How Accidental Are Accidental Pregnancies?
If you aren't 11, or running around in a loincloth in the bush in Africa, you know how babies are made: Sperm, meet Egg, and have at it!
I heard social worker and researcher Melissa Spohn present at the last Human Behavior And Evolution Society Conference I went to at UC/Fullerton. Here's a bit from Psychology Today on her findings; basically, what many of you probably suspect, that to hang on to the right guy, women will let themselves get knocked up:
Some of the women admitted that they had not used birth control with guys who had appealing characteristics. To determine whether such behavior is widespread, Spohn surveyed nearly 400 women at two community colleges. More than a third of women said they had risked pregnancy in the past with men who had attractive qualities--such as commitment to the relationship, good financial prospects or the desire for a family--but hadn't discussed the possibility of pregnancy with their partner.
Hideous. Screw up your own life, along with someone else's! Yet I'm sure all of these women see themselves as moral people.
Pirate Jo at December 19, 2009 8:35 AM
GQ had an article about this about 2 years back. It's specific focus was on otherwise mature and supposedly sensible women.
The thrust of the article was that many of these women viewed "accidental" pregnancy as a means to get the man in their lives to take the final plunge & get married, in short an attempt of sorts to force his hand or make him "grow up".
Look, I adore women, but there is a reason that the old saying "Men plan & women plot." has become an OLD saying.
Many women are quite moral in most regards...but when it comes to relationships...well there is a reason you see "Bridezillas" and not "Groomzillas".
Robert at December 19, 2009 9:37 AM
what surprises me is that we are suprised... When I was in my 20's I thought an intelligent rational woman would never do such a thing. What I knew but never thought of in context is that the instinct for survival is millions of years old, and by design [even evolution causes things to happen a certain way, no procreation=extinction] we are wired to have babies. It takes a LOT of self possession to decide never to have kids on a woman's part. It's all brain, your instincts are telling you something else.
I have been thinking a lot about the vasectomy angle since it was brought up a lot in another thread... maybe it should be it's own thread. Maybe with a thread on tubal ligation reversal too. The percentage success rates seem to vary wildly all over the place [50% to 90%] depending on who you talk to.
I was thinking more on the Vasectomy angle in terms of perception. I have only anecdotal evidence... but how do women percieve men who are snipped? Broken? Not virile? Great for a fling but not relationship material? If they are driven by instinct, would there be reservation if they KNOW that a specific man isn't capable. That even if a reversal surgery happens there are no promises?
This kinda goes back to the evolutionary idea that we seek a .7 hip/waist ratio. That depending on her cycle a woman may want a very masculine man or one who is more likely to stick around.
We have all these requirements and such for partners before we are willing to have a family with them, and some are negotiable, can be compromised. I wonder if the surgical chastity belt is one of them. If the guy just wants the sex, than he will be much happier to find a lady that has had a tubal. If the woman wants kids though, wouldn't that be a deal breaker in general?
I only have anecdotal evidence on this, a small sample, so I'm curious what anyone else thinks...
SwissArmyD at December 19, 2009 10:56 AM
Amy - at the conference, was there any discussion of why certain societies became dominant?
Radwaste at December 19, 2009 12:06 PM
I remember, unfortunately, a British study from a couple of years ago that said that 42% of British women surveyed said they would be willing to lie to their partners in order to get pregnant.
(I DO think that's a bit misleading - after all, wouldn't most women who want children make a bit of an effort to find men who want the SAME?)
However, this is just one reason why men need to demand better male birth control - and then USE it. Preferably the barrier-implant type that can only be removed by a doctor.
Let's face it - not all smart women who get pregnant really wanted to, even subconsciously. It's just that smart people do dumb things all the time when it comes to sex! We forget to use condoms and so on for the same silly reasons we forget to look at our calendars on important days - or miss an important bus.
To find some important sites about male BC, search for "Are You Using Anything?" by Cara Gardner (it's about male BC and the role of stockholders in the industry, among other things) and then Google on "male contraceptives."
Bottom line: Such BC methods will NOT become available unless there's a Visible Demand from Men. If only women ask for male BC, Big Pharma will not believe it's a profitable industry.
lenona at December 19, 2009 1:49 PM
When I was young and good-looking, young and good-looking women just did it with me.
Man, I wish I was young and good-looking again!
Mr BS in the Sky at December 19, 2009 1:51 PM
And what quality was it in the women that persuaded all the men not to wear condoms?
Amy wrote: To hang on to the right guy, women will let themselves get knocked up.
What she didn't write, but is equally true: To have hotter sex with the right gal, men will let themselves knock up women.
MomofRae at December 19, 2009 1:54 PM
I don't know there's a biological reason for lying about contraceptive status or not, but any girl or woman who deceives a man on such an important matter is on a risky course. It's a big turnoff to a man when he's lied to about a matter that crucially affects his life. Deception like this can redound in a woman's face in a very unpleasant way. It's the sort of lying that can break a relationship.
I have two sons, 21 and 20, and have given them condoms in the past and told them, anytime you have sex with a woman, use one! (They're not at the age where they want to or should become dads yet.)
Iconoclast at December 19, 2009 2:39 PM
It's interesting that this survey was conducted at a CC, for the fact that the sample population was probably relatively young. Because 'gotcha pregnancies', involving an unmarried couple, are stereotypically associated w/ somewhat older women who are desperate to have a child.
What I wonder is whether these women actually intended to become pregnant - that is, did they consciously attempt to become pregnant, or did they rationalize their behavior in some way.
Mike at December 19, 2009 3:12 PM
"It takes a LOT of self possession to decide never to have kids on a woman's part. It's all brain, your instincts are telling you something else."
I am not ever having kids, and both my brain and instincts are in complete agreement on this.
Pirate Jo at December 19, 2009 3:34 PM
"What she didn't write, but is equally true: To have hotter sex with the right gal, men will let themselves knock up women."
