Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    We've been using condoms since -- 1982? 1983?  when I expelled my
    IUD.  At first I was going to go get a new one, but the relief of
    not having severe cramps [and this is severe by the standards of
    someone who has to take Midol for three days in an average month!]
    changed my mind. We tried the diaphragm and the sponge, but Neil
    didn't like either one; the diaphragm felt like it was in the road
    and the spermicidal creams made both of us itch.
    
    We don't need extreme reliability; while we don't plan to have
    another child in the near future, an unexpected pregnancy wouldn't
    be a disaster or a trauma, either, so the slightly greater risk of
    failure with the condom isn't an issue for us.  
    
    All in all, we find the condom produces the best combination of
    effectiveness, comfort for both of us, and lack of side effects.
    Getting it into place can be a bit intrusive the first few times
    you use it, but after a few times it becomes part of the, er,
    routine. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    
    I am currently on the pill, but when I need a backup (taking medication
    that reduces the effectiveness of the pill) I usually use a sponge.
    The only problem I have had with it is the fact that a few times
    it has popped out.  This has also happened with a couple of friends
    that have used it.  Also sometimes they are very difficult to remove.
    I would not reccommend them as the only source of birth control,
    but used with a condom they seem to be safe enough.

    I used the sponge for a short while.  It tended to pop out, or flip
    over, and generally wound up giving me yeast infections (its
    polyurethane foam construction tends to harbor and hurture the little
    buggers, and the fact that you can leave it in 24 hours doesn't
    help any, either).  
    
    I'd say, if you don't want to take the pill, how about the mini-pill.
    97% effective, lower dosages than the regular pill, less risk, and
    as easy to use.  If you still don't want to do that, I'd say try
    the condom, perhaps in conjunction with spermicide.
    
    -Jody

We've been using condoms and gel since about 1980 when my prescription
for the pill ran out.  My history is such that I'm no longer a good
candidate for the pill.  

I don't have any complaints and don't think my husband does either.
You can really have some fun condom shopping.  They come in lots
of fun colors.  "Let's see how you look in blue, dear" you say in 
your sultry voice...

The only thing that gripes me is that the manufacturors gotta be
nuts if they really think those raised ribs do much for a woman.

I did try the spermicidal suppositories a couple times (don't know
if they even make them anymore) but found them extremely runny.

    
    
    And it's always fun to hold up a package and call out to
    your husband "What size do you need, dear?  The extra large?"
    
    Deb  ;-)
    
    

    Or, if he's been a jerk lately, ". . .extra small?"
    
    Steve
    

    Do they really come in different sizes?
    

    
    	I use red and green ones at Christmas......
    
    	The condom *boxes* come in differenet sizes like a 3 pack,
    	six pack.....  The condoms are one size fits all.
    
    	Guy Novello
    	

This is getting off the track, but I can't resist telling a story.

I was in line at a grocery store behind a couple of "men" who were
perhaps 16 or so.  They were buying condoms and looking very nervous
about it.  They fumbled with their money, kind of tossed it at the
female checkout clerk, looked down at the counter a lot. etc..
I was real tempted to ask, "Are you sure you have the right size?"
but for some reason I resisted.

    just a personal testimony about the pill, my younger sister was
    on it and at a checkup she was told that she has a rare liver
    dysfunction which has prevously been associated with the pill.
    it may be rare but when it happens to someone you love, it
    puts a whole new light on the subject.
               pete

    I don't if your married or not, or have children, or planning to.
    After our second child was born in 72, my husband had a vasectomy.
    This is the best thing that was ever invented.

    The ones made out of "natural" substances (naturalam, fourex) tend
    to be larger than the ones made out of latex.
    
    -Jody
    

    re .13:
    
    Only because they don't stretch. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I rather like the ribbed ones, myself . . . 
    
    --bonnie

    I had good luck with a diaphragm.  I have heard other women
    say that it "gets in the way" but I and my partner(s) never
    noticed mine--it may simply depend on a particular woman's
    shape and size.  Used *every* time, with a spermicidal jelly
    or cream, it is nearly as effective as the pill.  As with a
    condom, inserting it can be part of the "routine." 

    -- Linda

    When I was first married I went to a woman gyn who had been
    in practice for over thirty years. (She was the doctor that
    cooperated with Margaret Sanger to test the Mass laws against
    selling birth control devices to married couples.)
    
    She told me that most modern doctors do not know how to fit
    a diaphragm properly since they were no longer being used
    as much. She said that if either partner notices the diaphragm
    then it is the wrong size. 
    
