Talk:Birth control/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Video

Contraception – How to Prevent Unwanted Pregnancy

We have a new video. Typically my understanding is that we should not have more than the infobox in the lead. Others thoughts on placement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Have placed in the "methods" section to keep the lead from getting too cluttered. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ethically disputed practices

Concerned about this category. Religions are ethically disputed and I do not see them on the list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CATDEF a category should be a defining charateristic of the article topic. While there's a very brief mention of ethics, it isn't supported as a defining characteristic, so the category should not be applied. Zad68 22:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

IUD and implant results

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html

EllenCT (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Early history and Birth control movements

I just wanted to clarify the edits I made to this page, which were all included in the "History" section. I added some more details and examples of early birth control to the "Early history" subsection, specific to Medieval Europe, as I thought it was lacking and could use some more examples, particularly on the history of condoms. In the "Birth control movement" subsection, I added some more information about Margaret Sanger, including the location of the first birth control clinic, and her involvement in what is now known as Planned Parenthood. I also added information on the efforts of Presidents Johnson and Obama to further birth control access, as well as the FDA approving the first oral contraceptive, known as Enovid.

Aqcamps33 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Implantation

Have restored "The are unlikely to affect implantation." which states "The evidence strongly supports disruption of ovulation as a mechanism of action. The data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation"

References

This is better than a product insert IMO that says "Prescribing information: Ella; 12.1 Mechanism of action" (PDF). Silver Spring, Md.: FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). pp. 4–5. When taken immediately before ovulation is to occur, ella postpones follicular rupture. The likely primary mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception is therefore inhibition or delay of ovulation; however, alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy... The pharmacodynamics of ulipristal acetate depends on the timing of administration in the menstrual cycle. Administration in the mid-follicular phase causes inhibition of folliculogenesis and reduction of estradiol concentration. Administration at the time of the luteinizing hormone peak delays follicular rupture by 5 to 9 days. Dosing in the early luteal phase does not significantly delay endometrial maturation but decreases endometrial thickness by 0.6 ± 2.2 mm (mean ± SD)."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree... I also removed source based on non-MEDLINE indexed journal article from a journal associated with the "Catholic Medical Association" (?) as non-MEDRS. Zad68 16:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Text

Moved here

Extended content

http://www.ancient.eu/article/835/ Birth control can provide many benefits. Birth control promotes safe sex because it can prevent unwanted pregnancies and make people more aware of what consequences can come from it. It also comes with some health benefits. Birth control can make periods lighter, reduce cramping , clear up acne , and it has even been proven to reduce the risk of certain cancers . Birth control can also help reduce the teenage pregnancy rate. After the IUD came out the teen pregnancy rate in Colorado alone was cut in half within 5 years . There are definitely some drawbacks to using birth control. It can cause users to gain weight, it can increase the possibility of having a stroke , and it can increase the chance in getting blood clots . Because there are so many different forms of birth control, it can make it safer for different women if they can find one that does not effect their health in a bad way. Birth control is just like any other medicine because it provides services, but it also has possible side effects. References

Not sure what is with that first link? Also the rest of this is poorly referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the sentence about family planning and culture necessary in the first paragraph?

It's supposed to be a straightforward explaination of what birth control is, not a definition and then references to 3 tangential articles relating to it. Dvalentine (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should not merely contain "a straightforward explanation of what birth control is." Given the great variation in cultural attitudes towards birth control, and the implications of that variation, it seems eminently appropriate to mention that, and so provide context, within the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is good to start with some general definitions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birth control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church on Contraception

Hello, the article at present only says the Church only accepts natural family planning but the Church also condemns artificial birth control as can be seen from reading humanae vitae. So I'll add this but if you have issues say on talk page

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.120.0 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're finally discussing it here. On the other hand, see WP:EVASION. Your block was short and it may be best to wait until it expires instead of possibly incurring other sanctions because of evasion. Your last edit has a typo but I'll let it stand for now for other editors to look at. My impression is that "The Roman Catholic Church officially only accepts natural family planning" already says "officially only accepts". When looking at the source, they do seem to disagree about the use of artificial birth control methods (they have various possible issues claims), but I see no unequivocal threat or punishment about it. It is also obvious that today many Catholics do use such methods in many countries and do not get excommunicated (that may still occur in some cases perhaps). — PaleoNeonate — 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Humanae vitae is we call a WP:PRIMARY source. You are interpreting it. That is not OK to do in WP, per WP:OR. Wikipedia is built by summarizing high quality secondary sources. If you want to see more content about the RC hierarchy's views on birth control, please propose such content here, and please cite the high quality, reliable sources that support the content. Please also be aware of WP:WEIGHT with regard to the article overall. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I should've cited a secondary Catholic source on this. As for not getting excommunicated, I dont think murderers are excommunicated (at least in the latin rite). Just because an offense doesnt lead to excommunication it doesnt mean its not a big sin (if your interested http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.120.0 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK this is done. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"gravely immoral" is not needed "immoral" is enough. Gravely means deathly which in this case it is not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@123.231.120.0: If you have an account, please avoid editing logged out. It is also important to discuss changes on the relevant article's talk page when being reverted (which you have finally done, but you probably should still have suggested the sentence here instead of still editing the article and getting reverted or corrected again). These issues were why you were temporarily blocked, so here is how to avoid the same problems in the future. By using a single account, not only will you avoid being considered socking, but it will make communication easier (instead of receiving messages on the talk pages of previous IP addresses no longer assigned to you, for instance). Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 17:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Prof. Aaron E. Carroll:

Doubtful Science Behind Arguments to Restrict Birth Control Access (10 10 2017). Imho interesting - but I am no native speaker. Anyone there who is willing and able to bring it into the article ? thanks in advance --Neun-x (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure it is notable for this article as basically US politics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My impression was the same when reading it. We have a society and culture section, but it already mentions religious and conservative views. —PaleoNeonate – 05:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

unsourced

User:Jytdog said trim unsourced, trim content based on old primary source. The statement is not unsourced. See section "Teaching the STM" in the source: "All the women who participated in the study were taught the STM by accredited teachers" Strangely, this important fact is not stated at all in the abstract of the study. --rtc (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Inthis series of edits you a) added unsourced content (namely "for unmarried girls" and b) added content based on a 2007 source that fails WP:MEDDATE.

Please be aware that it is BRD not BRDR. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are the one who is editwarring. Stop it, now, or you will be blocked.