Best line o' the day.
momof4 at December 19, 2009 3:45 PM
> Best line o' the day.
This needs to be said? It doesn't describe about 47.0752% of the human landscape?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 4:44 PM
Some of the women admitted that they had not used birth control with guys who had appealing characteristics.
I have two sons, 21 and 20, and have given them condoms in the past and told them, anytime you have sex with a woman, use one!
Yep, young men who want to have control over their futures don't fail to use condoms reliably. It sucks, cause the sex is not as good. But being a dad too young will do a lot to constrain your future options.
Whatever at December 19, 2009 5:20 PM
It's pretty sad when people are to ignorent to know the difference in between negligence and fraud.
-------------
--------------------------------
-----------------
A woman can physically see whether a man is wearing a condom; a woman also knows if she is using birth control. If she decides to have sex with him anyway she becomes pregnant because of her negligence.
A man cannot physically see whether a woman: took her birth control, has her diaphragm in, or has an iud. If a woman lies about the status of her fertility in order to become pregnant. Which is something that 42% of the female population have admitted that they would do; then she becomes pregnant because of her fraudulent actions.
Attempting to equivocate negligence to fraud is like trying to compare someone who recklessly spent all of their money; to someone who has had their life savings stolen from them by a thief.
Any man young or old shouldn't be forced into accepting parental responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. Men should have the freedom to choose whether or not to accept the responsibilities of fatherhood in the same way women have the freedom to choose whether or not to accept the responsibilities of motherhood.
Mike Hunter at December 19, 2009 7:12 PM
LOL! I accidentally spelled 'ignorant' incorrectly when I was typing my post. Funny shit!
Mike Hunter at December 19, 2009 7:14 PM
> But being a dad too young will
> do a lot to constrain your
> future options.
If only this were true.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 7:46 PM
Okay sure, I agree that a small percentage of "accidental" pregnancies happen because the woman secretly wants to get knocked up. But I would chalk the MAJORITY of them up to a combination of stupidity, carelessness, recklessness, impulsiveness, and the feeling that "it can't happen to me!" All on the parts of BOTH involved parties, because as Amy pointed out, everyone over the age of 11 knows that it takes an egg AND a sperm to make a baby.
Also it's worth pointing out that "risking pregnancy" with an attractive dude isn't the same as deliberately trying to get yourself knocked up. Men AND women risk pregnancy ALL the time for a myriad of stupid, impulsive reasons. I imagine that if Spohn had surveyed 400 college guys she would have found that the majority of them had at some point had sex without a condom because they were drunk, or they didn't have one on them, or they didn't want to break the flow, or because condomless sex just feels sooo much better. That doesn't mean that any of them were TRYING to get a woman pregnant, but by having sex without insisting on using birth control they were indeed risking pregnancy.
* * * * *
"A woman can physically see whether a man is wearing a condom; a woman also knows if she is using birth control."
This is true. And not only can a woman flat-out lie about being on birth control, but she could also be taking it incorrectly (the effectiveness of the pill is greatly decreased if you don't take it at the same time each day, every day) or be taking antibiotics that interfere with its effectiveness. Plus, most hormonal birth controls are only 99.9% effective. That sounds pretty good, but for every one million sexual encounters that's 1000 "oh shit" pregnancies.
These odds are greatly diminished if you use condoms as a back up form up birth control. Not to mention that they're cheap, fast and easy to get ahold of, and the only surefire way to prevent STDs. For all these reasons, EVERYONE should insist on using a condom every time they have casual sex. I'm on birth control and I always carry and insist on using condoms (I've even gone so far as to lie to guys and say I'm not on birth control, so they won't be cavalier about wearing one). And this is ESPECIALLY true if you believe that the majority of women are just dying to make babies with you. Why wouldn't you do everything in your power to protect yourself?
And yes, I of course agree that lying about birth control is an evil and immoral thing to do, but you can't really prove it or prevent it one way or another. Any woman unscrupulous enough to lie about taking birth control would also be savvy enough to lie about her intentions if there were legal or social consequences for such behavior. Again, it boils down to wearing a condom and making sure you damn well know who you're swapping DNA with.
Finally: fraud is like someone breaking into your garage and stealing your car. Negligence is like leaving the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition in the middle of a bad neighborhood. Either Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control
Shannon at December 19, 2009 8:59 PM
meant to end with:
"Either way, you just lost your car."
Shannon at December 19, 2009 9:02 PM
If only this were true.
It is if you aspire to things other than mediocrity. You can abandon your responsibility to you children and do some low level bullshit somewhere. But as a rule, you can't make a good life for yourself neglecting these things.
Whatever at December 19, 2009 9:13 PM
Many women are quite moral in most regards...but when it comes to relationships...well there is a reason you see "Bridezillas" and not "Groomzillas".
Oh, you do indeed see Groomzillas. Not infrequently, they're attached to Bridezillas, but sometimes they're engaged to essentially sane women. Weddings make people crazy. Women tend to do more of the planning/preparation for weddings, so they have more opportunities to go crazy, but men can do perfectly fine on their own.
These odds are greatly diminished if you use condoms as a back up form up birth control. Not to mention that they're cheap, fast and easy to get ahold of, and the only surefire way to prevent STDs. For all these reasons, EVERYONE should insist on using a condom every time they have casual sex.
Word. Unless the woman you're sleeping with has had a tubal ligation, is on Norplant or has an IUD, you run the risk of a certain error rate with her contraceptive method. The Pill is remarkably effective...when it's taken at the same time every single day without outside factors such as certain antibiotics interfering with it. A few days of irregularity can get you knocked up. It would be great if we had better contraceptive methods for men and women.
I was thinking more on the Vasectomy angle in terms of perception. I have only anecdotal evidence... but how do women percieve men who are snipped? Broken? Not virile? Great for a fling but not relationship material? If they are driven by instinct, would there be reservation if they KNOW that a specific man isn't capable. That even if a reversal surgery happens there are no promises?