    Bonnie

    RE: all
               While I was married, we had two children, and decided
    not to have any more so we (as you are) went in search of the 
    best and easiest method. Since my ex is a nurse I of course let
    her decide the best method. Now you must understand while we were
    married, I could "look" at her hard and she would get pregnant,
    so we needed the best medical science had to offer. The pill was
    out because of the side effects. I said no to the vas. because a
    friend told me that it felt like a horse kicked you there so I said
    no to that. Well I dont want to go thru them all but we really looked
    at all of them very hard. We ended up deciding on the IUD, and after
    the first 2 months it looked to be the best of all worlds until
    one day she told me that it happened. I had beat the odds. (80 to
    90%) nuts!!! Well my advice is to stay away from the IUD. It gives
    you a false since of security.  :^)
    
    PS: For those of you that wonder, My youngest son was a great addition
    to the family. I would not have traded him for the world!
    
    
    Dave 
    

    In 1978, Consumer Reports did a report on condoms - I think it was
    the August issue.  Judging from a notice a few months ago, they
    are doing another one now.  However, I'd highly recommend looking
    up the 1978 report if you want some good information about
    condoms, and their tests and observations.  I note that the brand they
    rated best is still available today (Trojan Golden-Enz). 
    
    The article also offers hints on their use, which is handy since
    improper use can lead to failure.
    
    CR recommended only latex condoms, saying that those made from other
    materials were unreliable.
    
    				Steve

    
    No one has mentioned the cervical cap. I think it is great. Of course,
    it doesn't protect against disease, but since condoms are only about
    90% effective (a friend of mine is now 3 months pregnant thanks to
    a broken one) would you consider combining the protection of both
    the condom and the cervical cap? That way you get disease protection
    plus a lot more security than you would with only one.
    
    Advantages of the cervical cap:
    
    - unlike the diaphragm, you apply the gel only once. You don't have
    to reapply it each time.
    
    - if the size of the vagina changes (due to pregnancy or whatever)
    the cap will still fit. You don't have to get another one. 
    
    - It's about as effective as the diaphragm
    
    - You can put it in before-hand, like with the diaphragm.
    
                   
    Basically it is a rubber cap that goes over the cervix and stays
    there due to the suction. A couple of years ago they were technically
    "on trial" by the FDA. The procedure I went through to get one though
    was no different from any other form of birth control that you go
    to a doctor for. I guess this designation, from the patient's point
    of view, is more of a technical one than anything else.
                                    
    (a slightly embarassed) Roberta

 I'M INVOLVED SERIOUSLY WITH A MAN NOW FOR 2 1/2 YEARS.  HE HAS BEEN
    MARRIED BEFORE AND IN THAT RELATIONSHIP THEY HAD 1 CHILD.  RIGHT
    AFTER HIS DAUGHTER WAS BORN HE HAD A VASECTOMY.  HIS WIFE MADE HIM;HE
    WAS ONLY 21.  NOW WE THINK ABOUT GETTING MARRIED, BUT I WANT CHLIDREN
    BADLY.  I WAS WONDERING IF ANYONE HAS HAD A VASECTOMY REVERSED AND
    IF SO WHAT WAS THE PROCEDURE, WAS IT PAINFUL ETC.  MOST IMPORTANTLY,
    DID IT WORK????
    ANDREA
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

Re: .22

    I'm under  the  impression  that  you  can always try to reverse a
    vasectomy,  but  it  doesn't  always  work. (numbers in the 50-70%
    range  come  to  mind,  but I don't really remember.) The problems
    range  from  the  mechanical (how do you find and rejoin two small
    tubes) to immunological (there can sometimes be an immune response
    to  the  sperm  being released directly into the body that makes a
    subsequent reversal ineffective.)

--David

    I know I'm archivist for this file, but I also keep an eye on others.
    
    For more info on vasectomies, please see Mennotes...
    
    topic 10 - Vasectomy
    topic 297 - Reversing Vasectomies
    
    -Jody
    

    My cousin had his vasectomy reversed....it wasn't pleasant, but
    has two wonderful boys and a third child due in February!
    
    P.
    

    Re: .24
    
    Location of MENNOTES is MANANA::MENNOTES.
    
    		Steve (MENNOTES co-mod)

>    HOWEVER, I don't like the idea a whole lot of putting extra
>    chemicals in my body (my husband REALLY stresses this ALOT). So,
    
>    But the one of most interest to me was a drug called Depo-Provera
>    which is awaiting approval by the FDA. It is injected intramuscularly
    
	What makes you think that one shot that lasts six months 
	doesn't constitute putting extra chemicals into your body!
	Anything that stops the hormonal cycle is going to be
	chemical....REALLY.

