Hacker News Reader

>Don't want kids? Don't want to take chances? Don't have sex

This attitude has served our young people terribly [0]. Whether or not you support abstinence-only education, your absolute refusal to acknowledge the reality of human relationships and the sexual involvement that comes with it makes your advice worthless, akin to saying "Don't want to die in a car-wreck? Don't want to take chances? Don't leave your house."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17885460

Your linked article is not at all talking about what I'm saying.

All I'm saying by that is that there is one and only one guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy. I'm all for proper education on the alternatives but abstinence is the only contraceptive that's 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.

That's why the "don't want to take chances" portion of my conclusion is so critical. Education that contraceptives are imperfect is also critical IMO.

Yes, you are correct that this is the only way guaranteed way to prevent pregnancy. That information is not only obvious and well-known (I'm not sure there is a group of people who thinks you can get pregnant without having intercourse), but the attitude behind it perpetuates a culture of misinformation, lack of information, and sex-negativity. You say you're pro-education, but your attitude doesn't reflect that, as it matches precisely the group of people that preach otherwise.

Your code will never fail, if you never code.

Abstinence is basically off topic in this discussion. The goal is to "avoid pregnancy while having sex". Not having sex, is not a solution to this goal.

Telling someone not to drive if they don't want to die in a car crash, does not move car safety forward. Abstinence is often used as an extinguisher of information, not as a motivator.

Your information on IUDs is very out of date. Assuming you can pass an on-the-spot STI test and the time of insertion, IUDs are not considered to have any impact on fertility at this time.

Then our Doctors' information on IUDs was also very out of date. That was their recommendation. Despite the low risks, they were still risks we weren't willing to take.

That just sounds like your doctor didn't understand the risks or did understand but failed to explain the risks.

http://livescience.com/21866-iud-gynecologists-birth-control...

Modern IUDs do not cause disease; may be protective against disease; and the original faulty models may have been wrongly blamed for disease which was prevalent in the population.

Agreed, but IUDs by definition are implanted into the uterine wall, manually. Doctors can make mistakes or their hands can slip, causing a perforated uterus, which in turn can cause infertility.

But the doctor did not tell you how often that happens. So you have some unknown risk - how is anyone expected to make an informed choice?

Everything carries some risk. Female hormonal contraception carries some risk of death. (About 12 women per 10,000 taking the pill will experience a blood clot each year. This is potentially a life-changing or even life ending event.)

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02February/Pages/Media-hype-bloo...

Medicine is a vast, fast moving field. No shame in a doctor not knowing everything about everything. But if you want the best possible advice re: birth control I'd suggest finding a better doctor. :)

For your reference: The issue with IUDs and fertility is PID (Pelvic Inflamatory Disase). It was previously thought that having an IUD increased your risk of PID, but the latest research shows that the risk of PID is not associated with IUD use, but with IUD insertion. If you do not have an STI at the time of insertion, you're safe. Some research has even shown that the Mirena will lower the long term risk of PID, and a large study from China just came out showing that long-term use of IUD does not impact fertility.

You seem primarily concerned not with PID, but the risk of perforation during insertion in roughly 1 in every 2,000 women. Which, first off, is a pretty damn low rate, and compares favourably to the risks of other birth control options. And second, while a perforation can be serious, even if not caught it should just heal on its own. Worst case, it might require surgery, but it's not going to cause long term fertility issues.

Everyone has the right to choose which risks they're willing to take, to be sure. But I think you may be grossly misinformed if you think that the Mirena and similar IUDs convey significant risks of infertility. Don't get one inserted without an STI test, and get a followup check to make sure there's no perforation, and then there is no (repeat no) evidence of an increased rate of infertility.

From what I've read, IUDs do not cause infertility. Eg/ http://www.livescience.com/21866-iud-gynecologists-birth-con...

> Don't want kids? Don't want to take chances? Don't have sex.

If you are done with predetermined quota, one can go under the knife and start shooting blanks at no bodily cost.

Even vasectomy is not perfect. There is risk involved with the procedure. You're likely going to get a lecture regardless of how many kids you've had, and if you've had zero be prepared for outright refusal by many doctors. There is also some stigma attached to it. Some women find a man who's had a vasectomy a turn off.

> Some women find a man who's had a vasectomy a turn off

Of course, this is a mating game. The time to get a vasectomy is after having children in a relationship that you know is going to last.

This is true. As evidence to the fact, I have a little brother who is 15 years younger than me :-)

Never heard / found that?

I did the chop, and had I wanted more, I would have frozen some sperm. The procedure itself is also reversible. Considering the cost/benefit ratio, and the risks of male vs. those of female sterilisation, I consider not doing it selfish and boorish.

Well I did experience pushback when I had my vasectomy at 22 with no kids. I've also read of men with multiple children getting lectured about the procedure.

It is potentially reversible, not 100% reversible. There is a huge chance you'll be sterile for life. Some men also report post-vasectomy pain syndrome.

Why do you assume that condoms are only less pleasurable for men?

I never said "only" in that context.

Then you need to phrase your rants better, because that interpretation is definitely the most reasonable.

It seems pretty strongly implied by, "It's my personal opinion that men are the ones that need to suck it up."

The bigger problem with IUDs is that they can be exceptionally painful. Also, while people often seek out alternative birth control when they don't want to use condoms, the article clearly articulated a pretty high failure rate over ten years.

I don't know if I 100% agree with all of your points there, but I can see where you're coming from on them.

Regardless, I do really feel you're spot on about the attitudes that some gentlemen out there have towards condoms. Or, condoms are so inexpensive and practical, it makes a lot of sense to use them. Not to mention if they're properly sized they won't hurt or feel uncomfortable.