I think they perceive him as...someone who doesn't want to have kids. Great for the childfree; not great for the would-be breeders. You can't assume that a vasectomy is reversible; the operation has a pretty good success rate, but it's nowhere near 100%. I want kids either by birth or adoption -- not in the sense that single motherhood is a choice I'd make, but in the sense that I wouldn't marry a man who didn't feel the same way. If I met someone interesting and discovered that he had a vasectomy, my assumption would be that he didn't want kids, or at least that he didn't want them enough to be a good husband/father in the future. Now, that having been said, the context would matter -- a guy who got a vasectomy while married with kids only to have his wife leave him for the pool boy is a different case from a never-married childless type who gets pre-emptively snipped.
However, I've known several people who were theoretically amenable to having kids who fell in love with people who didn't want kids and ended up deciding to live without them. I've also known people who were theoretically ambivalent at best about having kids, only to fall in love with a no-kids-is-a-dealbreaker type like me and end up reproducing. There are the Amys of the world on one end of the spectrum, there are the women like me on the other end of the spectrum, and there's a large moderate middle in between. I'm not sure how the moderate middle feels about guys with vasectomies; I suspect that depends on many other factors.
marion at December 19, 2009 9:37 PM
Hey Mike Hunter - I understand that men never ever act like idiots in your book, and never ever abandon their financial and other responsibilities to children, and apparently never ever want to get their rocks off so badly they 1. don't bother to ask about birth control or 2. don't bother to get to know a woman well enough before sex to know whether she is trustworthy or 3. beg the woman not to make them wear a condom.
No doubt some small number of women commit intentional fraud. But any woman who's had an active sex life can tell you that almost every man will have sex without a condom if allowed and cross his fingers, if not his legs.
MomofRae at December 19, 2009 9:58 PM
"2. don't bother to get to know a woman well enough before sex to know whether she is trustworthy" - momofrae
This is an interesting point and one that we should really talk about the context of the original question of accidentally on purpose.
Time is the question.
Essentially we are not so much talking casual flings. We are talking relationships where one partner has decided that it's time to have children, or that having one will seal the deal. It's all well and good when you get to know someone like Marion who will say straight up what she wants, but should we pretend this is common? I can't find the study that ~40% of women would lie to their partner about BC, though I have heard this figure before... anyone got links on that? I'm sure we all know stories about when this happened to someone. But the context is kinda important. Men may generally be ambivalent about having kids, knowing it's a pure game changer.
But it's important to note that we were meant to bond to each other chemically through sex, and a barrier obviously kills that. I'm not talking about flings or casual, but real relationships that are committed. How many women are willing to have an IUD? How many are willing to actually PLAN to have a kid. Lotsa otherwise intelligent people simply wont hear of it, because it feels too artificial.
A side note on the male pill... it's not the same idea as a female one, and that is causeing the problem. AFAIK none of the female pills actually keep the egg from coming down, rather they keep it from implanting. On the male side, you have to stop the production of millions of sperm, and then make it so you can start it back up later. Therein the problem. So far? no dice. Belive me when I say big pharma is drooling at the prospect of making it work, but they haven't found anything close. As elsewhere noted guys don't like condoms at all, d'ya think they'd be breaking down the door if there was a pill they could take to turn off the swimmers? Garundamnteed. It isn't that pharma doesn't think they will make money. [see: viagra] It's that nothing is even showing promise.
One thing to remember... our millions of years in the making bodies were designed to have as amny kids as possible before we croaked at 35. Since the kids, the mom or the dad could die at lotsa points, it was important to make that all work.
Now that we live in nice clean towns, have nice clean doctors, and engage in nice safe work, our survival advantages have become a bit troublesome in some cases...
SwissArmyD at December 19, 2009 10:46 PM
I can't believe anybody would doubt for even one second that sometimes women get pregnant on purpose to trap men. It is pretty difficult to get someone pregnant though if you are wearing a condom.
Maybe not wearing a condom isn't fraudulent like getting pregnant on purpose, but it is seriously stupid if you truly don't want to father a child. I don't feel a lot of sympathy for people who act stupidly and let someone else take away their power. Feel sorry for the poor child that gets created this way though.
Alison D at December 20, 2009 4:10 AM
Of course I meant like getting pregnant on purpose without your partner's willing consent.
Alison D at December 20, 2009 4:13 AM
After we'd been married 2 years, my wife started palming her pill and deliberately got pregnant. We had agreed no kids till we both graduated.
She didn't admit it until 15 years later, a few months after we divorced. Her reason: Well, you weren't doing much with your life anyway, and I wanted a baby.
My wife came from a stable, upper-middle class family, and is usually a very solid citizen. She's a good mother, She's a VP at a large bank these days, and is typically honest.
When a woman wants a baby, she's going to have one and if you stand in her way, she'll rationalize it and make it happen.
Here's a dirty little secret that most men won't admit because women will run away from them: A large percentage of men, perhaps a majority, don't really want kids. Not now, not ever. They will say they want them later to appease women. If you're 25 and don't want kids, you're not likely to suddenly want them when you're 40.
And having kids at 40 will do a lot more to ruin your life than having them at 20. In my neighborhood, my current wife and I are the only middle-aged couple without middle school kids. Without exception, these late parents are stressed and miserable just at the time they have gotten enough financial security to enjoy the hard work they've done all their lives. Without exception all the kids are on various ADHD drugs and are little terrors.
If you don't want kids, get a vasectomy at 25. It will take some doctor shopping and probably some lying. (A lie that often works is to claim horrible childhood abuse and how you have to work hard to keep yourself from hitting every kid you're around because they're so annoying.) If you don't get a vasectomy, it is highly likely that you will succumb to female pressure at some point and find yourself drafted into parenthood.
Mike at December 20, 2009 8:03 AM
Shannon:
A lot more then a 'small percentage' of pregnancies are a result of fraud. The only study I've seen on the subject was the one referenced above, and it concluded that 42% of women were willing to defraud their partners. Yes i've read the actual study. The only reason I didn't post the figure is because I can't find a link to it now.
