Bedsider.org Is Here For All Your Contraceptive Needs
As many of you know, the National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy has been a client of mine for the past two years. Today, they are launching Bedsider.org, and I’m SUPER EXCITED to introduce such a relatable and valuable resource to you guys. Given the litany of contraceptive options out there, it can be intimidating to navigate those waters on your own. Birth control is one of the number one topics that I get questions about. I hope that Bedsider will offer the answers I can’t, while allowing you to hear from real users themselves.
In coming weeks, the National Campaign, in collaboration with the Ad Council, will distribute Bedsider PSAs to more than 33,000 media outlets (in television, radio, print, and web) as part of the first-ever multimedia public service campaign aimed at addressing unplanned pregnancy among young women in America. Bedsider, a comprehensive online and mobile program, helps sexually active women 18-24 find the right birth control method for them and use it carefully and consistently in an effort to prevent unplanned pregnancy. At Bedsider, visitors can explore, compare, and contrast all available methods of contraception, set up birth control and appointment reminders, view videos of their peers discussing personal experiences, and view animated shorts that debunk myths about birth control.
Some of my previous writing for SexReally has already begun appearing on the Bedsider blog. I can’t wait to share the new ways I’ll be working with them in the months to come :)
We can’t wait either! XO
First Date Etiquette: Going Dutch, Hitting The Sack, and Breaking All The Rules
Originally published on September 14, 2010 on SexReally.com.
Prior to my first date with my now-boyfriend, I almost threw up on the train ride to dinner. It wasn’t the first time a guy has made me nervous, but it was definitely the first time a guy made me nauseous. Hoping for some moral support, I called my best friend. He knew that I didn’t take other people’s opinions on my love life very seriously, but given my vulnerable state, he saw his chance and grabbed it to drive home one key point: “Whatever you do, do not — under any circumstance — go home with him.” This wasn’t because he thought I was going out was a serial killer, nor did he even know whether my date was the sleepover type. But what my best friend did know, even as a gay man, is what every straight woman has been told since her induction into dating: if you sleep with a guy on a first date, he won’t respect you in the morning or call you the next day. Once I saw my date, however, all desire to vomit disappeared and was replaced by an overwhelming urge to disrobe him.
Unfortunately for my best friend, that’s pretty much exactly what happened between the dessert course and the arrival of the check. Fortunately for me, the object of my unrestrained lust now shares an apartment and a dog with me. But even two years of cohabitation later, some of my friends still write off the beginning of my relationship as a fluke. In other words, given normal circumstances and normal people (i.e. those who aren’t former sex bloggers), there’s no way a relationship could have grown out of a first date that ended in sex! But if I’m the exception to the rule, just how ironclad are these dating edicts anyway?
I, for one, don’t have a hard and fast rule when it comes to the etiquette of paying, but the sentiment commonly expressed by “dating experts” is that the man gets the check in heterosexual relationships. According to one Zagat survey of New Yorkers, 60 percent of respondents stated that men should pay for the first date. That’s a definite majority, but asking such a question requires making all kinds of assumptions: that the first date necessarily costs money, that the couple in this instance is straight, that this holds true no matter who did the asking out, and that the man is financially equipped to be paying for two. Rachel Kramer Bussel, The Village Voice’s “Lusty Lady”, once wrote: “It’s also circumstantial; if I know my date makes three times more than me and he doesn’t even offer to pay, I won’t be amused.” I think it could make sense to divvy up expenses depending on each person’s means rather than gender, but regardless, it takes two to tango. In other words, women shouldn’t simply sit back and wait for their companion to pick up their tab, even if they know or suspect their date is better equipped financially to do so. In my dating days, I usually offered to go dutch or take turns getting the check.
Obviously, there’s no clear consensus on what constitutes a first-date dealbreaker, so I was surprised to learn the lopsided results of a SexReally poll asking about the worst offense. The results? An overwhelming 43 percent are most turned off by their dates “being rude to the staff people [they] encounter (waiters, theater attendants, valet)”. Lesson learned: regardless of who pays, tip big.