1. Your claim about unsourced content was for the 2007 source, not about the unmarried girls.
2. For the unmarried girls, your claim was "nope". Your personal opinion. As I have stated several times, the source does not back the ridiculous claim that anyone is advocating "total abstinence". Noone in their right minds would advocate such a thing. The source is about "wait until they're ready", "wait to find the "right" partner", "focus on school ...", "Advantages for Teens", "beliefs and values". This is primarily about unmarried teens, as is completely clear from the content as well as the context of the source. At no point does the source advocate, talk about, or even mention the term "total abstinence". It says "People are abstinent off and on for reasons that may change over time". Okay, it also says "a few are abstinent their whole lives" but nowhere does it advocate such a thing. You are the one who is ignoring the source by defending a version that makes a hilarious claim. Total abstinence is advocated by noone except a few fundamentalist sects with very few if any adherents (see Antisexualism).
3. The 2007 source does not fail WP:MEDDATE at all. WP:MEDDATE does not say "you must not use any source older than 5 years", it says "editors should try to find those newer sources" and "If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious" (my emphasis). The 2007 source is the one cited by Trussell2011. There is no more recent source. Thus, it is perfectly fine.

You ignored all these arguments and simply started editwarring. Calm down and accept my edits. Otherwise measures will be taken. We don't need fundamentlist opinions about total abstinence in the Wikipedia that are not backed by any source. --rtc (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, when I said content was unsourced, I was referring to the "unmarried girls" which was not in the source provided.

The 2007 ref is 10 years old, and we should indeed find a more recent source and add content based on that. I will look for one and update the article. This is what you should have done, but as you will then. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit about the unmarried girls merely said "nope". Your comment "trim unsourced, trim content based on old primary source" was for an edit about the 2007 source.

About the girls, I changed my version slightly, saying "primarily for unmarried teens". You reverted that too, without any new argument. Clearly, the source is focusing on teens. It directly talks about "Advantages for Teens". It talks about "beliefs and values". What, if not premarital sex, is this referring to, in your opinion?! It talks about "focus on school". Only teens go to school. "wait until they're ready" again is about teens, clearly. It is true that the source also talks about other reasons for abstinence, but those are not the primary ones. At no point is the source advocating total abstinence. We need to give WP:DUE weight. In almost all cases, abstinence is advocated for unmarried teens. Advocating it for anyone else, or even advocating total abstinence is a very small minority opinion.

If you can find any more recent paper than the 2007 version about the same topic, fine. I have been looking for one but couldn't find one. --rtc (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The planned parenthood ref does not talk about "unmarried". It does have a single paragraph saying that "Abstinence and outercourse have special advantages for teens and younger people" on the last page but is otherwise aimed at everybody (many people in college and grad school are not teens, btw) so the "primarily" is also not supported. The edit is altogether not supported by the source. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, the page talks about "beliefs and values". The only beliefs and values I know of in that context concern premarital sex. So this is clearly referring to having sex before marriage.

The page has one list about possible reasons for abstinence:

• "wait until they feel ready for a sexual relationship" => not relevant after marriage
• "wait to find the right partner" => not relevant after marriage
• "enjoy their partner’s company without having to deal with a sexual relationship" => for everyone
• "focus on school, their job, or hobbies" => for everyone
• "follow their personal, moral, or religious beliefs and values" => not relevant after marriage
• "get over a breakup" => short-term reason
• "heal from the death of a partner" => short-term reason
• "follow their doctor’s advice during or after a sickness, infection, or medical procedure" => rare, short-term, medical reason.

Thus, 3 items are about temporary reasons, 3 are not relevant after marriage and only 2 are for everyone. Further, as you admit yourself, there is an entire paragraph talking about teens only, arguing that abstinence has "special advantages for teens and younger people".

Altogether, this clearly focuses on unmarried teens. Nowhere does it talk about "total abstinence". Thus, the "primarily" is clearly supported and the edit is altogether supported by the source. The entire point of advocating abstinence by proponents of abstinence-only sex education is to make teens not have premarital sex. If you think the source does not support this, you should at the same time argue that the source is a bad one, as it would not give due weight to the only relevant position, which is abstinence for unmarried teens. --rtc (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

btw along with being old, the 2007 ref is also a primary source. I have been forgetting to mention that. It fails MEDRS and should never have been cited here at all. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. MEDRS does not say that primary sources are forbidden. It says that "Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal undue weight, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that checking can be made by editors without specialist knowledge." The statement you deleted merely stated the basic result of the study -- a study cited by standard secondary sources like Trussell2011. Actually, my edit did not introduce that source, nor the statment. It merely clarified that the study which reported <2% (much less than the typical 20%) was not talking about "Overall first-year failure rates [...] of the symptothermal method", but about failure rates observed after the subjects had taken part in teaching sessions about the method. Having said that, the source is clearly dubious. But it is the standard source cited for the symptothermal method and I don't know of any other, let alone more recent one. --rtc (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, later on, the section about abstinence suddenly starts talking about teens. So the reader wonders, what does it have to do with teens? --rtc (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ref says 0.4

So not sure why this change.[1]

The symptothermal method is one form of fertility awareness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That section of the article contains two parts. The first part can be understood to be about about fertility awareness methods that use one single kind of measurement in isolation. For those methods, perfect use rate is given as 0.4% to 5%. This is confusing and prone to misunderstanding. The source says that 0.4% holds for the symptothermal method only. Perfect first-year failure rate when using a single measurement in isolation is 3% to 5%. Only in the second part, which follows, the section introduces the symptothermal method, which is special because it is a combination of several kinds of those measurements. This makes it more reliable, but also more complicated. The article should clearly separate the symptothermal method from the single-factor fertility awareness methods, to be more specific and less confusing. --rtc (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking here and symptothermal is under fertility awareness. So I disagree with your proposed change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please try to read and understand what I wrote. The first part discusses "Techniques for determining fertility". These are the kind of measurements that one can use for determining fertility. The second part discusses the symptothermal method. It is not a technique by itself, but merely means using the basal body temperature technique and at least one of the others and then evaluating the results accoding to certain rules. Fertility awareness includes both the techniques themselves and the symptothermal method. The source gives 0.4 for fertility awareness as a whole, while the article incorrectly claims 0.4 for the techniques. --rtc (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC) PS: Just to be clear, in case you have trouble understanding a surprising mathematical fact: It is possible to combine several weak techniques mathematically and get a method that it much stronger than any single one of them.

It is discussing "methods" and "symptothermal method" is one of those.

I am not seeing any issue with the existing wording.