What does this have to do with anything? Stop trying to change the subject. We're talking about government endorsed fraud; not negligence. Sometimes people, both men and women, do stupid things. But that's the human condition isn't it?
Also a lot less men would risk unprotected sex if:
1.) We didn't have systematic male circumcision [male genital mutilation] in this country, which serves no medical purpose and reduces genital sensitivity
2.) If the only form of birth control available to men other then sterilization didn't involve putting a layer of latex over your genitals further reducing genital sensitivity.
I had to laugh at this one. Damn I wish there was a pill that acted as a reversible form of birth control that I could take that was 'only' 99.9% effective.
Yes you can. Extend the legal protections already available to women to all men. That is allow men to unilaterally surrender their parental responsibilities, as women now can. Doing this eliminates the incentive to defraud your partner in the first place.
MomofRae:
When did I say this? Remember to be specific and give examples. Do some men abandon their financial, and legal parental responsibilities? Sure a few do, but; they can't do so legally and most of them end up in the slammer.
However literally millions of women abandon their financial and legal responsibilities every year; legally; though abortion, adoption, or abandonment laws. According to planned parenthood around 50% of the female population has had an abortion at some point in their lives.
Once again we're not talking about neglegence we're discussing fraud. Learn the difference, I was even nice enough to post the definitions for you above. In any case how is a man not asking about birth control different then a woman wanting to 'get her rocks off so bad' that she has sex knowing neither of them is using a prophylactic? I would say the latter is worse then the former!
The woman is making a fully informed choice, the man is not. The woman also has a multitude of reversible birth control options available to her 21 in fact compared to the males 1, and still decides to have unprotected sex. But that's ok if she winds up pregnant she can always kill it.
Yea because we know women never do that! LOL! Now go ahead and lie to me. Tell me you've never had sex with someone you wouldn't want to have a child with.
Again this is negligence not fraud. People [both men and women] sometimes do stupid things. Try to stay on track! Do you have ADHD or something?
A large number according to academic research.
Blame the man baby!!! If a woman knowingly has sex with a man after telling him she's not on birth control, he doesn't use a condom, and then an unintended pregnancy occurs she's just as much at fault as he is! In fact she's more at fault because... wait for it: IT'S HER BODY AND SHE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR HER BODY AND WHAT SHE DOES WITH IT She gets to make choices about her body, what goes into it, what happens to it, and what comes out of it. So she should have to live the the consequences of those choices. Stop trying to make men responsible for women's bodies' and the choices that they make with them.
This probably says a lot about the quality of men you slept with. In any case if a man has sex without a condom knowing that the woman is not on birth control then that's negligence not fraud, and for the last time what we're talking about is fraud.
Mike Hunter at December 20, 2009 8:48 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/19/how_accidental.html#comment-1683545">comment from Mike HunterIT'S HER BODY AND SHE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR HER BODY AND WHAT SHE DOES WITH I
I have a stronger standard for women because of this. Since *I* am the one who'd get pregnant, I don't see it as the man's responsibility to prevent pregnancy. It's not a responsibility you leave to somebody else, same as it's not the baker's responsibility to prohibit fat diabetics from buying donuts.
Moreover, if you, like me, really, really don't want to have children, you get, say, a copper-7 IUD. No hormones! And then have a man use a condom to double-protect you, and protect you from STDs.
And if you're going to have a child, you wait and plan a long time, to make sure the person you're doing it with is going to stick around and be a parent to that child and maintain an intact family with you. Broken homes, no matter what the income level of the parents, have very negative effects on children. This is why I don't care how creatively or wildly you live your life -- until you create another life, and then, as I've said before, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura.
Amy Alkon at December 20, 2009 9:13 AM
AFAIK none of the female pills actually keep the egg from coming down, rather they keep it from implanting.
Most versions of the pill work by suppressing ovulation; essentially tricking the body into thinking it's pregnant.
Whatever at December 20, 2009 9:14 AM
Well I know one thing Mike I never had the misfortune to sleep with an asshole like you. And I'm sorry you've clearly made such poor choices in your own relationships that they left you so bitter and unable to step back from any argument that involves women to think clearly.
FYI, I don't buy the 42 percent figure, study or no study. Because surely then at least one woman I know would have perpetuated this terrible fraud in my lifetime. Can't think of a one. It's kinda like the extraordinarily high rape or domestic violence statistics, which I am absolutely betting you belittle. Lots more of my friends would have had those horrible things happen to them if as many men were as awful as the stats imply. And I don't see that either. But I'm rational. I can accept and celebrate that most men are decent people. I'm not filled with hate for half the population.
MomofRae at December 20, 2009 9:19 AM
MomofRae:
You won't get the privilege to sleep with someone like me either. I'm in my mid 20's, in good shape, and live in a city that has two major universities. So I don't have to resort to sleeping with sexist hate filled bigots like you.
You know nothing about me or any relationships that I've had. Advocating for equal legal protection for everyone regardless of: Sex, race, handicap, or sexual orientation hardly makes me bitter. Arguing that everyone doesn't deserve equal legal protection however does make you a bigot.
Big surprise, a study comes out and proves something that you don't agree with, and you refuse to knowledge the data off hand without even seeing the study. I'm sure at least one woman you know has perpetuated this fraud, but; they don't exactly go around advertising it to everyone. Because they would be rightly scorned by their social circle.
Whether I accept the stats depend on the study, where it comes from, whether I can see the actual data, and whether the study can be replicated by other social scientists. I actually read this study and it seemed pretty solid. My background gives me a pretty solid understanding of statistics. Additionally there was a study by the American Association of Blood Banks using DNA that revealed the rate of paternity fraud was surprisingly high. They tested this by taking blood samples of fathers and comparing them to their supposed offspring. I'll look for the study and post it if I can.