As I wrote recently, there are a litany of dating rules out there and tons of conflicting advice. But even if all the experts reached a consensus, how much does their opinion matter when it comes to actual dates? Some say that sex on the first date is “running the bases backward”. But if you happen to be extremely attracted to your date and mutually interested in a post-dinner romp-in-the-hay, should you stop yourself lest you doom your relationship? While hitting the sack right off the bat might not be right for everyone, I’m proof that it’s not romantic kryptonite. Along the same lines, when faced with someone you really like, are you really going to nip a relationship in the bud because he didn’t offer to pay the full bill? Etiquette is important when it keeps us mindful of other people’s feelings and encourages considerate behavior, but the rules for dating have become so contrived in this modern age that they often force us to deny our own desires (and the desires of others) in the name of doing things the “right” way.
There’s no such thing as the right way to date.
My friends can safely assume that given the litany of choices I might be presented with throughout my life, I am almost certain to make the least conventional decision possible at any given time. When it comes to first dates — situations in which all kinds of rules govern each party’s behavior — my unorthodox conduct has confounded, turned off, or downright offended my unlucky dining companions. But even though I boast a colorful romantic history, my friends have also acknowledged that the type of person who would make me happiest is someone who wants to be with the real me and not the more socially acceptable version of myself. I broke what some consider to be the cardinal first-date rule, but in doing so, I wound up with a guy who appreciated my willingness to own up to my sexual urges rather than play the coy Good Girl. And though I’ve also gone out with men who have bedded me and burned my number in the aftermath, I can assure you that I’m no worse off for not having been called back.
*****
Lena Chen is a blogger, writer and speaker on sex, gender and feminism. As a Harvard undergrad, she authored the blog Sex and the Ivy and her writing has been featured in The New York Times and Newsweek. She currently blogs at The Chicktionary.
A Sexpert’s Advice: Don’t Listen To The Advice
Originally published on SexReally.com on August 30, 2010.
When it comes to a divisive topic like first-date etiquette, there are so many divergent viewpoints that a girl needs to get some perspective before she dives headfirst into the self-help section at her local bookstore.
So step one: Let’s take it back to the old school. What were the love gurus of yore telling young women? According to one 1938 dating guide, women are advised to avoid getting drunk, sitting in awkward positions, chewing gum with their mouths open, or talking while dancing. That last one aside, all the other tips actually sound quite reasonable to me. If anything, dating rules have gotten wonkier in the post-war era.
Take, for example, the book-turned-movie He’s Just Not That Into You, in which Greg Behrendt tells women, “We like not knowing if we can catch you. We feel rewarded when we do.” So in other words, guys are just like dogs and women are just like squeaky toys. And this isn’t even the worst of the advice to make it to print. In 1995, a couple women came out with The Rules, the now-iconic guide, in which they shared “time-tested secrets for capturing the heart of Mr. Right”. It included gender-normative gems like the following:
- Don’t Talk to a Man First (and Don’t Ask Him to Dance)
- Don’t Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date
- Don’t Call Him & Rarely Return His Calls
- Don’t Accept a Saturday Night Date after Wednesday
In short, The Rules advocate playing hard-to-get to the point of being unavailable. In a review in The Atlantic of dating books on the market, Cristina Nehring writes that these books largely advocate “illusions”, “affectation”, “lies by omission”, and “lies by invention”. Besides the danger of coming off as a difficult and indecisive emotional zombie, do you really want to essentially trick some dude into liking you? Don’t think so. Unless you’re some kind of sociopath, dating shouldn’t be a strategic game in which you try to manipulate the other person in order to “win”. It’s not very mature or respectful to feign disinterest or straight up ignore someone. Even more damaging, says Nehring, these books encourage an approach to dating that “keeps us from talking about what we know best - our real experience, our present concerns - and instructs us to talk instead about the experience and concerns that we imagine nice people like us should have.” Real relationship counselors (the kinds with fancy pedigrees, not just a gimmick) always stress communication and characterize relationships as partnerships, not wars.
The offending titles above may have been published after women’s lib and the sexual revolution, but as Latoya Peterson observes on Jezebel in her takedown of dating guides, most modern experts continue to believe that “women who appear too together and too competent activate some kind of ball-shrinking reaction in the average man”. This is same kind of nonsense that’s been spewed at women since the advent of dating. So why do people continue to find this stuff so compelling and eagerly buy it in droves? According to Australian social scientists Sheree Cartwright and Anastasia Powell, dating advice manuals “[confirm] the fears of a generation of otherwise savvy young women - that gender equality means the end of love and romance.” In other words, they offer an easy answer when things go wrong.
