawal method isn't particularly bad. It's 96% reliable, if used correctly. The problem is, as with any method of contraception, people cannot be relied upon to use it correctly.

I can concur. I had a flatmate who had sex with 25 women during the time I knew him and the last one was a pregnancy. He was a strong advocate of the pull-out method. Oh yes.
With a 96% non-pregnancy rate there he was obviously using that method correctly.

I'd suggest the other 24 women were using another method. Maybe all 25.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So women in their 20s and 30s who do not want children don't exist?

By what logic would that follow from my comment?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I think there's the same huge problem with "pull out," as there is with condoms -- it's in the hands of men.

It always amazes me when women are willing to allow a men to take charge of this issue. When contraception failsshe is the one who will decide whether or not to get an abortion, carry the baby in her body for nine months, keep or adopt, breast feed or bottle and most likely do the large majority of child care for the next 18 years.

I like implants and IUDs. They last for years and they're inserted in the cold, sober light of day; raging horns and alcohol cannot influence either person.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jade Constable: But that's nonsense. Some people prefer it like that, so it cannot be objectively true that it 'ruins' anything at all.

I'm sure that Nicolemr was giving a personal opinion, not an objective truth that would be valid for all.

Personally, I don't think that pull-out would really work for me either. It takes longer to pull a 747 out of a hangar than a Cessna two-seater, if you catch my drift.

[ 08. November 2013, 12:58: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Breast feeding does not prevent ovulation in all women, although it may make it less frequent. While I was breast feeding I ovulated every forty-five days instead of every twenty-eight.

Moo

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Breast feeding does not prevent ovulation in all women, although it may make it less frequent. While I was breast feeding I ovulated every forty-five days instead of every twenty-eight.

Moo

I have heard that does differ between women. Besides my doctor saying that approximately, I have a friend who figured she'd eventually get pregnant if she used nursing as her only protection, and she wanted to get pregnant. She finally had to wean her son from night feeding after a couple years of trying. She got pregnant the very next cycle after his last feed.

[ 08. November 2013, 13:31: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Jade Constable: But that's nonsense. Some people prefer it like that, so it cannot be objectively true that it 'ruins' anything at all.
I'm sure that Nicolemr was giving a personal opinion, not an objective truth that would be valid for all.

Personally, I don't think that pull-out would really work for me either. It takes longer to pull a 747 out of a hangar than a Cessna two-seater, if you catch my drift.

I'm trying to work out if that's a wildly exaggerated boast, or a wild self-underestimation. I shall try to keep a tension between the two, I think.

The other problem is, if they're leaking fuel.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Personally, I don't think that pull-out would really work for me either. It takes longer to pull a 747 out of a hangar than a Cessna two-seater, if you catch my drift.

Depends on the hangar, I'd think.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think there's the same huge problem with "pull out," as there is with condoms -- it's in the hands of men.

If it's in the hands of men, the chance of pregnancy is minimal.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Probably enough double entendre.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

This is an interesting piece about pregnancy ambivalence.

"The research team looked at questions relating to pregnancy ambivalence and contraceptive use, and their findings are quite startling. About 45 percent of respondents exhibited ambivalence towards pregnancy, and men were significantly more likely than women to be ambivalent (53 percent of men compared with 36 percent of women). People who expressed ambivalence about pregnancy were more likely to have used no birth control method in the past month."

Relying on a man who is more ambivalent about the possibility of pregnancy to pull out might not be a good bet of you really do not want to get pregnant.

quote:
Posted by Twilight:
I like implants and IUDs. They last for years and they're inserted in the cold, sober light of day; raging horns and alcohol cannot influence either person.

IUDs are becoming much more popular. They last 5 or 10 years depending on type and are very effective.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The article makes it sound like women in their late 20s and 30s who while not admitting to be planning a pregnancy are actually open to the possibility of an "oops".
Biologically, that would be about as surprising as their eating ice cream. There's only so much cultural pressure can do.
So women in their 20s and 30s who do not want children don't exist?