Victoria

    I just got the premier issue of the new magazine First for Woman.
    It has an article about new birth control methods.
    
    Reprinted without permission:
    
    "Within the next few years, a new contraceptive called Norplant will
    be available. It contains six tiny capsules, implanted just beneath
    the skin of the upper arm. These capsules release a birth control
    hormone over a period of 5 years. And in Australia, doctors report
    progress in developing a birth control vaccine. Next step: rigorous
    trials to determine the product's effectiveness.
    
    Doctors in Scotland report success in administering a birth control
    pill in 84-day cycles rather than the present 21 days - reducing
    volunteers' periods to 4 per year.
    
    A safe and effective contraceptive drug called Depo-Provera is awaiting
    approval by the FDA. Injected intramuscularly every 3 or 6 months,
    it prevents pregnancy in almost 100% of the women who take it. The
    drug is now used in Europe and Canada. Not one death has been reported
    in the past 20 years - making it far safer to use than the pill.
    
    For further information, contact you Planned Parenthood chapter
    or call the Resource Center of the American College of Ob/Gyn: 
    1-202-863-2518."

    This is a spin off from a question in the "Giving away Brides" note
    about virgins and why women were expected to be one.

    Last night my cultural anthropology instructor started class with a
    riddle

    Question: what do you get when you put ten men and ten women
    together over a long winter.
    Answer: 10 babies.

    Question: what do you get when you put 1 man and 10 women together
    for a long winter?
    Answer: 10 babies.

    He postulates that the only way older societies where able to
    control population was by controling

    1) the number of women
    2) how soon they had babies
    3) killing excess babies

    Abortion was known and was almost as fatal to the mother as to the
    fetus. It was safer to kill the baby after birth and killing female
    babies put more of a control on population than killing male babies.

    After all, a grown woman had a lot of the tribes resources invested
    in her. She was usually involved in food production and was a
    valuable member of society. However, there were many times when
    another mouth to feed was not desireable. As the killing of babies
    has never been pretty societies created mores and rules that
    explained why this was the "right" thing to do.

    Cloistering of women and enforced virginity also helped slow the
    birth rate. The culture that enforced these rules may have since
    decided that more babies was what it wanted but the old rules around
    women didn't get changed.

    He also stated that as last as the 1850s infanticide was common in
    both England as France. A review of the death records shows a
    statistically significant level of "death by smothering" where the
    mother *accidently* rolled over in her sleep and smothered the baby.
    This happened most often in large families and most often to girls.
    This was also seen in America.

    The professor maintained that women were put in the cultural role of
    being the main executors of this policy because they forced to. To
    turn down sex with your man might get you and your children thrown
    out on the street. There was no reliable birth control and abortion
    was terrible. One way they listed in our book was jumping on the
    mother's stomach. Another was starvation.

    Even today there are numerous societies where infanticide is the
    main birth control. Our book made a big point about realizing that
    the women who did this had NO choice. It also predicted that the
    world population will be over 8 BILLION by 2025. I bet China is only
    the first of many countries to start demanding abortions if birth
    control doesn't work. Looks like we haven't come all that far at all
    baby. liesl

	A reply early in this topic mentions the "natural" condoms (fourex
	and naturalamb are the 2 brands I know of).  The recent Consumer 
	Report article on condoms mentions them briefly, since they aren't
	effective against AIDS.  Any opinions on whether they are better
	than latex if the only concern is birth control?  They're supposedly
	much less obstructive to sensation, but they're also very expensive.

	On the subject of cervical caps, they are now approved by the FDA, 
	though it still isn't easy to find a practitioner to fit you with
	one.  I participated in the study, and I was very happy with it.
	I've developed cervical problems, so I don't know whether I'll be 
	able to continue with it.  It's possible that the cap contributed 
	to my problem, but I had it for years without any abnormal paps, so 
	it may not have.  On the other hand, it's gotten a lot more use over 
	the past year than it had been getting :-).

	I've used an IUD (it slipped), the pill (2 dosages at different times, 
	both caused migraines -- women who get migraines *should* *not* take 
	the pill!), diaphragms (adding more goop is a major pain!), and 
	condoms (the current method - I hate the interruption and the feel).
	I think the cap is by far the best alternative of the bunch.  When
	my doctor and I discussed options when she told me to stop using the 
	cap (after the abnormal pap), she suggested that I go to England and 
	get an implant!  She thinks the FDA is ridiculously slow.  If the
	verdict is that I can't use the cap anymore, I may do that (I'm also
	considering tubal ligation, but that's another topic...).