What they don’t acknowledge is that things go wrong whether you follow The Rules or not. Ellen Fein, one of The Rules’ authors, divorced her husband of 16 years in 2000 and remarried in 2008. She may have captured her first husband’s heart, but he clearly wasn’t Mr. Right. John Gray, author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, ended a two-year marriage with his wife Barbara DeAngelis, herself a relationship adviser. DeAngelis is now on her fifth marriage. Clearly, there’s no magic formula that can offer guarantees in love - if there were, the self-appointed authorities on romance wouldn’t be flailing themselves.
Many so-called experts aren’t even particularly qualified to be giving advice on the subject (which is why most rely on antiquated gender roles and heteronormative assumptions rather than science). As I observed on my own haphazard sex and relationship blog, authors of how-to dating guides aren’t usually armed with representative studies or a license in couples counseling. All they’ve got are slick marketing plans, pink book covers, and a couple hunches that may or may not work for you and me. So what’s a modern gal to do? Well, in the case of Stone-Agey advice manuals, I’d suggest burning them in a pile. Not even the most free-speech-loving hippie could think that there’s possibly any value in tomes with titles like Men Are Like Fish: What Every Woman Needs To Know About Catching A Man. (No, I’m not making this up.)
Of course, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ever listen to anyone’s take on dating - though we should remain wary of any suggestions to behave disingenuously as a means to a romantic end. While I was researching this blog post, I stumbled upon a lot of reasonable advice that didn’t dictate one-size-fits-all rules or claim to have all the answers. (The “dating” sections of Scarleteen and gURL.com are two such resources.) What’s important to remember is that people express and respond to romantic interest in a variety of ways. There’s no way to predict what will win you someone’s affections, and if it takes trickery to do it, that’s probably not the right relationship for you in the first place. It may seem scary to navigate the romantic waters without a compass, but your final destination will be much more interesting if you don’t follow the map.
*****
Lena Chen is a blogger, writer and speaker on sex, gender and feminism. As a Harvard undergrad, she authored the blog Sex and the Ivy and her writing has been featured in The New York Times and Newsweek. She currently blogs at The Chicktionary.
Lost In Translation: A Call Is Worth A Thousand Texts
Originally published on SexReally.com on April 29, 2010.
“Where’s my water bottle?” read the note on the screen. I was sitting at a rest stop on the road to Washington, DC, when my phone vibrated urgently and flashed the above text message from my roommate/boyfriend. I looked at my feet. His Nalgene was sitting on the floor of the car, approximately 500 miles from our apartment. Whoops. “I took it with me, my bad!” I texted back. A few back-and-forths later, he sent a response that I considered somewhat condescending: “Next time, ask me before you take my things.”
I read his message and completely flipped. Instead of “reply”, I hit “dial” and when he answered I snapped, “I apologized, what else do you want?!” He was taken aback by my irritation; I was fuming over his pedantic response to my apology. Things quickly devolved and our tiff lasted nearly half an hour before we realized we were bickering over a missing Nalgene.
Maybe it was car-ride fatigue, or the sticky hot weather, or the disgusting rest-stop smell of McDonald’s mingled with gasoline that made me react so angrily, but more likely, we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble had we just talked instead of texted. Though my relationship probably wasn’t in danger because of a text message squabble, how many romances-in-development have been derailed due to digital miscommunication? And when it comes to new or potential romantic partners, why are people so afraid of face-to-face communication?
Lehigh senior Jessica Chu says that using text and instant messages during the nascent stages of a relationship is particularly problematic. While texting and instant messaging (IMing) have become prevalent forms of communication, relying on written texts alone might not get across the nuances of your message, especially if you’re interacting with someone who isn’t familiar with your personality and tone. In one study of college students, researchers wanted to investigate whether sarcasm could be accurately detected in written statements. When given a series of sarcastic and serious statements to convey via email, the senders assumed that they would be understood 78 percent of the time. In reality, the recipients accurately identified sarcasm 73 percent of the time in voicemails and only 56 percent of the time through email, with the latter rate being equivalent to a pure guess. According to one of the researchers, “E-mail is fine if you want to communicate content, but not any emotional material.”
