I love you Vagina pagina. Thanks for spreading accurate info!

[metalkprtty1day.livejournal.com]

I'm basically just here to vent right now.

I clicked this random link from msn where you take a bunch of online quizzes about sex/sexuality. I'm bored...and vagpag has made me addicted to fun stuff like talking about sexual health....plus you can win $250 dollars! Sweet.

Here's the thing though... while most of the info was accurate, there were some things on there that made me angry. First, they used the work "clean" to mean STI-free. I realize this is (unfortunately) still common usage....but I really think a sexual health quiz should know better.

One question (true or false), A woman can't get pregnant on her period. I said false...although I know it is much less likely. The quiz said I was correct, but then proceeded to say, a woman can get pregnant on ANY day of her cycle. Sperm can live for 5 days, yadda, yadda, yadda.......I realize that most people don't chart their cycles, but many do...and this is a valid form of birth control.

Another question said (true or false) "When practiced correctly, withdrawal can be an effective form of birth control." I said...TRUE! Alas, they told me I was wrong. Apparently, when practiced correctly, 1 in 5 women may become pregnant in a year......I'm sorry, what???? Where did you get that information! Maybe that's true if withdrawal is being used not correctly at all...but that wasn't the question that was asked.

It's not like i think you should just run around saying "withdrawal works for everyone!" or "don't worry, you can't get pregnant for a lot of your cycle!" Obviously, both these methods require some extra effort, and trust between partners.......but come on! Why spead lies! I saw a "myth versus reality" thing about sex the other day that made me angry too.

Basically, it just reminded me how much I love you guys.

You're all awesome, keep up the good work.

Comments

[ibringtherage.livejournal.com]

I'm currently taking a Human Sexual Behavior course at my university and was taught at the beginning of the semester that the withdrawal method isn't reliable because there is just barely enough sperm in pre-ejaculate (something like 20 million, I believe) to get a woman pregnant.

But, I agree with you on most of this. It drives me crazy that they still tell girls that they can get pregnant on any day of their cycle, because that is definitely false.

[jocelina.livejournal.com]

Actually pre-ejaculatory fluid itself does not contain any sperm. If a man has recently ejaculated and hasn't urinated, there may be sperm lingering in his urethra that can be picked up and carried along by pre-ejaculatory fluid later. That's why part of practicing withdrawal correctly is clearing the urethra of potential sperm by urinating between ejaculations.

You can check out rockstarbob's awesome post about withdrawal (http://community.livejournal.com/vaginapagina/11973497.html) if you're interested in learning more. :)

[leads-to-sex.livejournal.com]

Thanks for linking to that post! I'll definitely be reading it. I've been using the "withdrawal method" (as ineffective as I realize it can be) for nearly 7 years now (since I first started having sex) and I've still not gotten pregnant...

[princess-kessie.livejournal.com]

Um, actually a female CAN get pregnant on ANY day of her cycle. There are a number (however small) who actually ovulate during/just before/just after their period, and some women ovulate more than once during their monthly cycle - putting them in the 'super-fertile' category. Many women ovulate at times other than exactly halfway through their cycle, meaning it can happen several days either side of the midway point. This means a woman can actually be fertile on a lot of the days in her cycle. And charting isn't failsafe. Some women have no discernible changes when they ovulate. Some women have changes and they don't ovulate (I get ovulation changes, including eggwhite cervical mucous, increased basal temperature and mittelschmertz - ovulation pain - but I never release an egg. I simply get cysts every month and no egg.) so the tracking isn't 100%.

Sure, it (getting pregnant on days such as during your period) is highly unlikely for the vast majority of the female population, but yes, it CAN (and does) happen.

And as for there being sperm in pre-ejaculate - some men (my husband included) produce sperm before ejaculation and have been tested as positive to sperm in pre-ejaculate. Again, a very small proportion, but it does happen. And it only takes ONE (albeit strong and determined) sperm to fertilise an egg...