I would love to have a neutral governmental organization put together statistics on things like: Paternity fraud, the female sentencing discount, the percentage of women that get sole custody compared to the percentage of men, etc. Unfortunately female lobbying organizations such as the National Organization for Women exert tremendous political pressure on politicians to keep this from happening. Because they know feminist's wouldn't like the findings.
No you're not. Someone who's rational uses objective facts and evidence instead of emotion to form their opinion.
Good for you. Neither am I, demanding equality hardly makes you "hate filled".
Mike Hunter at December 20, 2009 10:30 AM
ah, thanks Whatever, I was thinking about it the wrong way in mechanics.
The point I was making is still valid. You use the pill to trick the female body into thinking it's pregnant, and stop with the eggs. This is a normal bodyfunction that her body is ready to do. It just takes a trick to get it started. There is no analogous function in a male body. We produce from puberty until quite late in life, and there is no body function to turn it off...
SwissArmyD at December 20, 2009 11:23 AM
Mike H... I'd like to see the study too, post a link if you can find it...
momofrae, I'll help you out, I know 3 women who have done this and I was actually married to one of them. One is a good friend that still believes she was right, the other is on her 3rd marriage to a friend who was the first not shooting blanks... and who at least was savvy enough to have a pre-nup. She is a very rich woman, but a trainwreck whose biological clock was ticking.
SwissArmyD at December 20, 2009 11:39 AM
I'll see if I can find it tonight. If I do I'll post the link.
Mike Hunter at December 20, 2009 12:43 PM
There is no analogous function in a male body.
Yes, you are correct. We're constantly making new sperm; women have a fixed number of eggs, and her body treats them very differently.
Whatever at December 20, 2009 1:25 PM
Ok so I searched and I couldn't find the actual study. The best I could do is find a report by the State Government of New Hampshire which also lists the figure, and the source from which they got it. If anyone can find the original report let me know.
To go to the report click on my name and it will take you there. I didn't include the link in the text of this post because it would probably get caught in the spam filter.
Mike Hunter at December 20, 2009 9:05 PM
By the way the part I'm referencing starts at the bottom of page 22.
Mike Hunter at December 20, 2009 9:07 PM
interesting document MikeH. First I'ver ever read of it, I'll have to take a longer look later, Thanks. For anyone else interested, it's a good read:
The Status of Men in New Hampshire
SwissArmyD at December 21, 2009 6:58 AM
"Ok so I searched and I couldn't find the actual study."
Here's a hint: that's because it doesn't exist, at least not in any scrutiny-withstanding form. Consign it to the rubbish heap right alongside "1 in 3 American women will be raped in her lifetime."
Out of curiosity, I wonder if the number of men who would be willing to lie to a woman in order to get what they want is higher or lower than 42%?
CB at December 21, 2009 8:10 AM
Women who "oops" men into having kids are the lowest of the low. And yeah, there's quite a few of them out there.
Men, if you really don't want kids, you'd better either get sterilized or ALWAYS wear a condom, because there's a damn good chance you will run into one of these women.
Seriously, if the pill failed as many times as women claim it does, no one would use it.
Ann at December 21, 2009 8:47 AM
I knew a woman who did in fact get herself pregnant to trap a guy. She was pretty proud of herself for having thought of that too. But she was pretty no-class to begin with... the lesson there is if it looks like trouble, sounds like trouble, feels like trouble, and smells like trouble, it probably is trouble.
Shannon, a couple of notes on the math. Reliability rates for birth control methods are usually stated on a per-year basis, assuming an "average" sex life, whatever that is. So in your example, with a 99.9% reliable method, if the average user has sex, say, 50 times per year, then the number of pregnancies resulting would not be 1000, but 20. And, if you're already using a highly reliable method, adding a second, moderately-reliable method does not help much from a statistical standpoint. In the above example, if we added in condoms (generally considered to be about 80% reliable per year), we reduce the accidental pregnancies from 20 to 4... not a significant reduction. That's why there aren't many women on the Pill or IUD who also use a diaphragm -- because they realize, even if they haven't done the math, that there's no point.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of other good reasons for condoms, as you point out. But in a committed couple, where the woman is already using the Pill or an IUD (and barring any complications which would make those ineffective), condoms don't help from a statistical standpoint, any more than a diaphragm does. It's just an unnecessary expense.
Cousin Dave at December 21, 2009 10:19 AM
Quoth Amy:
Since *I* am the one who'd get pregnant, I don't see it as the man's responsibility to prevent pregnancy.
______________________
I trust if you were a man and you knew you didn't want kids, you WOULD still consider your fertility to be your responsibility?
It's all a matter of who wants what and Not Assuming that other people will follow your wishes like robots. (Take the man who's shattered when a woman either has an abortion against his will - or gives birth against his will. Why didn't he do anything in advance, since chances are he didn't?)
For the record, as I mentioned elsewhere, the Alan Guttmacher Institute has said that the female Pill has a real-life failure rate of 6%. That should be enough to make a man reach for a condom - IF he really doesn't want kids right now.
So, again, I recommend that men do some research and Google new products such as RISUG and the IVD. Maybe you could sign up to be guinea pigs and help to hurry the arrival of those products in the U.S.?
lenona at December 21, 2009 3:24 PM
I remember a saying someone told me once: "Why is a woman like a fortune-teller? Because she always knows if you are going to get laid or not!"
I have had an "accident" like this happen to me before by my ex-wife, who told me she was on the pill, but who in reality had gone off the pill while we were dating. It is only a miracle that she did not become pregnant in grad school.
I had never had any issues before with this, even in college. The standard routine was one of these scenarios: "Are you on anything? Yes" In this scenario you are good to go, unless the woman lies about being on the pill. Scenario two is this: "I'm not on anything. Do you have a condom? No. O.K. You'll have to pull out." Finally, scenario three is this: "I'm not on anything, do you have a condom? Yes."
Problem solved. Everyone is happy unless the pull and pray does not work....UNLESS she lied about being on something.