But what about that winky face you can append to the end of a text? Doesn’t that add some subtlety to your statements? Perhaps, but they’re still not nearly as useful as social cues, such as tone of voice and facial expressions, which could drastically alter the meaning of a statement. A researcher on another study, this one by Harvard University, says that “computer-mediated communication” is a poor substitute for face-to-face interactions. The lack of “relationship features” and physical cues prevents people from “identify[ing] correctly the kind of interpersonal situations they find themselves in”.
If the prevalence of digital conversations were just a matter of convenience, that’d be one thing. But part of the reason why people find the medium so attractive is precisely because it’s not as personal as a phone call. One informal poll by AOL and the Associated Press found that 43 percent of teenagers use instant message to deal with potentially awkward situations, including making and breaking dates – and in some cases, even relationships. While hiding behind a phone or computer screen is a nice shield, the least that we owe our romantic partners (potential and otherwise) is the decency of a real conversation, and not one that has a character limit.
Nowadays, I’m saving heated conversations – with both strangers and close friends – for later instead of responding quickly with a digital note that may or may not convey what I want to say. Jessica feels similarly and is “trying to cut the BS and stupid pointless unclear texts”. Not only does she find calling more “direct”, but she also think it saves people emotional hassle. She says, “I don’t want to waste my time figuring out what you mean and I want to save your time too.”
*****
Lena Chen is a blogger, writer and speaker on sex, gender and feminism. As a Harvard undergrad, she authored the blog Sex and the Ivy and her writing has been featured in The New York Times and Newsweek. She currently blogs at The Chicktionary.
Oxytocin: The Pseudoscience of the Hook-Up Hormone
Originally published March 3, 2010 on SexReally.com.
As a now-monogamous former sex blogger, I’m living proof that hooking up doesn’t make you crazy or unable to commit. But if mainstream media reports of the past few years are to be believed, I’m the exception, not the rule. Recently, however, researchers at the University of Minnesota conducted one of the first large-scale studies on the effects of hooking up and found the following:
“Although there has been speculation in public discourse that sexual encounters outside a committed romantic relationship may be emotionally damaging for young people, this study found no differences in the psychological well-being of young adults who had a casual sexual partner verses a more committed partner.”
Papers across the nation better get ready to fire up their presses. They’re going to be printing retractions into 2011. In the past decade, anti-sex attitudes have dominated the public discourse, probably in large part influenced by George W. Bush’s election to office, which ushered in an era of abstinence-only education. Marla Eisenberg, the lead researcher on the University of Minnesota study, notes that premarital sex is “nothing new”. Rather, it is the public discourse and perception that has changed. She says, “With the onset of federally funded abstinence-only education in the ’90s, we began teaching kids that sex outside of marriage would be psychologically harmful (which was based on ideology rather than research).”
Media coverage of the supposed “hook-up culture” often echoes misconceptions first promoted by abstinence advocate Dr. Eric Keroack, the Bush-appointed former deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Population Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. During his tenure, Keroack made the case for abstinence-only sex education by claiming that premarital sex damages one’s ability to form attachments down the line. The layman’s version: oxytocin, the so-called “bonding hormone” which is produced during intercourse, will be less effective at bonding us to our future mates if we overindulge in the chemical cocktail by bed-hopping through our youth. Keroack based these conclusions on oxytocin studies conducted on prairie voles, a type of rodent notable for its tendency to mate for life, which is attributed to high oxytocin production.
The oxytocin studies are peer-reviewed and scientifically rigorous, but Keroack’s interpretation? Not so much. One lead researcher on the oxytocin study called Keroack’s conclusions “complete pseudoscience” and another characterized them as “a wild leap”. Those involved in the research have said in no uncertain terms that the results cannot be extrapolated to apply to a human population, whose relationships are complicated by pesky matters like mortgages and religious beliefs. In other words, couples don’t just get together and stay together because of the hormonal high. Here’s an even bigger blow to Keroack’s pet theory: Prairie voles may mate for life, but they also have sexual dalliances outside of their primary partnership, oxytocin be damned. Unfortunately for the scientists actually doing work with oxytocin, they’ve gotten far less press time than the guy misrepresenting their research.