[metalkprtty1day.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know some women definately have irregular ovulation patterns, but the kinds of things you're describing are the exception, and certainly not the rule. So telling women, you can ABSOLUTELY get pregnant at any time, is misleading. I know in my own experience this point was really stressed in sex-ed when I was in school. Also, if a woman ovulated just a few days before her period, she most likely still wouldn't get pregnant, because a fertilized zygote typically needs 10 days to implant in the walls of the uterus. So this would be a fertility issue that would probably need medical attention.

Again, I know there are exceptions, but stressing a point that is not true for most women just gives a bad name to a method of birth control that works very well for many, many people. A lot of people aren't comfortable with hormonal/barrier methods for whatever reason, and I think that it would be helpful for those people to know that there may be another option. Like any other form of birth control, it's not going work for everyone, but I just get a little perturbed when the people who do choose FAM or withdrawal are treated like they are irresponsible, or like they are going to be having a baby within a few months.

[metalkprtty1day.livejournal.com]

Also, I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that if a woman ovulates more than once per cycle it will always be within 24 hours of the first ovulation. The reason being that after ovulation, the level of progesterone in your body spikes, shutting down the further maturation of any more eggs in the ovaries. I thought multiple ovulation only occured when 2 (or very rarely more) eggs reached the Estrogen threshhold at roughly the same time, allowing a second ovulation before atresia caused the other maturing eggs to disintegrate.

[princess-kessie.livejournal.com]

A rare minority of women can have multiple estrogen spikes during a single cycle - releasing one or more eggs at various times during the cycle. The reproductive specialist I went to while undertaking fertility treatments told me of a situation he had had where one of his patients underwent follicle stimulation therapy, and ultrasound showed several 'ripe' follicles and several underdeveloped follicles. She had some eggs harvested at this time, but seemingly had an additional spike in her estrogen (naturally produced) and ovulated naturally about a week later, and fell pregnant naturally *after* having several eggs removed and fertilised in vitro ready for transfer back to her. They transferred three embryos, and she ended up pregnant with five fraternal children - meaning she had released an additional two eggs, which were fertilised the normal way...sure, this is an exceptional circumstance, and there's nothing to say it wouldn't have happened if her ovaries hadn't been artificially stimulated in the first place - but he talked about it as if it wasn't the first time he had come across it. (My specialist tended to talk a lot...)

I'm also thinking about those rare women who have incredibly short cycles (1-3 weeks), who do not actually menstruate with each cycle, but who *do* ovulate within each cycle. Rare - extremely - but they *do* exist.

While I entirely agree that the incidence of women falling pregnant at other times other than the latter half of the cycle is rare, and the probability of falling pregnant from pre-ejaculate is also very low (which I also said in my initial comment) sweeping it under the carpet and telling girls that "it'll never happen" is wrong. Every woman needs to know what the possibilities are, so she can make a truly informed choice as to what contraception method she will then choose - and then she can't turn around *if* she falls pregnant and say - "well, no-one told me I could fall pregnant during my period", or " They told me that pre-cum doesn't have any sperm, so I couldn't get pregnant".

On another mis-information note, I was watching Knocked Up last night - and while I know it is a very tongue-in-cheek movie, there will be a *lot* of young people who have watched it/will watch it, and take what is said for gospel. The line from Jason to Ben about "if the girl's on top, she can't get pregnant - force of gravity and all that. What goes up must come down..." - how many couples/hook-ups are now going to rely on the girl-on-top position as their sole means of preventing a pregnancy? "It was in a movie - it must be true!" As an informed adult, I can appreciate the humour, but as a young teen, I *might* have actually believed this line, since it seems, on the surface, almost logical.

Sometimes I think we as a population have no chance in stopping unwanted pregnancies because of the utter plethora of mis-information out there. VP is an amazing resource, but everyone needs to know the whole truth about the possibilities, not just the probabilities, associated with pregnancy and infection/disease, and prevention of both. They need to know what the possibilities are so they can choose to protect themselves. If they think there is no risk, they will not take the appropriate measures, and the outcome could be devastating.