We even say " perfect use first-year failure rates depend on which method is used and range from 0.4% to 5%" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't take that statement out of its context. The context is that techniques are discussed. Of course any technique directly leads to a method, but not the other way around. Thus the context suggests that this sentence is talking about methods based on the techniques. This suggestion is emphasized by the fact that the section starts talking about the symtpothermal method only AFTER the the statement you cited. --rtc (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty pointless. It seems to me, as an outsider, that the intent is to obscure the fact that Vatican Roulette does not work, and is supported as a form of birth control only by religious groups, for that reason. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What? Excuse me, what are you talking about? --rtc (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously RtC drop the stick. If you must try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is stick to be dropped here. I can try a RfC but IMO it just wastes your time and it wastes my time. --rtc (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right about it being a waste of time, but for the wrong reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• btw the symptothermal method is something that is marketed under a registered trademark as Sensiplan http://www.sensiplan.com/ by Malteser Hilfsdienst (that is the de-WP article which is better than ours) which is a German-based Catholic relief organization. They developed it with the "Arbeitsgruppe NFP" (site) which translates to the "natural family planning work group". It is indeed a multifactorial "quantified self" thing (although they don't have an app yet) that they developed in the 2000s. They do have a whole old-school infrastructure (like a lot of psych things do, actually) where they have standardized training material, and they train people who have to take an exam and stay certified, and only those people can do counselling, and they have a book that you can buy etc. Some of that is surely money-making stuff but it also ensures standardization and allows marketing of the exact method.

i think because they have such a well defined thing and an outfit to teach it and propagate it, they a) have been able to gather better evidence and b) get better results. I think that is what rtc has been on about. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really. it's much simpler than that and doesn't have anything to do with Sensiplan. And BTW, sensiplan in fact has an app (it's called myNFP). See also Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#cite_note-21 (NB: That's the study cited by Trussell2011). Further note that de.wp has an entire article about the symptothermal method with a list of various variants (de:Symptothermale_Methode#Übersicht_über_verschiedene_symptothermale_Methoden) --rtc (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not their app; they say they have no app on their homepage and they refer to that one as not-theirs. See also the review PMC 4216977 which says The most extensively studied method is Sensiplan®, the symptothermal method of Natural Family Planning (NFP), mucus, temperature and calculation rules (Frank-Herrmann et al., 2007).--Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the Sensiplan brand is a registered trademark, I doubt that the app uses this trademark without permission. It may not technically be "their" app; but there most definitely is a business relationship between Sensiplan and the app manufacturer. BTW [2] says there was another Sensiplan app, discontinued in 2014. --rtc (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC about content issue tags

Insertion of the following content issue tags was reverted. Was this insertion justified or not? (Text is the original edit summary.)

• source does not mention the notion of "total" sexual abstinence, let alone advocate it
• Not clear whether method means merely the techniques mentioned before or includes the symptothermal method mentioned only after the statment
• WP:WEASEL. The source does not mention anything about groups
• 0.4 to 5% is a quite wide spectrum; which is which?

rtc (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

None of them were needed, and at least one of them was disruptively pointy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? It would be useful if you could state:

• Have you read the edits under discussion?
• Have you checked the edit summary of each edit for factual accuracy?
• If so, do you agree it is true?
• If so, why do you nonetheless think the respective tag is not needed?
• Which tag exactly do you consider pointy and why?

Note that this is not a vote; it's about finding a compromise and a solution. Simply voting and expressing one's general support or opposition without fact checking won't help the cause of an RFC. --rtc (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was about determining whether or not the tagging was justified. It wasn't. What's to compromise? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

By being more specific, you could help figuring out where exactly the disagreement is. Is it the factual accuracy of the edit summaries? Is there some other issue? Figuring out whether and how to compromise is only a second step after the problem has been analyzed. "identify common ground, and attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart" Simply stating disagreement won't help to identify common ground. --rtc (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

When the "disagreement" is between one persona nd everyone else who's commented to date, as is the case here, the source of the disagreement is very easy to identify. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please identify common ground, and attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart. --rtc (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus does not require universal agreement. The common ground is: you're wrong. There is only one evident dissenter from this view, and that's you. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

So Doc James thinks I am wrong, for a reason he does not really explain. You think I am wrong because Doc James thinks so and you find his credentials impressive. Jytdog thinks I am wrong because he reverted previous versions of my edits and assumed it's all the same, and because your opinion confirms his opinion. Some of your admin friends on WP:ANI think I am wrong because you all say I am wrong and they know and trust you and thus support you. Everyone thinks I am wrong. Not a single person, except Doc James has actually read and understood my changes, everyone relies on his opinion an an alleged authority on the topic. And because the common ground is that I'm wrong, I must be wrong and it is not even necessary to consider my arguments and attempt to figure out where the disagreement is. --rtc (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop sealioning. I think you are wrong for the same reason Doc James does: I read what you wrote and find it unpersuasive. Others do to, as evidence in the ANI thread. Bored now. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyone in the ANI thread is accusing me of something different, but for most of the accusations, no diff has ever posted (such as the claim that I "think a citation is needed that 100 percent abstinence is 100 percent foolproof" or your claim that I "include special pleading about how they are really not a lottery"). And this lets me really really doubt that you actually read what I wrote. "sealioning" is simply a killer argument discrediting any form of rational defense against accusations, and any kind of rational discourse in general. If rational discourse breaks down, we are left with "might is right", which I don't think is the right approach for an encylopedia. If the prosecutor is free to make up claims without evidence, and the accused person is charged with sealioning if he points to the fact that no evidence exists, that's nothing but totalitarianism. Apparently, in the ANI discussion, User:GreenMeansGo could agree on some of my points, after he actually read my arguments and checked them for validity. It can't be that difficult if you try. --rtc (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• No evidence to justify this. WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• I removed the RfC tag. There is not a significant enough dispute to warrant taking the community's time with this. rtc I suggest you try something more low key like WP:DRN but you are unlikely to get traction anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  That's ridiculous. The RfC was proposed by Doc James, I warned him that it may be a waste of time, and now I am accused I started it because it's a waste of time. This just adds to all the nonsense. Discussion: not necessary. Evidence: not necessary. Listening to argument: not necessary. Rfc: not necessary. --rtc (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of methods for WP:DR. Each of us has to use his or her own judgement. btw, using the article talk page is always step #1 for DR, and one generally gets farther more efficiently by proposing concrete changes on the talk page. Like "how about if we say 'blah blah blah(ref)' instead of 'bleh bleh bleh(ref)'." Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ. Ya'll need to calm the fuck down. If you really need a third party to look into it, well... that's what WP:3O is normally for, but if it takes ANI to get someone else involved, just... gimme till tomorrow to figure out what's going on and I'll do what I can. Having looked into is as much as I already have, I can say that both sides are at least a little bit wrong. Hopefully that will suffice until in the morning. GMG^talk 00:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • • If you want to suggest a change to content than start a RfC about that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Start another one? Are you serious?! I certainly won't fall for this trap twice. --rtc (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to resolve things without an RfC. But if that's necessary I have no qualms about it. But I'd much rather have an actual conversation about the issues. One of the few things that I've so far had time to look into is the Planned Parenthood source, which does not, as far as I can tell, support the claim in the article at all. That's not saying the claim is wrong. In fact, I'm confident that it is perfectly true, but I'm equally confident that we need a better source. If I'm missing something, feel free to correct me. If I'm not missing something, then a better source will help improve the verifiabilty of the article. GMG^talk 01:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Also rtc, you are exactly among those who need to "calm the fuck down". GMG^talk 01:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