There were others, unrelated and without knowledge of Keroack’s theories, who had a significant influence on the national dialogue about hooking up. Take, for example, a piece by Marie Claire entitled “Does Hooking Up Hurt You?”, which interviews journalist Laura Sessions Stepp, author of Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Love, Delay Sex, and Lose At Both. In the interview Stepp argues that women are biologically wired to get attached to sexual partners, that hooking up can lead to depression, and that casual sex may damage one’s ability to have long-term relationships. The basis for her argument? Oxytocin.
The publication of Unhooked gained Stepp the attention of The New York Times, NPR, PBS, and other national media outlets. Keroack, on the other hand, has long resigned his post amidst allegations of improper conduct in his private practice. In the meantime, the oxytocin myth has been endlessly perpetuated, in part because those actually qualified to speak on the topic are often the last ones consulted. This recent research isn’t the first to poke holes into Keroack’s theory, and I doubt it will be the last. The aforementioned Marie Claire piece was just one of many articles that raised moral panic over the supposed “hook-up culture,” perpetuating long-held assumptions about the dangers of premarital sex. Mainstream depictions of youth sexuality won’t be changing anytime soon, unless reporters start fact-checking scientific claims and going to real experts for the facts.
I, for one, won’t be holding my breath.
*****
Lena Chen is a blogger, writer and speaker on sex, gender and feminism. As a Harvard undergrad, she authored the blog Sex and the Ivy and her writing has been featured in The New York Times and Newsweek. She currently blogs at The Chicktionary.
*****
**SexReally Editor’s Note: Laura Sessions Stepp, SexReally podcast host and weekly contributor, asked that we include the following statement with this post:
When it comes to opinions about Unhooked, all are welcome as long as they are accurate. Lena Chen is wrong to suggest that Eric Kerouack influenced my work in any way. I have observed young women and young men for more than a decade, interviewed many scientists and read their work. I have never heard of Keroack nor read anything he wrote. I arrived at my conclusions independently, and my explanation for hooking up, as well as my concerns about it as a repetitive pattern of behavior, go way beyond one hormone.
Surprise, Hooking Up Doesn’t Kill!
Originally published on December 23, 2009 on SexReally.com.
In early 2008, an article in The New York Times claimed that “no one at Harvard represents the hookup culture better than Lena Chen.” I’m Lena Chen. Right, how awkward is that? At the time, I was a college junior blogging quite publicly about my sex and love life — but the last thing I thought was that my vagina represented anyone else’s (let alone a whole “culture”). I tried to make that clear to the Times, obviously to no avail.
Now I have evidence on my side. University of Minnesota researchers recently debunked the long-standing myth that casual sex is harmful, after finding “no differences in the psychological well-being of young adults who had a casual sexual partner verses a more committed partner.” Want more? Only 20 percent of respondents described their most recent partner as a casual one, which suggests that – at least within the population surveyed — the hook-up culture might not be as pervasive as Fox News anchors lead us to believe.
But if this is the case, what explains recent alarmist headlines and book titles like “The Demise of Dating” and Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both**? The 2000’s have seen an unprecedented wave of pro-abstinence and anti-casual sex literature, much of it claiming that promiscuity leads to depression (false), suicide (false), and even inability to form healthy long-term relationships (even falser).
Obviously I have a personal stake in the above study, but a few things have changed since my sex blogging days. In the intervening period, I’ve entered a long-term relationship, waged a minor war over closet space, learned how to make truffles, and once created a small fire in my kitchen sink. I am decidedly no longer emblematic of anything but domesticity gone terribly, terribly awry. I know first-hand that hooking up does not, in fact, ruin your life. Given my sexual history, I would’ve offed myself by now if it did. Nor would I be nearly two-years deep in a happy relationship. But though I’m now monogamous and in love (and by corollary, boring), I still know a lot more about hooking up than most of the people raising moral panic over the issue. My sex life as a 19-year-old generated media interest. What was an Ivy League gal to do but to educate herself about actual sexual trends and statistics? As a result, I’ve been aware from Day 1 that the hook-up culture is a myth and have set out trying to disprove its existence ever since.
I’ll be honest. This endeavor has largely consisted of me flailing my arms and mouthing “Is! Not! Real!” at reporters who are too interested in Miley Cyrus and sexting to pay attention to me. I can’t count the number of times reporters have approached me hoping for a juicy sound bite about what the hook-up culture is really like, only to instead encounter a barrage of facts about the great majority of Americans having had premarital sex for, um, generations. Mainstream reporters either have a major aversion to peer-reviewed studies, or they don’t like being told that their granny probably didn’t keep her legs closed, because time and time again, they’ve dropped all communication the second I dare to question the phenomenon of college kids gone wild. The story becomes a lot less salacious when you realize that the so-called “hook-up culture” is just a new alarmist name attached to behavior in which young people have engaged for decades.
