Science Gives The Withdrawl Method A Big Thumbs Up
Good news for guys who hate to wear condoms and the women who resentfully put up with them: A new study appearing in this month's issue of Contraception finds that the "'pullout' method" is nearly as effective as using condoms for the prevention of pregnancy, particularly among people who are too stupid to use a condom properly, which appears to be most of the folks interviewed for the study.
Most respondents did not mention withdrawal when asked what they thought of when they heard the terms birth control and contraception, and their discussions of withdrawal generally suggested that they did not think of it as a contraceptive. Yet one-third of the respondents (21 of 60) spontaneously mentioned use of withdrawal with their current or previous partner. For example, when asked what form of birth control she and her partner were using, one woman said, "We're not." She went on to explain that, "sometimes we use condoms. But for the most part just the withdrawal method. Which I know is, like, the worst thing." Another respondent indicated that he and other people may understand withdrawal as a "practice" rather than a method of birth control or contraception, explaining that while he did not always use a "physical form of birth control," he would always at least engage in "you know, a practice" (i.e., withdrawal).
I'm so glad these people are only, like, slightly more likely to reproduce than those who, you know, wear schlong slickers. And then there's this charming fellow:
A male participant who described several periods of inconsistent contraceptive use, said, "I like pulling out in some ways-I see the yield. At least it's some half-assed effort."
Ah, dudes. It is all about seing the yield with us, isn't it? Anyway, be sure to pick up next month's issue of Contraception (little known fact: Portfolio was at one point supposed to be called Conde Nast Contraception, but they couldn't buy out the name), where the same reasearchers reveal the efficacy of the "'jumping up and down fifteen times after he shoots in you' method."
Idiots. Don't they know that if they just legalize gay marriage people will stop getting pregnant all together?
One of the most depressing moments of my life was when my friend who'd just had a baby said to me, "Guess he'll start pulling out again now." I then learned involuntarily that before they'd started trying to conceive, she and her husband of four years had used the pill, and condoms, and the fucking pull-out fucking practice of fucking.
Remember when I was like "But this is not Jezebel"?
Why do you hate feminism?
See now, all the marriage rights in the world will never let gays understand how getting married makes using the pull out method seem somehow more acceptable.
But the Pepsi douche method still works, right?
What we really need is a new strain of super-syphilis that thrives in the stupid.
Based on this kind of behavior, just give it time.
Ya know, the pill doesn't protect against STDs either. Just saying.
My pull-out method usually involves apologizing….and the loosening of some fancy knots.
I pulled out of a bad hug. Damn High Schoolers.
Balk, I love you, but this is a bullshit piece. There's a difference between snark and straight up misrepresentation of the facts. This was a legitimate study, and anyone with background in the field could tell you that.
Equating withdrawal with "jumping up and down 15 times after he shoots" is exactly the sort of oversimplifying scare tactic that the crazy Bushies have been using for years. Even if it's complicated, people deserve to know the truth. Especially when it affects their ability to protect themselves from something as serious as an unwanted pregnancy.
No, You don't love Balk and you owe all of who do love Balk an apology for this poorly conceived rebuke. Don't apologize to Balk though. He doesn't need your apology, but I do.
I've been reading Balk for years. I think he's awesome and funny and he has a very talented Cock. But I stand by my original assertion that this piece is bullshit. He doesn't actually know what he's talking about in this particular case.
If you would like to explain to me exactly how this rebuke was poorly conceived, I'd be happy to talk about it. I could have gone into a lot more detail in my original comment, but I didn't want to hijack the thread.
I'm not trying to start fights, but I'm also not apologizing for anything.
Go for it Minty, I've got another 5 & 1/2 hours to kill.
In that case I'll apologize. I'll apologize for anything. I'm very practiced at it.
I thought the whole "poorly conceived" thing was just any aptly applied rhetorical device, given the subject matter and all.
So, does this mean I can remove the lemon wedge from my head now? Please?
96 out of 100 porn stars also use the pull-out method.