I think the responsibility to ask about sex safety (read pregnancy), ultimately belongs to the female. After all, women are totally in charge of the whole sex act unless she is being raped. It is her body that will get pregnant, not the guy's, so it is in her best interest to make certain that everyone is safe---unless she wants to get pregnant.
And no, I don't buy the whole "women can be coerced, or men can have women do what they want" argument. Are you serious CB? Isn't that sort of a cop-out for responsibility? Isn't that saying that women cannot think for themselves and need constant policing to keep from getting into a situation where they may be so foolish as to get conned by a man trying to get her in bed? Can't you think for yourselves?
If I would have known how easy it was to trick women into getting sex I would have tried that method years ago instead of spending thousands of dollars on dating.
Oh, and guys, take note of this: if you like casual no-strings-attached sex stay away from the single never-married 40 plus women. They are ticking baby-making bombs ready to explode. Think about this: most women over 40 cannot or will not be on the pill because of its health effects to older women. They are usually on NOTHING. Stay away.
Finally, MikeHunter, even though I like your name, you are being a dick.
mike w at December 21, 2009 4:02 PM
Leona why are either one of those better than a vasectomy, that you can have today? None of them allow you to become fertile again in a short time, although in theory RISUG might not require surgery. In 12+ years of study on that, there hasn't been a human reversal. Essentially these are other types of vasectomy, possibly as reversible as a vasectomy is. Heck, you could prolly just go to india and have it done for cheaper anyway, but that doesn't overcoem our basic problem: In a committed relationship, how do you make it so you only have children when you actually plan for them. Right now the best answer seems to be the C7-IUD, followed by the condom.
As a sidelight, people talk about failure rates, and I wonder how that is expressed... if a raincoat fails, it fails 100%, but then you just get PlanB to make sure nothing happens. How can you find a "yearly expression" over that?
'course if somebody is putting pinholes in things, that's a totally different story. Therin lies the problem. If a woman is determined she has lotsa different ways to go, and thousands of opportunities to make it happen.
We seldom talk about TIME in all of this, and how people change over time. A partner can tell you that they never want kids, you can have conversations and agreements... and then one day.
Oops.
"But you'll make such a good father." Yeah? that may be true, but why are you assuming you will be a good mother? And why are you assuming that my decision NOT to be a father, is incorrect? Why is it you get to change your mind like that, and then make it my problem?
SwissArmyD at December 21, 2009 4:05 PM
Why didn't he do anything in advance, since chances are he didn't?
Posted by: lenona
I hae a better question lenona, why would a guy do anything in advance when he knows that ubder the law nothing he does or does not do matters?
Here are a woman options in regards to a baby
Birth control - hormonal(how many virieties), non hormonal, spermicide, sponge, cervical cap,female condom
Celebacy
Sterilazation
abandonment
adoption
abortion
keep
keep while hiding truth about paternity
Here atre a mans options
Birth control - condom
Celebacy
Sterilazation
And since witholding sex will soon be considered abuse of a woman under the VAWA celebacy will soon get you a jail sentance
lujlp at December 21, 2009 4:22 PM
Swiss asks: "As a sidelight, people talk about failure rates, and I wonder how that is expressed... if a raincoat fails, it fails 100%, but then you just get PlanB to make sure nothing happens. How can you find a 'yearly expression' over that?"
Well, my understanding is that they just take an average: N number of people use method X for a year, and over that year Z pregnancies result, and from that they just compute the percentage. The obvious problem with that method is that it doesn't know how often the users are having sex, under what conditions, and so forth. So to make use of the stated percentages, you have to make assumptions about what constitutes the "average" sex life. If you only have sex a few times a year, obviously pregnancy is less likely to result than if you have sex every day.
It also doesn't take into account individual variability or susceptibility to particular methods. For example, the reliability of the rhythm method is usually stated as about 50%, but there are individual women for whom the rhythm method always works, and other women for whom it never works. One of the difficulties with methods that require active participation by the user, such as the Pill, condoms, and diaphragms, is that proper/improper use throws the odds off of the stated percentages. And finally, the percentages don't take into account the fact that some users may actually be infertile without knowing it, and so the percentage is overstating the efficacy of the method by some unknown amount.
Cousin Dave at December 21, 2009 5:37 PM
I think MikeW. that the responsibility lies in the individual themselves, each for themself, unless they are partners.
So you can see what is the point here. Trust. If you trust that your partner is doing what she says she is, and then she doesn't? What ARE you supposed to do?
There is no bigger coersion than this. IFF she isn't using BC, well then you better cover that willie. If she is taking a pill? Or said that she is sterile? Do you have to watch her take the pill everyday? Go to her ObGyn and make sure she is telling the truth?
Any number of times we have seen Amy dispense advice about couples that are fooling themselves into believing something about their partner. We wouldn't assume that an otherwise normal intelligent commited woman who supposedly loves you would be willing to betray you entirely so that she can have a kid. Except we KNOW it happens.
the only bad ones we hear about, are after the breakups. How about the ones where the betrayal is just considered an accident, and the family goes amrrily on it's way, because it turned out he really was good father material, and she really was good mother material. She probably will only ever tell her girlfriends that she did it accidentally on purpose. And they will prolly congratulate her on putting one over on him... If he's lucky.
But. Most women don't condemn or sweat this as wrong, and most don't see it as a betrayal of his trust. She got what she wanted, and he shoulda just known better.
[I am NOT talking about casual foolin' around, I am talking commited partners... so don't give me that bull about keeping it in your pants.]
SwissArmyD at December 21, 2009 7:43 PM
"You know nothing about me or any relationships that I've had."
Mike Hunter, you don't understand. She's the Mommy - she is in charge, she knows everything,including your own life, better than you do - you saw hte wya she presumed to say how oyu see al women and put owrds inot oyur mouth; she is entitled to judge you and all men.