Hopefully, this new study will prompt some changes in the way we approach young people’s sexuality, but I’m not crossing my fingers. Federally funded abstinence-only programs are currently too busy preaching the dangers of premarital sex to teach kids how to use condoms, get tested, and to communicate about sexual health. Meanwhile, “sexting” has replaced “hooking up” as the newest fabricated sexual trend. Even with new evidence on the table, I have to wonder: have we missed the boat on destigmatizing intercourse for Generation Y?
I hope not, so let this be known: New York Times? No hard feelings. Call me. I’ll be the one flailing.
*****
Lena Chen is a blogger, writer and speaker on sex, gender and feminism. As a Harvard undergrad, she authored the blog Sex and the Ivy and her writing has been featured in The New York Times and Newsweek. She currently blogs at The Chicktionary.
No Pain, No Gain: The IUD Insertion Process
Originally published on November 11, 2009 on SexReally.com.
I wish I could say that getting the IUD was easy once I made my decision that the love affair with the Pill was over. In reality, it took me three visits (one of which was an appalling comedy of errors) before I finally baby-proofed my uterus. First, I had to get a pap smear, since STIs in IUD users can cause Pelvic Inflammatory Disorder and in rare cases, infertility. (For that same reason, doctors typically recommend that you only get the IUD if you’re in a long-term, monogamous relationship.) An abnormal pap result delayed my efforts further. After a lab test determined that some cervical lesions were low-grade and no cause for alarm, I finally found myself face-to-face with a foot-long box containing my IUD. Thankfully, the size was misleading.
The IUD is actually just 1.5 inches long. Still, that little device was responsible for the most painful experience of my life and I say this as someone who’s gotten five piercings and a tattoo. Forgoing anesthesia and prescription painkillers, I whimpered with my boyfriend by my side as the doctor fit the IUD into place. I felt intense cramps (similar to contractions, I imagine) the second it entered my body. Utterly shaken by the invasion of this foreign object, my legs trembled and my teeth chattered uncontrollably. I gripped my boyfriend’s hand and whispered, “Remind me to get a C-section if I ever decide to have kids.”
That’s probably as close an approximation of childbirth as I’ve ever experienced, but I don’t have any complaints about the IUD now that the initial ordeal is over. Despite a crampy first week and spotting (which can last for several weeks), I’ve been pretty pleased with the IUD, which has rendered the pesky birth control pill unnecessary. Total cost for five years of a worry-free womb? $0. My insurance policy — and many others — covers the device and the insertion procedure entirely. Compare that to $480 for five years of my generic pill.
Unlike me, you should take some advance measures to prepare yourself for the insertion. Becoming pregnant, even if you don’t carry the pregnancy to term, makes it easier to insert the IUD in your cervix, which is why some doctors won’t do insertions for never-before-pregnant women. One of my friends, who got the IUD a month after she gave birth to her first child, claimed that it even hurt more than labor. Conversely, I heard from many other women that insertion was no more uncomfortable than a pap smear. In my opinion, better safe than sorry either way. Unless you’re certain you can withstand a lot of pain, going the all-natural route might lead to a rude cervical awakening. Here are a few things that you can do to avoid my experience:
- Say yes to drugs. Getting a prescription for something that dilates your cervix will do wonders to minimize pain and make insertion easier. My friend, who I accompanied to an IUD appointment a week after my own, only needed 30 relatively-bearable seconds for the procedure, which lasted four excruciating minutes for me.
- Welcome Aunt Flo. Schedule your appointment to coincide with your menstrual cycle since your cervix will already be slightly dilated then. Don’t worry about what your gynecologist will think about the mess. They’re used to it and many will probably recommend waiting until your period anyway.
- Midol will be your best friend. I’m so wary of over-the-counter medication abuse that I don’t even take ibuprofen for headaches, but in the days following my IUD, painkillers were the only effective weapon against severe cramping that would have otherwise left me incapacitated. After your appointment, keep handy Midol and any painkillers that target lower abdominal pain and menstrual symptoms.