I am sure the people who use this method and do not consider it a form of birth control are only doing it because that is what they saw the porn stars do in a video and thought it looked hot.
Porn: servicey!
Let's just hope they don't discover cream pie porn.
Or cream corn pie. Mmmm.
Neither method works particularly well when robbing a liquor store, either.
So, how about doing a study that shows that driving drunk probably isn't much more dangerous than driving sober? That'll really inspire some intelligent behavior. And I thought the point of condoms was preventing STD's, especially AIDS?
In terms of pregnancy prevention, withdrawal is nearly equivalent to condoms. It really isn't the sexual equivalent of driving drunk.
When it comes to STDs- of course withdrawal doesn't protect against them, and nobody is saying that it does. But neither does the pill. They are both methods of pregnancy prevention, not STD prevention, and should be evaluated on those merits. If you're at risk of an STD, neither method is appropriate, but nobody attacks pill users this way.
Telling people that it's useless or stupid to use withdrawal discourages them from using it when the choice is between withdrawal or nothing at all. End result: more pregnancies. And that's why I got so pissed off.
I'm sorry to be ranty. But I do public health research for a living, and it drives me crazy to see these myths perpetuated. They're dangerous, and people deserve better.
I'm pretty sure that the "typical use" results are the same because the same number of people using the pullout method or the wear-a-condom method … don't. That leaves you with a perfect-use failure rate for pulling out twice that of condom use.
Pulling out isn't jumping up and down 15 times but it isn't 'almost as good' as wearing a condom either.
Eh, well, you're pretty much right–that 4% failure rate with withdrawal is twice the rate with condoms. So I guess what you have to argue is what's considered "effective," and it seems like the authors of the study consider those rates as such.
Anyway, for most people, the normal use rates are more relevant, so since those are nearly identical, you can probably still say that withdrawal is almost as good. But not as awesome as MAKING A BABY WOO-HOO! It's like a self-propelled pot roast.
Multi, I think it is a technical definition. I am sure there are more legit references but this will serve.
"For us to consider a birth control method completely effective, no couples will become pregnant while using that method. Very effective means that between 1 and 2 out of 100 couples become pregnant while using that method. Effective means that 2 to 12 out of 100 couples become pregnant while using that method. Moderately effective means that 13 to 20 out of 100 couples become pregnant while using that method. Less effective means that 21 to 40 out of 100 couples become pregnant while using that method. And not effective means that more than 40 out of 100 couples become pregnant while using that method."
http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html
In other words, if I am reading this correctly, the difference between pulling out v. not pulling out = 4% pregnancies v. 40% pregnancies.
Kitten, that site is good in general, but the chart kind of oversimplifies things– and it's actually based on older calculations of method failure rates. The newer study is based on an improved methodology.
That site does have a good explanation of the normal vs perfect use difference, though:
"Typical use refers to how the average person uses that method of birth control (compared to "perfect" use, which means no mistakes are made in using that method)." A mistake can be anything: not pulling out in time, using a condom that's been kept in your wallet, taking your pill a few hours late. It's not about being stupid, it's just human error.
(Also, it actually doesn't say 4% vs 40%, it says 15% vs 27%. The specific numbers are in the second column.)
I'm not sure what "I see the yield" means. Can someone email Felix Salmon?
It's part of a no-load fund.
Pull-out method = "Yield" of discounted security.
Sure, science, but I won't believe it until Focus on the Family condemns it.
"Nearly as effective" is as useless a phrase as being "a little bit pregnant".
Don't even get me started on how "effective" this method is when the humper is "a little bit drunk".
It's 100% effective if the humper has whiskey dick.
Well, if you as an individual are in that group for who it's not effective (that 17% of condom users and 18% of withdrawal users), than yeah, you're right. Nearly as effective is not a phrase you want to hear. But from a public health standpoint, "nearly as effective" translates to "thousands of unwanted pregnancies averted." So that's kind of a big deal.
Yay! Reminds me of No Condom? Whatever!
https://www.isound.com/no_condom_whatever/photos/195803
Someone find out what Tracie Egan thinks of all this. (Relatedly, …)