So yeah. There you go. If the claim doesn't match the source, you either rewrite the source to match the claim, as QuackGuru did here, or you find a source that backs up the claims, which took all of fifteen seconds. I really don't understand what is so difficult about that that it needs to escalate to ANI. GMG^talk 09:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean rewrite the claim to match the source? If someone is rewriting sources because they don't match what we are saying, I think we have to question if these are really WP:RS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Strike that, reverse it. Thank you. GMG^talk 12:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

We should probably merge Comparison of birth control methods here? Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose that article goes into further detail than the main one should IMO. That table for example is too detailed and does not format well on mobile. Comparison of birth control methods could use some work though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

hm. in my view it is a pure content fork. Everything there should be here. We don't need a table. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That sound like you wish to remove the table more than "merge" the articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Much of the table is badly sourced or unsourced and shouldn't be anywhere. the rest pretty much duplicates what is here or is unsourced there. there would not be that much to merge. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe first trim that article and than we can reassess if their is anything worth merging. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstinence

A discussion of an edit I did removing a reference to abstinence being 100% effective (edit summary: "Abstinence" is the choice to not have sex, and thus does not cover rape; reworded.") ended up on one of the drama boards (primarily my fault), and as it's a content matter I thought I'd best migrate it here. Here is what I posted in response, slightly reworded for context.

On the sexual abstinence page, it is defined as "refraining" from sexual activity. Look up refrain, and you'll find such definitions as "stop oneself from doing something" (Google) or "to keep oneself from doing, feeling, or indulging in something and especially from following a passing impulse" (Merriam Webster), "to abstain from an impulse to say or do something" (dictionary.com), and similar definitions. The person being raped is not having an impulse, and is not doing something but is rather having something done to them. The person being raped still qualifies as abstaining, but may still get pregnant. And, on the other hand, someone who is trying to get laid and failing is not "abstinent", but their lack of sex will still prevent pregnancy.

(Having said that, I should probably reword it further, as I switched it to "Not engaging in any kind of sexual activity is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy", and "engaging in" still suggests some degree of activity on the woman's part; will likely replace it with "having". Or possibly simplifying it to "People who do not have sex do not become pregnant.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In response your comment, I noted elsewhere that "many reliable sources define sexual abstinence as not engaging in sexual activity. More specifically, choosing not to engage in sexual activity, and especially choosing not to in order to avoid STIs and pregnancy. Some definitions of celibacy (as sourced in the Celibacy article) also define celibacy as choosing not to engage in sexual activity. Sexual abstinence is not so much about fighting an impulse, at least definition-wise, despite how the word refrain may be used and/or interpreted. And like I stated on the article's talk page regarding use of refraining, sources on sexual abstinence are usually speaking of intentionally not being sexual. We could change the lead of the Sexual abstinence article, which I will likely do. But stating 'sexual abstinence is abstaining from' could be considered redundant since abstain and refrain are commonly used as synonyms. I'll think about other options for that lead and the lead of the Abstinence article. Anyway, I don't think that the previous text was implying or overlooking anything regarding rape. It's clear via sources what sexual abstinence means. People know that rape is a matter concerning consent. A person is not said to have not been abstinent because they were raped."

A lot of sources on sexual abstinence state that "sexual abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy." They are clearly not speaking of/considering rape. Rape victims (when speaking of rape as a forceful matter or having sex with someone while incapacitated) do not consider rape to be engaging in sexual activity, because they were not engaging. Furthermore, the lead Abstinence section already addresses rape by stating "however, not everyone who intends to be abstinent actually does so, and in many populations there is a significant risk of pregnancy from nonconsensual sex." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That some sources do not consider rape in their statement does not mean that we should not, and that would be particularly poor form in an article that does include forms of birth control that are effective in the case of rape. It's a provably false statement that should not be included. That "engaging in" is problematic I admit above, where I suggest shifting to "having", or one other alternative. If we're saying it's 100% effective and then saying there's a substantial risk of pregnancy, we've got a factual conflict in our article in a very short span. (We could also do away with the 100% claim altogether; I think that by this point in the article, the reader probably has a sense that pregnancy has a strong link to sexual activity.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this depends on the perspective from which one is talking. From a public health perspective when thinking about birth control, people look for actual efficacy. This is why there are distinctions made between "perfect use" and "typical use" - this is trying to deal with the artificiality of controlled studies where being in a trial makes people more conscientious, and to try to figure out how well things work in the real world.

So looking at abstinence from that perspective, total pregnancies are measured, and yes non-consensual sex that results in pregnancy "counts" - that pregnancy wouldn't happen if someone was, for example, on the pill.

Of course from a philosophical perspective, sure non-consensual sex doesn't "count". But that is irrelevant. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

NatGertler, the thing is...you are considering rape in a way that seems unnecessary. When sources and the general public speak of sexual abstinence, they are not talking about "remain abstinent from rape" as well. That's the point I'm trying to get across. They are speaking of sexual abstinence in a consensual sex manner. When it comes to rape, we can specifically mention rape, and we currently do. As for "engaging in" or "having," the rape victims (when it comes to the forceful and incapacitated rapes) would state that they were not engaging in or having sex. All that stated, I am open to your concerns being addressed via re-wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think that considering rape to be unnecessary; it's actually very necessary because it's something that many women live through, and is the basis of too many pregnancies. Heck, pregnancy is the point of rape in some very organized situations. So if there's some reason why we should be making the false claim that abstinence is 100% effective, put it forth, but realize that that false claim is made in arguments for discouraging use of birth control methods that actually would be effective in cases of rape. So far, you've put forth nothing constructive, and it is coming across very much as complaining for complaining's sake. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere did I state that considering rape is unnecessary. I stated that when sources and the general public speak of sexual abstinence, they are not talking about "remain abstinent from rape" as well. And that is a fact. Sexual abstinence is not about rape. At all. I also made it clear that we already consider rape. It is right there in the lead Abstinence section. I follow what the sources state. Always. When looking at the literature, you appear to be the one who is complaining for complaining's sake. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm the guy who made a correction for accuracy's sake, and when you raised your nonsense complaints, I made the mistake of trying to address them as if you had something to contribute. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Per the sources, you made no correction. What is nonsense is acting like people mean "And, oh, please refrain from getting raped." when they state "sexual abstinence." When you bring sources defining sexual abstinence as "avoiding being raped," then we can talk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