- Rough sex is out of the question. (At least for the first week.) Your cervix won’t appreciate head-on collisions for a while. Though I only needed a couple weeks to recover, one of my friends said penetrative intercourse was uncomfortable for the first month. If you can’t wait, either try to take it easy or be prepared to feel crampy in the afterglow.
- Heat up. Self-heating stick-on pads (the kind you can get at drugstores for sports injuries or menstrual pain) help alleviate discomfort throughout the day. At home, a hot water bottle or an electric blanket will also do the trick.
There are other birth control methods, many of which don’t require an uncomfortable insertion process, but for many women the IUD causes relatively few side effects compared to options like the Patch. Even the Mirena, which releases progesterone, is relatively low-hormone compared to other forms of hormonal contraception. If you think you can brave the gynecologist’s table, look into the IUD. It’s affordable, widely available, and foolproof.
*****
Lena Chen is a blogger, writer and speaker on sex, gender and feminism. As a Harvard undergrad, she authored the blog Sex and the Ivy and her writing has been featured in The New York Times and Newsweek. She currently blogs at The Chicktionary.
How I Dumped The Pill And Met The IUD
Originally published on November 4, 2009 on SexReally.com.
Two weeks ago, I ended my longest and most tumultuous relationship to date. Four years and hundreds of dollars after my first prescription, I decided that I had swallowed my final birth control pill. I tossed out my last packet, lay back in stir-ups, and got an IUD.
It was a long time coming. I was never one of those people who had trouble remembering to take my birth control. For someone who constantly loses track of time and deadlines, I was remarkably good at never forgetting to pop a pill before bed. But though I wasn’t worried about messing up and becoming pregnant, I was getting concerned about my libido. I once boasted an impressive sexual appetite, but the birth control I switched to a year ago made my sex drive plummet lower than the DOW. This was already the fourth or fifth prescription I’d tried in as many years. I wasn’t interested in shopping around for a new brand. I wanted a no-hassle, semi-permanent solution, preferably one that cost less than the $10/month generic pill I was on.
I found my partner in crime in the IUD. I’m embarrassed to admit that I didn’t even know what an IUD was until I started getting dissatisfied with the Pill. My ignorance isn’t surprising. Despite being the most popular form of reversible birth control in the world, IUDs are not very common in the United States, in part because of the stigma associated with the Dalkon Shield, a defective device that was linked to widespread sterility in the 70s. The IUD’s public image never quite recovered, and the Pill remains the most popular contraceptive option in America. Recently, however, more and more women have begun to consider it, especially since the invention of the Mirena, an IUD that decreases menstrual flow and symptoms and is low-hormone compared to the Pill. I first learned about the Mirena after my friend Christine got it, but I assumed most women, including my other acquaintances, were on the Pill or using condoms. When I began to debate the merits of switching to the IUD, personal stories trickled in from friends and blog readers who had explored that option themselves. To my surprise, several close friends and even my mother (in her young adulthood!) were IUD users.
The IUD is a T-shaped device placed inside the uterus through the cervix. Its presence destroys sperm and/or obstructs their movement, making it difficult for them to fertilize an egg. A simple explanation: it functions like a landmine against invading soldiers (see a more detailed explanation of the two types of IUDs available in the US and how they work). Unlike condoms and the Pill, whose efficacy are affected by human error and imperfect use, the IUD is as effective as sterilization, with an annual failure rate of less than one percent. It can also be much more affordable since many insurance policies completely—or mostly—cover the IUD and the appointment for insertion. More importantly, the hormonal side effects are much lower than those of the Pill, so my long stifled sex drive could finally make a comeback.
Whether or not you want to consider an IUD, don’t feel like you’re trapped if you’re dissatisfied with your current contraceptive method. I stuck with one option for far too long before I talked to other women and to a gynecologist about other possibilities. It’s a shame that many women aren’t aware of all the available choices before hopping on the birth control bandwagon. Contraception, like a relationship, is something you shouldn’t settle on.
*****
Lena Chen is a blogger, writer and speaker on sex, gender and feminism. As a Harvard undergrad, she authored the blog Sex and the Ivy and her writing has been featured in The New York Times and Newsweek. She currently blogs at The Chicktionary.