What I find interesting about IngoB's comment is the implication that there is cultural pressure on women to not have children, but that this dam is likely to break eventually under biological imperative. For all I know, there may very well be a biological imperative, I'm not in a position to comment on that. But as for the cultural pressure, from where I'm standing, it runs very much the other way. There is still an expectation that women will have children, and those who are known to have chosen not to are still being vilified or scorned for that choice (Julia Gillard and Sara Teather spring to mind as recent examples). Added to this, at every turn of your head, the glory and joy of parenthood is being shoved in your face, if you're a woman. Most of the media aimed at us seems to exist on a steady diet of either watching female public figures and speculating about their gestational status, or on features such as gushing interviews headlined with "****'s baby joy", or "Baby heals ***'s heart", complete, of course, with an expertly made up and exquisitely gowned new mum and predictably gorgeous baby.

However, all that ranting aside, the litmus test for me, in terms of the direction in which the 'cultural pressure' runs is this: If a woman has a baby, does anyone ask her to explain why she would do such a thing? Whereas if a woman decides not to have any babies...?

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

This is a load of shite.

Some of us couldn't get a decent man and are now barren through age.

No choice.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I find it utterly ridiculous that a woman's choice not to have children should be stigmatized in this day and age.

As for Coitus interruptus , I thought that was only something that happened in the days of the air-raids.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

It is stigmatized. Mainly by men.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

My experience is that it is vastly more stigmatised by women than men.

There seems to be a significant group of women who are in some way threatened by the thought of other women not having children. I don't know why - possibly they are afraid to accept that it is reasonable to make a different choice to the one they made.

Many women with children seem to be unable to grasp that the concept of not having children is distinct from that of losing the children that they have and love.

[ 08. November 2013, 20:24: Message edited by: Drifting Star ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
However, all that ranting aside, the litmus test for me, in terms of the direction in which the 'cultural pressure' runs is this: If a woman has a baby, does anyone ask her to explain why she would do such a thing? Whereas if a woman decides not to have any babies...?

Let me start by noting that I agree with everything you're saying. This is not disagreement. That said I think this is changing as I was asked by more than one person why I would ever want kids.

Mind, it's still much less annoying to be asked that why when one does have kids, because anyone who doesn't have an answer to that shouldn't have kids. While anyone who doesn't have kids might have no more answer than 'Why should I? I'm happy right now.' A perfectly good answer, but won't satisfy the kind of dweeb who would ask.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

I agree anoesis that the societal and familial pressure to have children is huge but in the US it is overshadowed by the detriment to life and livelihood that motherhood brings about.

Seriously damages careers, especially academic.
Increases chances of pay inequality.
Leaves mothers unsupported in caring for children.
No paid maternal leave.

Women are pressured to have kids but then offered little or no support and are penalized on all fronts for choosing that path. If you are working or middle class it's even worse. It's no wonder women are ambivalent and more and more are choosing to remain childless.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

You may be right. A lot of women fear absolute aloneness in the world and know that not having children guarantees that in old age.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
You may be right. A lot of women fear absolute aloneness in the world and know that not having children guarantees that in old age.

Having kids doesn't guarantee you'll be spared such loneliness, though.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

Well its a better bet than being a childless spinster.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

I was a LEM for many years and old people abandoned by their children were more unhappy than those who were always childless.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Jade Constable: But that's nonsense. Some people prefer it like that, so it cannot be objectively true that it 'ruins' anything at all.
I'm sure that Nicolemr was giving a personal opinion, not an objective truth that would be valid for all.

Personally, I don't think that pull-out would really work for me either. It takes longer to pull a 747 out of a hangar than a Cessna two-seater, if you catch my drift.

Sorry

Aspie literalism and insomnia together aren't very helpful. Sorry to you and nicolemr.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

How do you know how unhappy someone is?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jade Constable: Sorry Aspie literalism and insomnia together aren't very helpful. Sorry to you and nicolemr.

No problem. Hope you get over your insomnia.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Those are all examples of overt pressure. You also need to factor in situational norms. Specifically the fact that many women are choosing - not to remain childless, but to delay starting a family until they have got their career on the road.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
I agree anoesis that the societal and familial pressure to have children is huge but in the US it is overshadowed by the detriment to life and livelihood that motherhood brings about.

a. Seriously damages careers, especially academic.
b. Increases chances of pay inequality.
c. Leaves mothers unsupported in caring for children.
d. No paid maternal leave.

Women are pressured to have kids but then offered little or no support and are penalized on all fronts for choosing that path. If you are working or middle class it's even worse. It's no wonder women are ambivalent and more and more are choosing to remain childless.