First, this back and forth needs to simmer down about two and a half notches. Second, why don't we avoid debating what type of nuance, and just be nuanced? Put something in following the wording of the sources to the effect of Abstinence is effective yadda yadda...{{efn|However, the risk of non-consensual sex may still be... something something...}} GMG^talk 15:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sources you are talking about; you haven't put them forth, and the articles we have in the next block of references following that statement refer to such claims only as what advocates say about abstinence, and are generally critical about the effectiveness of abstinence. If you do find a source that claims that abstinence is 100% effective, then you've got a problematic source, because it will be they, not me, who are suggesting that abstinence includes the avoidance of being raped. In the country where I live, the estimates of the number of pregnancies arising from rape are in the tens of thousands annually. How many of these were relying on abstinence for their birth control is not a figure I can find, but to assume it is zero is ridiculous. I've already put forth multiple possible wordings; here is another: "Unintended pregnancy does not occur without sexual activity; however, not everyone who intends to abstain actually does so consistently, and in many populations there is a significant risk of pregnancy from nonconsensual sex." --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess we've got a problematic source, because the one we already use in the article says As a personal choice, abstinence is always 100% effective for STI prevention because, logically, abstinence cannot simultaneously be nonabstinence. But it goes on to differentiate between abstinence-as-choice and abstinence-as-policy: as a public health intervention used at a population level, abstinence almost certainly will have a failure rate, even if it is successful in a larger sense. [3]

What the source dealing with non-consensual sex specifically says is abstinence, faithfulness to partners, or condom use will have very limited utility since many of these women do not have the power to protect themselves. Many are faithful but, because of their economic dependence, they have no power over when and under what circumstances they have sex. But this appears to be addressing abstinence-as-policy with regard to disadvantaged populations, specifically here, women in Haiti, but abstinence-as-policy seems to be the theme of the source as a whole, which the first source treats as distinct from "abstinence-as-choice". [4]

Regardless, the approach of if the sources don't agree with me then the sources are wrong probably isn't going to get us anywhere. Further, the NIH source you provide appears to be talking about rape, and not about rape in the context of abstinence as a form of birth control, so trying to use it here is synthy. GMG^talk 15:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an article on STI infections, and the statement that we are claiming is not about STI infections. I did not insert the rape source into the article, so synth is not a problem. There is no Wikipedia policy that I know of that requires us to include obvious BS even when a source is found. And there are certainly sources talking about how abstinence fails in the case of rape. (I will be posting less if at all over the next few days; do not assume silence=consensus on my part.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess we all know the context. Not having any form of sex clearly prevents STIs, but the normal context of abstinence is religious crazies promoting abstinence-only as a form of birth control and STI prevention, and the data shows very clearly that this does not work. The most effective teen pregnancy and STI prevention schemes are founded on proper sex ed. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the relevance. If ouija boards were a commonly used form of generally ineffective birth control, it would warrant coverage in the article too. GMG^talk 16:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, no dispute there, but we have to be very careful not to confuse actual abstinence with abstinence as promoted as a form of birth control. Actual abstinence works, abstinence promoted as birth control results in high teen pregnancy rates. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, thanks for stepping in to cool things down. I respect NatGertler and we have worked well at times together in the past, and so I was disheartened to see this discussion take the turn it did. But I am also used to sometimes disagreeing with colleagues I respect and get along with. Contentious topics and one being passionate about them can do that. As for your suggestion to state "Abstinence is effective [...]. However, the risk of non-consensual sex may still be.", that is what I am stating. The article currently does that, but we can tweak the text if it needs it.

NatGertler stated, "I'm not sure what sources you are talking about; you haven't put them forth. I pointed to a link on Google Books, which clearly shows how sexual abstinence is defined. I could, of course, list a lot of sources here showing how sexual abstinence is defined. Listing a lot of sources is something I commonly do in a dispute where the literature is being challenged. But I don't feel that the WP:ONUS is on me. We have many sources stating that sexual abstinence is choosing not to engage in sexual activity, especially to prevent pregnancy and STIs. Where are the sources defining sexual abstinence additionally as an act to prevent rape? I came across this 2001 "Adolescence in America: N-Z" source, from ABC-CLIO, page 3, stating that sexual abstinence is beneficial because it can also protect one from date rape if living by a sexual abstinence lifestyle, and this 2016 "Crisis Intervention Strategies," from Cengage Learning, page 247, stating, "Sexual refusal assertiveness and sexual abstinence do reduce chances for sexual assault (Wigderson & Katz, 2015).'" But that's not the same thing as stating that sexual abstinence is about rape prevention. It is rather something some sources note as a benefit if the person (usually a woman) does not put herself in situations where she might be tempted to engage in sexual activity, and therefore risk being date raped (or acquaintance raped), which sounds like blaming the victim. All that I am stating is that when sexual abstinence is recommended, it is not meant as a reference to rape as well. Rape (discounting the complex consent aspects) is beyond the person's control. Sexual abstinence is not. Otherwise, it comes across as blaming the victim by insisting that sexual abstinence failed for the victim because the victim was raped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the only point I think I would make in response is that while rape may not be a factor in abstinence-as-choice (borrowing the division from the source I cite above), it does appear to be a factor in abstinence-as-policy. Which is to say not really important in the micro (e.g., my younger sister is a devout evangelical and chose to not be sexually active until she was married, she had some statistical chance of being raped during this period, but was not), but it does seem to be a factor in the macro, (e.g., public policy that tries to address unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STIs by using abstinence is going to be less effective especially in areas where women are particularly disadvantaged, culturally denied sovereignty over their reproductive decisions, or subject to things like rape as a weapon of war).

I'm not sure if we should make that clarification in the article (micro life choice vs. macro public policy), or really how we would if we did, but the disagreement here seems to fall along the lines of both of you making valid points, just approaching it from different angles, as the author cited above does. GMG^talk 19:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Doc James and Jytdog have some thoughts on these latest points? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the proposed word change to the article in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, rather than respond to three different comments, I've given a go at a rewrite. Maybe it's agreeable. Maybe not. My misgiving is that the 88% figure is kindof deceptive without also saying that only 25% of the "pledgers" were abstinent by age 25, although that doesn't seem to account for what percent of the 100% is the percent that the 88% is a percent of. I'd much rather have a figure that said out of the total of the experimental group (the pledgers), how many in total engaged in premarital sex. The whole thing is also pretty Christo/Anglo-centric, in that it assumes that premarital sex is a thing that is... a thing. That's not even taking into account the sample... so you know... Template:Globalize. I'd much rather have a more focused meta analysis, but I have jack shit for journal access. I'd also much rather have a multi-national and multi-cultural study. I'm open to comments, amendment or suggestions. GMG^talk 22:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I always take these opportunities to note that 0.5% of pregnancies in the US occur in women who claim never to have had sex.