[metalkprtty1day.livejournal.com]

Haha...I think we have the same point, but from opposite angles. :P

I definitely agree that people need to have accurate ideas about what the risks involved are in any sort of contraception thing. And I don't think things should swept under the rug (as in can't/ won't happen)

The problem I had with this specific "sexual health" quiz was that it was blatantly speading misinformation. It said that when used "properly" 1 in 5 women may become pregnant in a year. Meaning 80 out of 100. Considering that statistics state that only 85 or 100 women using no contraception at all will get pregnant in one year, this seems like a very innacurrate statistic. In fact, recent studies suggest that with perfect use, withdrawal is typically 94% effective. That's better than spermidcide, and I believe in diaphragms and cervical caps.

In any case, I think we agree....accurate information is good. :P Assumptions when it comes to sexual health is bad. :)

[metalkprtty1day.livejournal.com]

Assumptions *are* bad........too tired for grammar tonight. :P

[princess-kessie.livejournal.com]

Agreed :)

[frolicnaked.livejournal.com]

It said that when used "properly" 1 in 5 women may become pregnant in a year. Meaning 80 out of 100.

1 in 5 is 20 out of 100, yes. In other words, it looks like this quiz was giving something like the typical use rate for withdrawal while saying these were the stats "when practiced correctly." And given that places like Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/the-pill.htm) define typical use as "not consistent or always correct," that doesn't seem like a straightforward way of delivering complete information.

[metalkprtty1day.livejournal.com]

haha.....wow...too tired for math too, apparently......yeah....80% efficacy is certainly better than 85% failure rate of no contraception. However I stil say the stat is unaccurate. :P

[frolicnaked.livejournal.com]

'Sokay. I'm apparently too tired for proper HTML tags.

And yeah, I don't think the way the stat was presented was complete or accurate. The emphasis on "used correctly" in the wording of the question makes me think they're talking about when it's used correctly every time -- PP's definition of perfect use, and the stat for that is 94%.

I think it would have been totally fine to say something like, "Used perfectly, withdrawal is 94% effective, though it can be very difficult for some couples to achieve this rate. A better 'real-life estimate' is the typical use effectiveness of 80%" or whatever. I'm fine acknowledging the facts for what they are, but that happens when people are given accurate and complete information, which it doesn't sound like this quiz did.

And as a former FAM practicer, I keep typing up and erasing a comment -- before posting -- on the "pregnant on your period" one. Again, while it's definitely possible for women to get pregnant from sex on their period, generally, ovulation itself doesn't happen until at least a few days afterward. While period sex certainly isn't risk free for anyone (and may actually pose a substantial risk for someone who ovulates soon after her period), I think it's kind of disingenuous of them to present information in such a way to make it seem like the risk of pregnancy is equally likely at all points during the cycle, when, for most women, this isn't the case.

That, to me, is the difference between giving complete and accurate information and using scare tactics. And while I'm not in favor of dismissing or downplaying a risk that is present, I'm also not in favor of twisting information the other way.

But then, none of this disagrees with you in the slightest, so you're probably finding me repetitive about now. ;)

[herloved-beauty.livejournal.com]

I agree with that about "knocked up", in fact there was a post in here about a week ago from a gal who asked "can you get pregnant from girl on top?" That's a ludicrous line, and though I don't think I would've believed it, educated or not, I'm glad I'm one of few taking the time to educate myself on my body, because very few teenagers are. We are currently under the rule of "abstinence only education", so I can just imagine how much worse it's going to get before it gets better.

[jpress.livejournal.com]

Your husband had mobile sperm in his precum? How much?

While you do only need one sperm to get you pregnant it takes lots of other sperm to push that sperm along and to create a path.

[princess-kessie.livejournal.com]

I forget the numbers (it *was* 9 years ago) but the specialist said it was a "viable sample with sufficient motility" - enough to do the deed, as it were.

I found it totally amazing, myself, after many years of believing there were no sperm in pre-ejaculate, my hubby blew that belief right out of the water. :)

[jpress.livejournal.com]

I'll take your expierience with a grain of salt. I'll keep track of research.

[princess-kessie.livejournal.com]

*shrugs* Meh. Just calling it as I see it. Research and statistics can be twisted to say whatever the researcher/statistician/government pushing abstinence-only wants them to say. I prefer real-time experiences for my facts.

[jpress.livejournal.com]

That's cool. A lot of people have no sperm in their precum. so I guess there's no fact when it comes to this.