Hey Art Dunce - your post caught my eye by mentioning academic careers.

a. I'm a man who has abandonned a lectureship to look after his kids.
b. My wife earned say 50% more than me before I gave up, and a realistic guess based on the kind of jobs I could get now would make that more like 100-200%.
c. She's rarely home in the week, and if we really want to explore 'unsupported', if she kicks me/us out I'm properly f*cked!
d. She took 9 paid months off on maternity (this is UK), but I think I was given 2 weeks.

So...maybe it might be more correct to say that child-rearing can hit *parents*...not just mothers...

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

While you might as an individual male be impacted by the choice to stay home (which is a whole other kettle of fish) the research shows that women in academia face greater impediments then men.

According to the reports on this study " the story favors men in academe, said Goulden. “Certainly our most important finding has been that family negatively affects women’s, but not men’s, early academic careers. Furthermore, academic women who advance through the faculty ranks have historically paid a considerable price for doing so, in the form of much lower rates of family formation, fertility, and higher rates of family dissolution.” For men, however, the pattern has been either neutral or even net-positive.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
While you might as an individual male be impacted by the choice to stay home (which is a whole other kettle of fish) the research shows that women in academia face greater impediments then men.

According to the reports on this study " the story favors men in academe, said Goulden. “Certainly our most important finding has been that family negatively affects women’s, but not men’s, early academic careers. Furthermore, academic women who advance through the faculty ranks have historically paid a considerable price for doing so, in the form of much lower rates of family formation, fertility, and higher rates of family dissolution.” For men, however, the pattern has been either neutral or even net-positive.

That reference you linked to doesn't mention whether that disparity is equally visible in respect of men that have made the career break that is still the normal expectation for women. I think Mark's point was that it is surely this latter factor that is the cause - if men take the break the results may look similar for them too.

It's possible the work cited looks at this but I can't see it in the summary.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

I think the rise of stay at home fathers is a great thing but it is still relatively rare, so maybe if the trend continues attitudes will adjust and biases become lessened but that's not where we are currently. There is still a presumption when looking at candidates that are women of child bearing age or mothers that it is they who will be the one who sacrifices and it makes employers wary. And most households surveys show that women are still disproportionately saddled with household and child rearing chores. There have also been numerous studies where identical resumes are sent to prospective employers, one with a male name and one with a woman's name, and the women consistently get fewer responses on the exact same resume. Women are penalized just for assumptions based on the fact of being female and not because of a particular choice they have made. Until men can gestate and sufficiently lactate there is always an additional burden on women in family forming that is undeniable and discrimination against pregnant women is not a thing of the past. So while I respect that his individual choice has consequences for him, (and said as much) it has little to do at this point with the larger and well documented issues around discrimination in the US that I was referencing.

[ 08. November 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: art dunce ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I was a LEM for many years and old people abandoned by their children were more unhappy than those who were always childless.

Or maybe they just had their unhappiness in a more intense burst at the moment of abandonment rather than stretched out throughout their lives.

I would expect a big difference between those who chose not to have children and those who were unable to have children.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I have never wanted children, never, not from a very young age. I'm interested in the idea of pressure to have children, I'm not quite sure what it means.

Certainly, I can't believe that anyone would take any notice of silly magazine or newspaper articles. I suppose there were some assumptions by some family members but I don't really recall much being said to me. Macarius & I did consider family feelings but at the end of the day, ours were more important.

A number of my contemporaries (I'm in my mid-late fifties) felt the same.

So what is this pressure exactly? Whence cometh it? Am I naive?

M.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I have never wanted children, never, not from a very young age. I'm interested in the idea of pressure to have children, I'm not quite sure what it means.

Certainly, I can't believe that anyone would take any notice of silly magazine or newspaper articles. I suppose there were some assumptions by some family members but I don't really recall much being said to me. Macarius & I did consider family feelings but at the end of the day, ours were more important.

A number of my contemporaries (I'm in my mid-late fifties) felt the same.

So what is this pressure exactly? Whence cometh it? Am I naive?

M.

With the best will in the world, I think perhaps you are being a bit naive. I posted about 'cultural pressure', which is quite a different thing from direct pressure being brought to bear upon one from, say, family members. It is a lot more of an undercurrent which runs through the social discourse, which most people (myself included) sort of absorb without noticing - and therefore without critiquing.