I like the rewrite. The sample being awkwardly phrased is the only thing I'd change, but I don't have a suggestion for how to change it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

? GMG^talk 10:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Simplified a bit. I have had cases of pregnancies in people who claim to have never had sex. So yes it occurs fairly frequently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I like how it's looking at this point. The statement made in the above discussion that Rape (discounting the complex consent aspects) is beyond the person's control. Sexual abstinence is not. doesn't seem to address the concerns of this article, which is birth control. Rape is beyond a person's control; getting impregnated during rape is not, as many of the other birth control methods being discussed would reduce the risk of pregnancy in the case of rape, and I see no reason to believe that abstinence will do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

What I stated does address the concerns of this article. GreenMeansGo understands why I made the above comments, and I pointed to reliable sources showing why. You seemed to be defining "sexual abstinence" in a way it usually is not defined. So I repeat: Sexual abstinence is not about rape. It is not suggested as a form of rape protection. Not usually anyway, which is why wondering if sexual abstinence will protect against rape is odd. Other than the date rape/acquaintance rape aspect mentioned in the two sources I provided above, which note sexual abstinence as a benefit to not being vulnerable to rape (if staying away from situations where one can be vulnerable to rape), who believes that abstaining from sexual activity will protect them from rape/pregnancy as a result of rape? Who is teaching this? In any case, I am fine with this, this and this latest edit. And left a note in the edit history about the changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean... I guess in some sense my wife, who uses an IUD currently, would have added protection against unwanted pregnancy if she were raped. I'm just... not sure that we've seen any sources so far that discuss things in this context, meaning in the context that an individual woman, when deciding what type of birth control is right for her, has been issued some medically sound advice to consider rape as a factor in whether abstinence, withdraw, cycle counting, etc. is the option she thinks is the best fit. We have seen sources that discuss this from a policy perspective with regard to abstinence, but not that I can tell from an individual perspective. So I don't know that I see a compelling reason to address it in the article any more than I see a compelling reason to discuss rape in the instance of cycle counting, even though presumably neither would protect more than the other against rape. GMG^talk 20:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The question of reliance on birth control in the case of rape shows up at least in news stories and here's a psychologist covering the concern, and rape is very much part of the discussion in "morning after" contraception. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I should also add that it would make a clear difference in cycle counting if we were making a 100% claim about cycle counting. We're not. The difference it makes in the impregnation rate of those who practice cycle counting may be small (although I suspect that would also depend on location and demographics of the study), and be seen as more of a rounding factor - but if we're claiming 100%, that will be viewed as actually meaning 100%, not just rounded up to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"who believes that abstaining from sexual activity will protect them from rape/pregnancy as a result of rape? Who is teaching this?" Every single source that announces that abstinence is 100% effective birth control is teaching this, whether or not that is their intent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not so. I've addressed why it isn't so, since sexual abstinence is 100% effective birth control when not taking rape into account. You are taking rape into account while sources on sexual abstinence are not; they do not because, as stated times before, sexual abstinence is not about rape. No one is said to have not used sexual abstinence effectively because they were raped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you've repeated that pointless phrase time and time again. Yes, I am taking raped women into account, because they actually matter. By the logic that "sexual abstinence is not about rape and therefor should be considered 100% effective birth control", we could say "drinking orange juice is 100% effective birth control", because drinking orange juice is not about sex, and thus doesn't in itself get anyone pregnant. This article is about birth control, and to overlook a flaw that relying on abstinence has that relying on other methods does not and thus put forth a false efficacy rate would do a disservice to our readers. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

We've both repeated ourselves and I'm not going to keep repeating. You can keep implying that I, a woman, don't care about raped women all you want to, but my involvement at the Rape article and related rape articles show otherwise. Many who are familiar with my work on sexual and health topics know otherwise. My objecting to what you are stating has nothing to do with not caring about raped women. It has to do with what both GreenMeansGo and I have told you. Your "drinking orange juice is 100% effective birth control" comparison makes not a bit of sense. Orange juice cannot protect anyone from getting pregnant or STIs. Sexual abstinence can. Unless lacking a complete understanding of how sexual intercourse and pregnancy works, no one who chooses sexual abstinence thinks they cannot get pregnant from rape, and no one who teaches sexual abstinence states so. No medical sources state so. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, is not stating so when it says, "Abstinence from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse is the only 100% effective way to prevent HIV, other STDs, and pregnancy." Of course, the CDC is leaving out non-penetrative sexual ways that a person can get an STI, but, regardless, we can see that it's defining sexual abstinence as something someone chooses and is not saying that getting raped is a failure to remain sexually abstinent. Sexual abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy when it comes to choosing whether or not to engage in sexual activity, but this obviously does not mean that a person cannot get pregnant from rape while being sexually abstinent. We state that in the article. Sources commonly state that sexual abstinence is 100% effective at preventing STIs. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO), when speaking of HIV/AIDS in the case of engaging in sexual intercourse, states, "However, apart from abstinence, no protective method is 100% effective." But this does not mean that a person cannot get an STI from kissing (which is also sexual if done in a romantic/sexual way) or indirect contact. It does not mean that a person cannot get HIV/AIDS from a shared needle or because their parent(s) had HIV/AIDS before they were born. The WHO even additionally states that a person may also be infected with HIV/AIDS via "transfusion of contaminated blood; and the sharing of contaminated needles, syringes, surgical equipment or other sharp instruments. It may also be transmitted between a mother and her infant during pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding."

You do not see medical sources or us stating that sexual abstinence is 100% effective at preventing STIs...except if you use a shared, infected needle or unless you were born with an STI, such as HIV/AIDS or Hepatitis B. This is because sexual abstinence is not about some STI that you may get from a shared, infected needle or from birth. The sources are speaking of sexual abstinence strictly in terms of choosing to have sex, not in terms of sex being forced on a person, a person being born with HIV/AIDS, or a person getting an STI in a non-sexual way. Yes, a woman can be raped and get pregnant while remaining sexually abstinent. A person can also get an STI from an infected needle while remaining sexually abstinent. Neither negates sexual abstinence being 100% effective at preventing pregnancy when it comes to choosing whether or not to engage in sexual activity. The CDC distinguishes getting an STI from having sex, or via needle use, from being abstinent. In other words, it is not stating that getting an STI from needle use or in some other non-sexual way is a failure to remain sexually abstinent. Similarly, it is not stating that getting an STI and pregnant from rape is a failure to remain sexually abstinent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And going back to the new text, "successfully" should be removed from "avoiding all sexual activity is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy." What is "successfully" supposed to mean? Seems like it's a reference to rape, as if a woman who has been raped has not successfully avoided all sexual activity. Again, that is victim blaming. Her choice to remain sexually abstinent is not about any chance that she might be raped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's like saying, "Oh, you didn't avoid that rape." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, in my own instance it was a reference to the study cited, and those who pledge to remain abstinent, but eventually have sex anyway. It wasn't a response to the rape issue either way. GMG^talk 22:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering that, but it is still unnecessary, given what the rest of the text states. By comparison, we wouldn't state "successfully killing oneself results in [...]." If it's a suicide attempt, that is what it is; we call it that. If it's a successful suicide, it's just suicide, although some sources use the words "successful suicides" to distinguish them from suicide attempts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit of nuance there, and you start to get onto it. It would be a better analogy if there were large groups of people publicly pledging to all commit suicide, and if there were, the number of people who chicken out would suddenly become important. So... having committed suicide has a 100% mortality rate by definition, while having the intention to commit suicide has something less than 100%. Some people get therapy. Some people die of a car crash on their way to the bridge. Some people have bad aim when they're shooting backward. Whatever the cause.