	Beverly

    Re: .32
    
    In QUARK::MENNOTES note 324 I posted some excerpts of the latest
    Consumer Reports study on condoms.   Their statement was that
    skin condoms were as effective against pregnancy as latex condoms,
    but, as you suggest, their efficacy against transmission of
    disease is significantly less.
    
    There is also a discussion on condom use, largely by men, in
    a more recent note in that conference.  Both of these notes may
    be useful reading.
    
    			Steve

         <<< Note 248.31 by AZTECH::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >>>

<    Last night my cultural anthropology instructor started class with a
<    riddle
<    Question: what do you get when you put ten men and ten women
<    together over a long winter.
<    Answer: 10 babies.

<    Question: what do you get when you put 1 man and 10 women together
<    for a long winter?
<    Answer: 10 babies.

Liesl, are you still taking this class?  You may want to discuss with him
that although his suppositions of the origins of birth control may be 
correct, his Q&A seems to indicate an ignorance that a cultural anthropologist
shouldn't have.  

If 10% of any given population is gay/lesbian then the chances are that with
question number 1 he would not get 10 babies but would get only 8-9.  For 
question number 2 the resulting number of babies would be between 0 and 9
(on the average), depending on which of the people was gay.  If it was the
man, he would not be likely to get ANY children as a result.  

Adding to this the high rate of infertility would make the numbers even
more conservative, but as a cultural anthopologist he might not be 
expected to realize this (although it would surprise me if he didn't).

It makes me wonder, of course, what his reasons would be to explain away
a more obvious way to control population.  He comes up with only three ways:

<    He postulates that the only way older societies where able to
<    control population was by controling
<
<    1) the number of women
<    2) how soon they had babies
<    3) killing excess babies

A more obvious way would be to encourage homosexual relationships, 
especially among women.  If you bring this up to him, I would love to
hear the reasons that he comes up with as to why this didn't happen.

         Carol

    re -1   No sense of humor...

    re -1:  Well, it wasn't a funny joke!

    Re: Carol, I watch this class on CUNET so have very little contact
    with the instructor.

    My main guess as to why homosexuality (between women - I think
    several cultures, like the Greeks and Romans didn't mind it between
    men) wasn't encouraged was that men wouldn't give up their *rights*
    to own the women. Women's homosexuality seems (IMHO) to imply a
    certain freedom from the male dominated cultures that I believe men
    were loath to tolerate.

    I've often wondered what ancient prostitutes did in the way of birth
    control. It wouldn't seem that having lots of babies would be good
    for business yet how could they avoid it? liesl

    Liesl
    
    I've wondered about that also, and also lines in articles
    in Nat Geo that say something like young women of the X 
    after a sexually promiscous period in their early teens marry
    and have a baby very soon there after. How did they avoid
    that baby earlier?
    
    Also I have a theory, that over the centuries, women did bond
    with each other, and some of them, married or not, had very
    intense relationships with each other. There was a definite
    women's subculture of affection and support. In the 19th century
    it was considered a good thing for unmarried women of a 'certain'
    age to set up housekeeping with each other - this was called a
    'Boston Marriage' and whether such relationships were sexual or
    not isn't really known. But then Freud sexualized things to such
    a degree that the 'Boston Marriage' became a thing of embarassment
    and was phased out of acceptability in the 1920s.
    
    (source Rose's Parallel Lives)��
    
    I strongly suspect that women have often in past times had erotic
    relationships with other women, it just wasn't something that
    got recorded. some of my supposition comes from attending a history
    class at my son's college, where this was a thesis of the teacher.
    
    Bonnie

RE: contraception for ancient prostitutes.

    Contraception has  been  around  for  all of recorded history, and
    there  are  some  pre-literate tribes that practice contraception.
    Many of the older methods aren't as convienent nor as safe as some
    modern methods, but they were reasonably effective. A list of some
    methods follow a form feed.

    Spermicides  -- one of the earliest was tannic acid extracted from
    the bark of trees.

    Men would soak their testes in very warm or hot water.

    After coitus,  the  woman  would  squat,  insert  a  finger in her
    vagina,  and swirl it around to gather the semen. (This may be the
    oldest documented method, I have no idea how effective it was.)

    Abortifacents --   many   toxic   substances  induce  abortion  in
    sub-lethal doses.  Pennyroyal was popular in the last century.

--David

    More discussion of older contraceptive methods follows the formfeed.
    

    >Men would soak their testes in very warm or hot water.

    It seems I've read that very thing as being a problem for couples
    who use hot tubs - that is, the ones that want babies.