As to taking notice of silly magazine articles, again, the effect is more subtle than my viewing a magazine cover and saying 'Why look, Natalie Portman is having a baby. Perhaps I should have one too!' Rather, it is that the sheer volume of these articles, and the absence of articles about anything much else*, reinforce in the collective mind that a.) Women's primary interests are babies and family - and reading about them, and b.) That the achievements in other areas of the women who feature in these articles - world-class sportswomen, musicians and singers, actors, businesswomen, all of these are secondary to and ultimately less rewarding than the experience of having harboured a foetus for a set number of months.

If you have managed to see through this, maintain your own line, and live your life in the way that seems right to you, rather than mindlessly following the crowd, that is excellent, but at present I believe the 'cultural pressure' to have children still remains, although it is probably better described by art dunce as a presumption or an expectation, rather than a pressure.

In fact, art dunce has done a much better job of summing up the circular effect of these cultural expectations than I have, and in just two sentences:

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
There is still a presumption when looking at candidates that are women of child bearing age or mothers that it is they who will be the one who sacrifices and it makes employers wary. [snip]

Women are penalized just for assumptions based on the fact of being female and not because of a particular choice they have made.

While there continues to be an expectation that women's primary interest is in raising children, and that they will be primarily responsible for raising any children that result from a relationship, the world around them is skewed in such a way as to make this more likely to continue to happen - if women are paid less than a male colleague or have poorer conditions because the employer regards them as more of a risk or as only a temporary prospect, then it is simply good financial sense for women to be the ones to 'take time out' to raise children, should they appear - which further perpetuates the idea that this is what women are really interested in, and further undermines other prospects.

*except speculation on upcoming celebrity divorces, I suppose. They probably run a close second.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I think the rise of stay at home fathers is a great thing but it is still relatively rare, so maybe if the trend continues attitudes will adjust and biases become lessened but that's not where we are currently. There is still a presumption when looking at candidates that are women of child bearing age or mothers that it is they who will be the one who sacrifices and it makes employers wary. And most households surveys show that women are still disproportionately saddled with household and child rearing chores. There have also been numerous studies where identical resumes are sent to prospective employers, one with a male name and one with a woman's name, and the women consistently get fewer responses on the exact same resume. Women are penalized just for assumptions based on the fact of being female and not because of a particular choice they have made. Until men can gestate and sufficiently lactate there is always an additional burden on women in family forming that is undeniable and discrimination against pregnant women is not a thing of the past. So while I respect that his individual choice has consequences for him, (and said as much) it has little to do at this point with the larger and well documented issues around discrimination in the US that I was referencing.

Oh - I agree with pretty much all of that. Whilst there are probably differences and nuances due to the way things are right now in different countries, the first- and second-order effects are much as you outline in most western countries.

The point I was making is the smaller one, that it's the taking of the time out to do all that which overwhelms the consequences - so much that it is difficult to see beyond it.

My only real point of departure would be that I don't think equality will come with men gestating and lactating (yes, I know there are projects looking at this). Rather, it is more likely to come with the development of ex-vivo gestation, which I have seen reckoned to be about 30 years away (but realistically give it say 50). That will genuinely put women on the same footing as men, i.e. providing one of the two types of gametes. Choices for child-rearing subsequently can then be entirely by choice. I'm sure it will cause quite an upset in some quarters, much as there is a bit of crisis of masculinity at present, but we'll get over it.

Which sort-of brings us full circle to the OP. Effectively, I think the development of these variably fallible forms of contraception are pointing the way forward to a future where sex can be entirely uncoupled from reproduction. I think most people would probably opt for an early sterilization programme, safe in the knowledge that if they did want to raise a family at some point, they could make use of their "deposit account" at the sperm or egg bank.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Breast feeding does not prevent ovulation in all women, although it may make it less frequent. While I was breast feeding I ovulated every forty-five days instead of every twenty-eight.

Moo

years ago I worked for a lady who had eight children. she always said that she had heard that you couldn't get pregnant if you were nursing. she went to say that she proved that wasn't so. LOL

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Originally posted by Anoesis:

quote:
With the best will in the world, I think perhaps you are being a bit naive.

Thank you for your well-thought out response (that sounds sarky, but it's genuine). Personally, I don't think I'm particularly sorted so much as unobservant.

I can't help but think things have gone backwards over the last generation or so. When I was a teenager, in the '70's, I don't think any of us would have given a fig what a celebrity did, apart from the general interest (perhaps I had an unusual group of friends?) and this extended to the overall feeling in society. There were not as many opportunities to get bombarded with messages, of whatever sort, of course.