And if you object to that you are "bitter" or whatever. Insubordinate, molre likely is what she really means. Simply pathetic. This is what a sexist pig looks like, Mike.
Jim at December 21, 2009 8:23 PM
Am I the only person who never had sex with an ungloved man till I was married? My health is NOT something I'm trusting to someone who can just walk away. And I was always on the pill, from age 14 until I wanted kids. Pregnancy was the least of the things I was worried about. Genitals are walking heaps of infectious agents.
And pull out? That is no birth control whatsoever, you might as well finish up inside, it's the same odds. All that love juice you guys drip out when turned on is chock full of little swimmers.
I really adore Mike H's POV: If the woman doesn't want a kid, she better take care of making sure it doesn't happen, because he doesn't want a kid and doesn't want to be paying for it for 18 years, but he's not willing to do anything to prevent it either. Brilliant. Let me guess-you expect women to pay for the pleasure of your company on dates, too!
momof4 at December 21, 2009 8:40 PM
Unsurprising. I would think that for the professional woman who is on a timeline, that number might be jacked up a bit. An example - I once knew a Major that seemed to revel in the idea of getting that baby faster than might have been desired by a guy - so, after her third out-of-wedlock pregnancy, she finally landed a reasonable prospect by sleeping with one of her co-workers. The best thing: she teaches the marriage class at at one of the military academies to young women becoming officers. She got extended for a fourth year there by timing her pregnancy perfectly to screw up her moving to her next unit - which also conveniently kept her out of combat. Pretty scary.
Richelieu at December 21, 2009 8:49 PM
mike w, not sure what you're referring to here:
"And no, I don't buy the whole "women can be coerced, or men can have women do what they want" argument. Are you serious CB? Isn't that sort of a cop-out for responsibility? Isn't that saying that women cannot think for themselves and need constant policing to keep from getting into a situation where they may be so foolish as to get conned by a man trying to get her in bed? Can't you think for yourselves?"
Who was suggesting that as an argument? It doesn't even make sense - obviously, cases where one party is physically coercing another are entirely different from situations in which one party is deceiving the other.
CB at December 22, 2009 4:50 AM
Here's the problem for guys. I've said it before on other threads, but I'll say it in plainer language here: When it comes to sexual relations:
Women are 20th-century. They have options.
Men are 19th-century. Their options are either prepare for the possibility of becoming a father, or live a life of chastity.
Why is that? Go back and look at the list of birth control options available to men that Luj posted:
* Condoms have a yearly reliability rate of about 80%. If you rely solely on condoms for birth control for five years, your odds of becoming a father are 63%.
* Vasectomy has a near-100% reliability rate, but it is far from being guaranteed reversible.
* Chastity has a high reliability rate, but...
Now, women. Think back to the 19th century. The good old days? No Pill? No IUD? No Norplant? Just diaphragms and the good ol' seltzer douche.
Doesn't sound like much fun, does it? Don't want to go back there? Well, I don't blame you. So here's the question:
If the 19th century doesn't sound so good to you, then why do you insist on keeping men confined there?
Cousin Dave at December 22, 2009 8:20 AM
If the 19th century doesn't sound so good to you, then why do you insist on keeping men confined there?
I don't see that anyone here relishes men's lack of options. I know that I don't. I wish that men had more options for reliable long term birth control that was not permanent.
When it comes to birth control, women have an advantage. Because there is a post-puberty state where women do not ovulate (pregnancy) medicine can replicate that state and greatly reduce the risk of pregnancy. Stopping a man's sperm production chemically would stop sexual function (among other things). No one here enjoys men's lack of options. However, in the 19th century, before women had all of the birth control options they have now, women were still responsible for their own sexual decisions. They still had to pay the consequences...and so the consistent message was, "Keep your legs closed".
Sadly men are still in that place, but I assure you that women everywhere will rejoice when men have more options for controlling births.
I've often wondered why there can't be a male IUD. Block the flow of sperm with a removable appliance that can be removed later. It would require a surgery similar to a vasectomy both to place it and to remove it, but why not?
-Julie
JulieW at December 22, 2009 8:44 AM
"then why do you insist on keeping men confined there?" - Cousin Dave
could you 'splain your explanation? It isn't a womans fault that they have more options, that's just the truth of the physiology for now... but maybe you are making a different point?
for an act of devotion that we find so necessary for our lives, why so difficult?
SwissArmyD at December 22, 2009 8:45 AM
"could you 'splain your explanation? It isn't a womans fault that they have more options,"
Exactly. But where there is an inequality, we can look for a cultural or legal remedy. Are women physically weaker than men? Then we put much stronger cultural censure on men's violence than women's. Check. We do that. Do women have more choice over conceiving the child? Then we allow men an opt-out. She wants the kid, she can pay on her own to raise it. And if she can't do that, save the kid a childhood and possibly a lifetime in poverty by removing her/him for adoption.
Jim at December 22, 2009 2:23 PM
momof4:
No. But I do expect them to be responsible for their bodies, and the decisions they make about their bodies. Their body, their choice, their responsibility.
SwissArmyD:
I wouldn't say it's womans' fault that men have less options per say. But it's certainly time to extend the legal protections afforded to women to men. Common sense, morality, and our constitution require it.
Mike Hunter at December 22, 2009 7:48 PM
JulieW writes:
"Sadly men are still in that place, but I assure you that women everywhere will rejoice when men have more options for controlling births."
I'm not so sure. Check out any feminist site where the concept of the male Pill has been brought up. The idea gives feminists the heebie jeebies. The very thought of it renders them incoherent and unable to express their ideas about it, other than that they hate it. They most assuredly do not want men to have that option. And they use their political influence to make sure that the research doesn't get funded. The FDA has recently made a statement that they would be unlikely to approve any male Pill for human trials -- I need to find the statement somewhere. The rationale was that they fear that availability of a reliable male Pill would lead to a boom in STDs.
"I've often wondered why there can't be a male IUD. Block the flow of sperm with a removable appliance that can be removed later. It would require a surgery similar to a vasectomy both to place it and to remove it, but why not?"