Maybe we're not communicating it clearly in the article, but there is a difference between "choosing abstinence as a form of birth control" (looking into the future), and "being abstinent" (looking at the present and the past). GMG^talk 01:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

See my latest response to NatGertler above, where I also mention getting an STI in unexpected ways. I don't know what else to state on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: @NatGertler: ... I'll be honest, it's not totally clear to me whether the two of you are arguing a broad philosophical point for the sake of philosophical points, or whether there is an actual material change to the article that is being discussed... at all. What... exactly is the current wording that the two or you in turn take issue with? I know Flyer wasn't exactly a fan of the "successfully" wording, but it's not entirely clear that that's particularly what's under discussion here. I guess my question is, if both of you had to start an RfC under pain of death, and do it now, what would your question be? GMG^talk 01:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping me since I'm watching the article/talk page. What is being debated is the "avoiding all sexual activity is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy" aspect. Given what I stated above, I am not going to keep arguing over this. An RfC should not be started on this. We should be following the literature with WP:Due weight. I have no wording to propose. I have been defending the "sexual abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy" aspect. I have been defending it per logic and what the sources, including medical sources, state. I have been defending it per WP:Due weight. Right now, the text does not state "sexual abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy," though; it states "successfully avoiding all sexual activity is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy." Yes, I don't like that wording. I don't like "successfully" or "avoiding" since it can be seen as covering rape, as if one must avoid rape to be sexually abstinent. I've repeatedly stated that one does not have to not be raped for sexual abstinence to be effective. One does not have to "avoid rape" for sexual abstinence to be 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. I've repeatedly stated that a woman being raped does not discount the effectiveness of sexual abstinence. Sexual abstinence is not stated to have failed a woman because she was raped. None of the sources on sexual abstinence victim blame the rape victim by insisting that her sexual abstinence ended the moment she was raped, or that sexual abstinence is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy because a woman became pregnant as a result of rape.

All that stated, I could settle for simply removing "successfully." Whatever NatGertler is still arguing about clearly makes no sense to me, especially since the text no longer states "sexual abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy" and instead states "successfully avoiding all sexual activity is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy," which can obviously be taken to include the victim-blaming rape aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What if we instead used "Complete sexual abstinence is 100%" ... Maybe that's agreeable? In my mind it still makes room for, not the failure rate of abstinence, but the failure rate of individuals to actually be abstinent. GMG^talk 20:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

We already state "However, among those who take a pledge to abstain from premarital sex, as many as 88% engage in sexual activity prior to marriage." and "Voluntary abstinence cannot protect against pregnancy as a result of rape, and interventions emphasizing abstinence to reduce unwanted pregnancy may have limited effectiveness, especially in developing countries and among disadvantaged groups." So those two lines make it clear that people might state that they are sexually abstinent without actually being sexually abstinent and that people may be raped while being sexually abstinent. I can go along with using "complete sexual abstinence" in place of "successfully avoiding all sexual activity," but there is still the fact that NatGertler dislikes the "sexual abstinence is 100% effective" wording since a woman can be raped and become pregnant from rape while being sexually abstinent. But, again, we already state "Voluntary abstinence cannot protect against pregnancy as a result of rape." So per the literature and that, I see no need to keep debating the rape matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. It does not allow for the failure in the case of rape. A woman who is raped is still being abstinent, because abstinence as defined is choosing not to have sex, which means that one can be raped and still be abstinent, since one did not choose to have sex. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

According to whom? GMG^talk 16:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of that you're "according to whom"-ing on. If you're talking about abstinence being the choice not to do something, you can go to the very first post in this thread where I discuss that more in depth. If you want sources on how the abstinent can still be raped, I mentioned them above as "sources talking about how abstinence fails in the case of rape." If you're talking about rape not being a choice, you can look at any reasonable definition of rape. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You have no support for your approach here. As both Flyer and I noted, modes of birth control are studied with regard to how well they prevent pregnancy in the real world. The endpoint that is measured, is pregnancy. If someone practicing birth control via abstinence is raped and gets pregnant, that is a failure of the method. There is no way around that. Please yield and drop this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those are some exceptionally poor quality sources... two blogs and a press release. Do you have any sources that are anything close to MEDRS that back up your argument that rape needs to be a central consideration when evaluating the "100% effective" line? From the other end, it's pretty much effortless to find pretty high quality sources that doesn't seem to address it at all:

• Essential Concepts for Healthy Living - Abstinence 100% effective and is an excellend alternative for you men and women who feel they are not ready to have sex. Also, people choose to abstain from sex during various period of their lives for varied reasons.
• Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality - Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of fertility control and STI prevention - if the couple or individual is truly committed to refraining from oral, vaginal, and anal sex, and if contact with genitals is also limited.
• Encyclopedia of Adolescence - Abstinence is sometimes described as being 100% effective. However ... it has, like all such methods a failure rate. ...the difference between perfect use ... and typical use (intending to be abstinent, but not having 100% success in doing so)
• Sexual Ideology and Schooling: Towards Democratic Sexuality Education - 'abstinence is the only 100% effective...' ... this statement is only true in-so-far as the individual who chooses abstinence is able to abide by that choice consistently

Of those that tack on caveats, the all pretty much seem to be about whether or not the individual follows through with their original intention, and none of them seem to feel that rape is an important enough piece of that to mention. I'm not saying you're wrong, but your gonna need a heckuva lot better sources in order to be right. GMG^talk 17:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The last two of your sources are quoting others for the 100% claim in order to cast shade on that claim - and yes, if your goal is to cast shade, there are probably more pregnancies caused by failures in terms of choice rather than by rape. (The first two are both from the same publisher, which I am unfamiliar with and which is getting the high eyebrow from me... but mainly because their Wikipedia page says they're in the "solutions" business.) And I'm not even asking that we be right, I'm asking that we be not-wrong; the 100% claim is unneeded. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You're just saying it's unneeded; you're saying it's unneeded specially because of rape. That may be true, but if the best we've got is blogs and press releases, then it's not verifiable in a way that makes any difference for the article. GMG^talk 18:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have nothing more to state on this, per sources and arguments made against NatGertler above. NatGertler should be reverted on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