I find it depressing that everything seems to have become more polarised and gendered over the last 30 or 40 years. Certainly, I have found this comparing dealing with/buying presents for great-nieces and nephews now with doing the same for nieces and nephews 30 years ago.

Having said all that, I was in a meeting last week with the owner/MD of a small engineering manufacturing company who was complaining of the difficulties caused by the fact that his men (and they are nearly all men) on the shopfloor now take time off to look after their children when they are ill, rather than their wives doing so. So perhaps it's not all bad.

I'm sorry, this is rather off-topic.

M.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
.... a future where sex can be entirely uncoupled from reproduction. I think most people would probably opt for an early sterilization programme, safe in the knowledge that if they did want to raise a family at some point, they could make use of their "deposit account" at the sperm or egg bank.

TTM that makes a lot of sense as a futurist vision for the continuation of humankind on planet Earth .
I mean let's face it, sex is something most of us like to enjoy with total free abandonment, without the anxiety of cloning ourselves . Whereas regulating our numbers to a sustainable level is something that requires a rather more sound logic.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Interesting no-one is bothered about STIs (sexually transmitted infections) in this brave new world. And no mention of condoms either, which is pretty much the only contraceptive with any prophylactic effect.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Indeed so CK .
It must be nearly 30 years ago when we were all warned that AIDS would killing million upon million if the we did not dramatically curtail our promiscuity .

During that 30 years I would say that promiscuity has become ever more acceptable, particularly among the previously more reliably monogamous heterosexual groups.

I'm not trying to say whether it's right or wrong , it's just seems to be a fact .

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

quote:
posted by M.
I have never wanted children, never, not from a very young age. I'm interested in the idea of pressure to have children, I'm not quite sure what it means.

In my case the pressure was a from a chap I was seeing, who could not comprehend that a woman might not be interested in having children. He could understand a "not now" but assumed that it must be something all women wanted.

The emotional pressure to conform to this was horrendous. I couldn't be a proper Christian (TM), Christian relationship/marriage was about having children (after all that's what it says in the BCP - for children: love, companionship, mutual support are only secondary), I was unnatural for not wanting children...

I was subjected to a what felt like a constant stream of being told every time a baby cried that it was crying for me, and didn't I want to go & comfort/cuddle/do whatever one does in that scenario (no); trying to persuade me his niece wanted me to change her nappy (b****cks); a baby is crying, doesn't it make you feel broody(no); but you would make a wonderful mother (trust me, I wouldn't)... etc etc. Quite frankly it felt like emotional manipulation at the least, and emotional abuse at the worst.

Reader, I sure as hell broke up with him. And it screwed up how I reacted to and interacted with children and infants for years afterwards. Even to the point of being frightened of what sort of relationship I was going to be able to have with my nephew (who's just over a year old).

As I'm single, there isn't pressure to have kids in that way, but I am still deeply scarred by that pressure.

[ 10. November 2013, 12:53: Message edited by: kingsfold ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

Which sort-of brings us full circle to the OP. Effectively, I think the development of these variably fallible forms of contraception are pointing the way forward to a future where sex can be entirely uncoupled from reproduction. I think most people would probably opt for an early sterilization programme, safe in the knowledge that if they did want to raise a family at some point, they could make use of their "deposit account" at the sperm or egg bank.

I'm old enough to remember (around the mid-1960's) when the pill became readily available. We all thought this would give women total reproductive control and there would never again be a baby born to a poor single mother. Instead the "illegitimacy" rate went from about 5% to almost 50% today. There were lots of reasons for the change, but one thing that seemed to happen was that, in very many cases, well off, well educated women used the pill while, in very many cases, poor, uneducated women didn't.

I think it might prove to be a similar situation in your projected future where having children is delayed, perhaps forever, by many of the smartest couples who are in the best position to raise children. All this results in an imbalance in the population where the intelligence and income level of the average person keeps getting lower.

Sometimes I think the truest most frightening film I've seen recently is the comedy, "Idiocracy."

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Whilst I do think things are heading in the direction outlined in my earlier post, I tried to avoid personal comments, or indeed any comment on consequences. It wasn't intended to be an "I would love to see this happen" type post. But I'm sure the Law of Unexpected Consequences is waiting ready to bite us in the backside, as always.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Interesting no-one is bothered about STIs (sexually transmitted infections) in this brave new world. And no mention of condoms either, which is pretty much the only contraceptive with any prophylactic effect.