It's been tried. One that I have read about was a little valve that was spliced into the vas deferens. Once installed, it could be turned on and off by a very minor in-office surgical procedure. Problem: In trials, in about half of the men who receive devices like this, after 1-2 years their testicles permanently and inexplicably cease producing sperm cells. No one ever figured out why this happens. This was all back in the 1980s, and I don't think any further work has been done on it.
Cousin Dave at December 23, 2009 11:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/19/how_accidental.html#comment-1684325">comment from Cousin DaveCheck out any feminist site where the concept of the male Pill has been brought up. The idea gives feminists the heebie jeebies.
Seriously? I'm not a feminist, so I rarely check in at feminist sites (other than a site like ifeminist, run by Wendy McElroy, who is, like me, for fair treatment for all people, not special treatment under the guise of equal treatment). Please don't just describe how they feel/talk -- post an excerpt and a link. One link per comment so it won't go to spam. Please just post separate comments for separate links.
PS I'm all for anything that increases personal autonomy and decreases single-parent homes and paternity fraud, which ruins men's lives, and children's, too. It's a profound and horrible form of fraud and theft.
Amy Alkon at December 23, 2009 12:20 PM
Amy, let me see if I can go dig it up... there was a thread about it on Glenn Sacks a while back.
Cousin Dave at December 23, 2009 5:07 PM
Amy, read through the comments on this thread and tell me what you think. Also: I should have qualified my previous statement by saying "gender feminist". Wendy McElroy is clearly not a gender feminist, and I have a lot of respect for her. But she's an outlier among current feminism, just as you are. When Washington gets ready to write the next revision of VAWA, they don't go ask Wendy McElroy for her opinion -- they ask the likes of Amanda Marcotte. I support what the equity feminists are trying to do, but they aren't the ones setting the agenda.
Cousin Dave at December 23, 2009 6:02 PM
Here is Glenn Sacks' column on the issue, from last year. The number of comments is rather astounding.
Cousin Dave at December 23, 2009 6:44 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/19/how_accidental.html#comment-1684370">comment from Cousin DaveAmy, read through the comments on this thread and tell me what you think.
I think they're arguing that ads for male birth control will be mean to women. I don't see people, women or men, arguing against the male birth control.
If you're going to accuse feminists of something that requires me reading something at 1 a.m., please be accurate. There's plenty they should answer for. This is just another "ads will be awful to women" comment screed, not women upset that men would have control in not getting women pregnant.
Amy Alkon at December 24, 2009 1:21 AM
I dont know Amy, reading some of the comments under the stub - alot of those posts were trashing men and had nothing to do with possibke advertising decsions a decade from now
lujlp at December 24, 2009 3:21 AM
Well, lots of interesting things happeneing over this topic... one is that Glenn references the study by name that MikeH was looking for indicating 42% of women in the UK would lie to get preggers. Lots of othere reference it too, but I haven't found the direct study. Maybe somebody with better NetFu than me can find it: "National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004"
I have to agree with lujlp, Amy, but further think about how the consequence will be when regular Men's Birth Control is available. By that I mean like The Pill, or a easily reversible vasectomy.
I think a good jumping off point on how women would feel about losing control of the impregnation process from Glenn's comment thread:
From JayR:
"I believe that women will have very mixed feelings on this, but eventually will come down in the main resenting men who exercise their option for their OWN benefit, rather than the woman's. In other words, MBC will be great, so long as the woman doesn't want to get pregnant -- she will be able to INSIST (on the threat of withholding sex) that the male use MBC so she is not inconvenienced. But, the moment she (whether in consultation with the man or not) decides she wants to get pregnant, MBC will be perceived as a big problem. Women are so accustomed to believing that reproductive choices are THEIRS ALONE to make -- they will NOT take a liking to having to share that power, nor will they enjoy the additional responsibilities this will bring -- such as avoiding getting knocked up secretly by another man. I can just imagine a woman's reaction who has told her husband she wants a child to being told: "No, I'm sorry, Darling. I'll allow you to have a child when I'm good and ready." In having her absolute discretion removed, she will be livid, and will think that she is being treated VERY unfairly."
From an older GlennSacks thread Here
Personally, I think it would result in much more honest relationships, but it could be a rocky road till then. Honesty in that both parties will ACTUALLY have to agree, rather than one bullying the other to have kids, but also where sex itself has different consequence when witheld.
SwissArmyD at December 24, 2009 12:34 PM
Cousin Dave said:
I'm not so sure. Check out any feminist site where the concept of the male Pill has been brought up. The idea gives feminists the heebie jeebies.
_____________________
And the reason you're "not so sure" is that, as most people know, whenever the subject is mentioned to women on the street, their knee-jerk reaction is "I wouldn't trust him to remember to take it!"
I.E., most women are afraid of having too MANY babies. Not too few.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the study that said 42% of British women would willingly lie in order to get pregnant is likely misleading, because surely more than 56% of British women would make an effort to find men whose biggest life goals are compatible with theirs? That is, maybe a woman would be most likely to lie if the man changed his mind after saying "yes" to fatherhood initially.
BTW, as I pointed out to Glenn Sacks a while back, in all likelihood there have been many, many ethical women over the last half-century who have cried to their female friends: "My husband won't let me go off the Pill. He says he's not ready. I don't know what to do."
Not to mention that men in short-term relationships already use condoms, and men in long-term relationships are often only too glad to stop doing so because they trust the woemn they're with.
So I think it's safe to say that better male BC is not going to make a big difference to society in general. Assuming that men really WANT it and are willing to PAY for it - as I've pointed out over and over, if they do, why don't we hear them say so outside of Internet gossip? That is, radio and TV? And why don't hotheads like Marc Rudov and Bernard Chapin show the slightest interest in helping to bring those methods to the U.S.?
lenona at December 27, 2009 9:19 AM
Leave a comment