And one more time: The article already states, "Voluntary abstinence cannot protect against pregnancy as a result of rape." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

That revert was appropriate, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The source given is not actually sufficient for that claim. But, hey, I guess including victim-blaming language in the article is okay as long as you have an unsourced contradiction. (sigh) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done? I'm not opposed to contrary argument in principle in any way. But this is Wikipedia, and argument without sources is at best convincing original research. GMG^talk 17:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, the source being used for "Voluntary abstinence cannot protect against pregnancy as a result of rape" does not put forth that claim. A better source should be found. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 18:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

One more question: Why are we stating "voluntary"? What sources are calling abstinence involuntary? Right now, it's like the current wording is stating that voluntary abstinence cannot protect you, but involuntary abstinence can. I know that there are sources like this 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 138, which states, "Others are involuntarily abstinent because they lack a willing partner or for other reasons like fear of unwanted pregnancy." But that is the same as the much debated involuntary celibacy topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like I wrote that bit. I couldn't remember. I believe what I had in mind was along the lines of the choice of abstinence over other available means of birth control... but... also "having made the decision past and present to be abstinent" rather than "expressing the intention to remain abstinent in the future". (I guess there is some meaningful sense in which abstinence is only "birth control" if you would otherwise be "on the market" for heterosexual mates, for all the hypothetical original research reasons imagination might offer.) But anyway, the biggest enemy of abstinence is... not being abstinent. I'm not sure how to better express what I'm thinking here. It's so easy to equivocate on the meaning of abstinence.

... it's ... If you don't fuck fertile members of the opposite sex, you don't have babies, because that's a necessary prerequisite. That's one meaning. But if you wear a ring and a t-shirt that says "I'm not the fucking-type" that's also another meaning, So, when someone like my conservative sister says abstinence, what she means with the left hand is first meaning, but what she implies with the right hand is "pass out more rings and t-shirts". When my purpose is to juxtapose the first meaning with the second, and not to juxtapose voluntary from involuntary abstinence.

I guess I would add for context, that I reference my sister in particular because she's both a medical doctor (who to beat all has herself delivered scores of babies) but also a conservative evangelical, which is maybe a good illustration of how this is not really a problem of basic sexual literacy, but rather of just how effortless it is to equivocate on the meaning of abstinence. Everything comes with at least three distinct meanings, the two in the above paragraph, but also the public policy meaning already discussed well above. GMG^talk 13:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to change "Voluntary abstinence cannot protect against pregnancy as a result of rape." to "Abstaining from sexual activity cannot protect against pregnancy as a result of rape." This is per what we've argued above about abstinence usually being defined as a choice rather than something that is forced on someone, and per the "voluntary" and "involuntary" contrast I mentioned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The current phrasing or similar is probably best as it's the choice to abstain from sex that is used as birth control, and abstention is violated in rape. PriceDL (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice that change, but I don't see how it's best. The choice to do most things is not going to protect someone from being raped. The point we are trying to make is that being sexually abstinent does not protect one from rape (although, according to two sources I listed above, it can decrease the chances of being raped). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Just leaving a note. I apologize for getting knee deep in the discussion and then leaving, but I'll be away for about the next two weeks, with no expectation of how much, if at all I'll be able to be online. So please don't interpret any lack of participation on my part as an opinion. GMG^talk 13:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Include section on abortifacients

Within the controversial topic of abortion as birth control is the use of early-term abortifacients which may qualify as birth control more so than abortion. The topic needs to be treated. -Inowen (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: Interesting concept! I could only find this article from 1975 on the topic, can you provide other more recent articles? Then I'll be happy to add info on abortion as birth control. -- Waddie96 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Teratogenic drug use

Waddie96, with this edit, you changed "If pregnancy is a high concern using two methods at the same time is reasonable." to "If pregnancy is a high concern, due to concomitant teratogenic drug use, using two methods at the same time is reasonable." Yes, you added a source but I don't see that the first source is focused on teratogenic drug use. You changed the first sentence to solely be about pregnancy being a high concern due to teratogenic drug use. Why? Also, although you marked the edit as minor, keep in mind that, per WP:Minor edit, it wasn't minor.

On a side note: If you reply to me on this, there is no need to ping me here at this talk page since this talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer are and adjust a bit of it back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, the example used, isotretinoin, is a serious teratogen and as such two methods of contraception are required when on the drug. But I completely understand now why you reverted my addition "due to concomitant teratogenic drug use" as in general if pregnancy is a high concern, then two methods of contraception is also appropriate. Best, Waddie96 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Waddie96, that's why I objected to your change and why Doc removed the "due to concomitant teratogenic drug use" part. Teratogenic drug use can be specified in a more accurate way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Time between fertilization and implantation.

Fertilization occurs 2 hours after intercourse. Oral and postcoital contraception kills the embryo by preventing implantation into the womb lining. Condom's lubricants can make damage of embryo or latex allergy as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.212.67.22 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is no good, baby don't kill, it's a sin — Preceding unsigned comment added by La Geno (talk • contribs) 10:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No that is incorrect per the sources in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why? Just, why?

Why does one control birth? Do they hate children or something? I get that sometimes there is not enough wealth to sustain the decendants, and in some countries there are two-child policies, but other than these petty reasons, why kill the potential baby?

This article should say something about why people stop birth. I cannot believe people do this.

(I know I sound really informal, but this "birth control" thing has blown my mind and broken my heart at the same time) BrightSunMan (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are not places for general discussion about the subject of the article, but specifically for collaborating to improve the content. Having said that, if you think that all birth control is abortion, then you probably have a bit more reading to do on the subject. GMG^talk 12:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Gendered Language

This page uses gendered language to discuss birth control. It most often refers to birth control users as 'women', which is occasionally used interchangeably with 'females'. Not all people who use contraception for female anatomy identify as women. In this article, birth control is talked about as a biological and social/political subject. When talking about it biologically, it may make sense to replace the word 'women' with 'females', 'birth control users', or 'people who can get pregnant'. When talking about it socially/politically, there are often themes of gender bias. In these cases using the word 'women' may help to highlight gender bias, but I think there are many cases when 'birth control users', or 'people who can get pregnant' would work just as well.

Gland23 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raachelc. Peer reviewers: Raachelc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Absolutelynotwinny.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 March 2020 and 19 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samhaydon12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajameson1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 20 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angiesyz (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ArlenSanchez.

— Assignment last updated by Aksgpp3131 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Linguistic Imperialism

It's called contraception globally, save for the puritanical and puerile society of the United States of America, which uses the pathetic and idiotic euphemism 'birth control'. 49.186.53.128 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)