How many of us are actively promiscuous or sleeping with someone we suspect of promiscuity?

And now that I've read some more, to rolyn's point, I've read in several places that promiscuity is actually less common now than it was in the 90s.

[ 10. November 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

That's taking a comment about STIs far more personally than it was meant, particularly when the best UK estimate from 2012 was 7-9% of 16-24 year olds with chlamydia and increasing rates of genital herpes, genital warts, HIV and syphilis. Gonorrhoea is not only increasing, but so is anti-biotic resistant gonorrhoea.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

References from the HPA STI report 2012

quote:
Key points
In 2012, there were approximately 450,000 diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) made in England.
The impact of STIs remains greatest in young heterosexuals under the age of 25 years and in MSM.
The most commonly diagnosed STI was chlamydia, with 206,912 diagnoses made in 2012.
The number of new diagnoses of gonorrhoea increased by 21% overall.<snip>

From the summary of that report, there was an increase in the number of diagnoses by about 5% that might reflect sexual behaviour, but also better detection and recording. But there was no suggestion of people having fewer partners or less unsafe sex. The query was whether the figures show an increase or not.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That's taking a comment about STIs far more personally than it was meant, particularly when the best UK estimate from 2012 was 7-9% of 16-24 year olds with chlamydia and increasing rates of genital herpes, genital warts, HIV and syphilis. Gonorrhoea is not only increasing, but so is anti-biotic resistant gonorrhoea.

My intent wasn't to take things personally, more commenting on how the kinds of people that post here may lean away from people who are promiscuous, being older, religious, etc.

I am keenly aware that this is not true for all of us, but for most shippies I imagine condoms just aren't relevant.

Socially speaking, chlamydia doesn't show symptoms in most people, and as such is frequently ignored. Likewise with gonorrhea. Herpes is easily manageable. Syphilis may be rising, but is still pretty rare, I think. HIV has been around enough that people are aware of it and as Neil Gaiman once wrote (more or less) it's just another weapon in Venus's arsenal, for better and worse. It's also much more manageable now if you have coverage.

Which isn't to say that these things aren't serious, but for children who tend to be short-sighted (and practically for many adults I'd bet) it's not the kind of thing that garners much attention.

Also, the discussion on condoms is so straightforward and (I think) assumed these days that it's common sense. If you're going to sleep around, use a condom. There isn't much else to say.

[ 10. November 2013, 16:48: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I'm not sure that "everyone knows" to use a condom. STIs are not seen as a risk with unprotected sex in the same way that pregnancy is seen as a risk, and that's reflected in the opening post here. STIs are not that rare in young people.

The comments about the "raging horn" equally apply to the use of condoms as it does to other attempts at contraception.

eta - surely we're not only thinking of ourselves in this, surely we think of the way other, particularly young people, possibly our children, possibly our grandchildren, possibly potential partners - are acting in their sex lives?

[ 10. November 2013, 18:50: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

My teens' school sex ed included lurid and revolting photos of infected genitalia. (According to them - I didn't see the photos.) I know they're very aware of STIs.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

I intend to tell my kids pretty much what was told me to me, and as a friend said his dad said unto him (more or less):

It's really wiser to refrain from sex unless you're willing to raise a child with your partner. But if you choose not to take that advice, please make sure you [or your partner] use a condom, birth control, etc.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

You also need to tell them that it's not just their partner they need to worry about, but all the people their partner has had intimate contact with, and all those peoples' partners, and ... not just penetrative sex, but foreplay and oral sex too, because those also carry the risk of transmission of STIs - any skin to skin contact. It's all very well being a virgin, but if your partner has slept with one person previously who had 20 partners, there is a definite risk of STIs.

Recommendation is that people should get annual sexual health check ups if they are sexually active, and three monthly if they're changing partners regularly and/or indulging in unprotected sex.

NorthEastQuine - mm - yes, I've taught STIs like that too. Got told I was trying to put them off sex, said no, was hoping they'd have the sense to protect themselves.

[ 10. November 2013, 21:51: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That's taking a comment about STIs far more personally than it was meant, particularly when the best UK estimate from 2012 was 7-9% of 16-24 year olds with chlamydia and increasing rates of genital herpes, genital warts, HIV and syphilis. Gonorrhoea is not only increasing, but so is anti-biotic resistant gonorrhoea.

Which is VERY scary...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0