<    After coitus,  the  woman  would  squat,  insert  a  finger in her
<    vagina,  and swirl it around to gather the semen. (This may be the
<    oldest documented method, I have no idea how effective it was.)

    This one is listed as not effective at all in the "New Our Bodies
    Ourselves" book. Other means that involve after the fact douching
    and such are also listed as not effective. 
    
<    Abortifacents --   many   toxic   substances  induce  abortion  in
<    sub-lethal doses.  Pennyroyal was popular in the last century.

    An herb book I have has only one sentence on pennyroyle which says
    it was used as an abortifact (it mentions this as happening in
    Colorado specifically, I don't know why). It then says don't use it
    for anything and goes on to the next herb. So much for enlightened
    disucssion. All the other herbs are discussed in detail.

    In regards to sub-lethal doses of various chemicals, maybe that's
    why women used to die so young. If avoiding pregnancy was so
    difficult maybe many wives didn't mind the old custom of the husband
    keeping a mistress (or concubines) on the side. It might have given
    her the chance to live longer. Of course then the mistress has to
    try and avoid pregnancy. You just can't win. liesl

    digging out the old anthro text...
    
    A small smooth pebble was frequently used as an intra-uterine device.
    Sometimes they went septic, resulting in infertility [and infrequently,
    death].
    
    In time past, pregnancy was not the crimp in business that it is today. 
    Also, there were certain advantages to having a daughter to pass along
    the business and possibly secure a more comfortable retirement.
    
      Ann

    
    	   More birth control methods of old:
    
    
    	Contra-Coitus:
    
    		Chastity belts (no crotchless varieties are known to exist)
    
    		Vulva-mounted steel jaw bear trap with razor sharp teeth
    
    	Contraceptive:
    
    		Castration (eunuchs are said to be very good lovers)
    
    	Abortifacient:
    
    		Locally available herbs brewed into a poison which was
    		administered in sub-lethal dosages (hopefully).
    
    	- Greg

         On the news this morning they stated that Norplant� should be
         approved by the FDA within the next couple months.


	 Could someone give me a pointer to some information on
	 Norplant and it's side effects and/or how it works?????


	 thanks.

	 kathy

    Or if nobody here knows, maybe you can also start a note in
    HYDRA::MEDICAL?
    
    -Jody
    

    A few years ago I saw an article produce by Dow Corning about a
    surgical grade silicone that could me implanted in the uterus
    end of the Fallopian tubes.  This would effectively block the tube and
    would prevent fertilization (similar to a natural blockage).  It
    supposedly would not have the drawback that the IUD has with damaging
    the lining and bleeding and cramps etc.  Has anyone ever heard that
    this product made it to the market or what happend to it?
    
    John
    

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 385.33                 Side effects of the pill                    33 of 33
IAMOK::ALFORD "I'd rather be fishing"                15 lines  11-DEC-1989 08:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    --- this isn't exactly the right place to post this...but...
    
    I read a VERY short (like 30 words) article in Sunday's Globe
    that said the medicos have now decided there are concerns for
    women who use spermicides (sp?) and condoms for birth control
    
    seems if this is your chosen (or only available) method of
    birth control, and you do get pregant you have a much increased
    risk of high blood pressure/stroke during delivery.
    
    Anyone else read any more about this?
    
    deb
    

re: Norplant

I have an article that seems to go into a little more detail than .48 (it's
from the newsletter put out by the National Women's Health Network). I'll be
glad to xerox for anyone that wants to read (or type) it.
	Mez

re .47


>>>    I read a VERY short (like 30 words) article in Sunday's Globe
>>>    that said the medicos have now decided there are concerns for
>>>    women who use spermicides (sp?) and condoms for birth control
    
>>>    seems if this is your chosen (or only available) method of
>>>    birth control, and you do get pregant you have a much increased
>>>    risk of high blood pressure/stroke during delivery.

I don't think it was the same article but I read a very short article in the 
Globe that said women who used a diaphragm or condoms for birth control 
had a higher risk of having toxic pregnancies.  The article was badly worded so 
I couldn't figure out if they meant that women who got pregnant while using 
these methods of birth control were at risk or if it was all women who had 
used them at some time were at risk.

Anybody else read this one also?

Nisha

    I saw something about this on the news. The gist of it was that women
    who used barrier methods of contraception never acquired an "immunity"
    to their partner's sperm, so when they stopped using contraceptives
    there was an increased likelihood that the woman would have some
    reaction to the unfamiliar sperm, possibly leading to a toxic pregnancy.
    It all sounded rather questionable to me, as in "health alarm of the
    week".
    
    -b

    i thought they *did* acquire an immunity and therefore rejected the
    pregnancy