"Mirena" (Birth Control)=Pro-Marriage Agenda?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


One of the risks with IUD is expulsion. The expulsion risk is higher for women who have never carried a pregnancy. So, I can see why they might advertise to women who have had a child.

As for being in a stable, monogamous relationship, you stand less of a chance of contracting a STD or an infection that can result in PID. IUDs pose a risk when coupled with infection.

I don't think it is a conspiracy or that Merina is promoting a "marriage only" agenda. It is simply that some birth control methods are right for some women and others aren't.




posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Could be, it just doesn't make sense to me from a business perspective that they would want to limit their demographic so much.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2



I can agree with that.. as for solutions, I'm short on those.
I think that's less a PR/media problem and more an education issue.


Exactly. What I'm afraid of here is that doctors may refuse to prescribe BC for their patients if they know they have more than 1 partner, like many pharmacists already do if someone asks for Plan B.

What backwards thinking!

"You're having more sex than I think you should be... therefore I'm going to limit your ability to prevent yourself from getting pregnant!"


Yeah I could actually see that taking place, sadly.

Of course patients could always be dishonest but in my view it says something about this fine society we reside within, if a woman has to lie to get birth control or avoid judgment.

What do you want to bet there are religious influences afoot, interjecting a little church morality where it doesn't belong...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   



Yeah I could actually see that taking place, sadly.

Of course patients could always be dishonest but in my view it says something about this fine society we reside within, if a woman has to lie to get birth control or avoid judgment.

What do you want to bet there are religious influences afoot, interjecting a little church morality where it doesn't belong...


I didnt' want to come out and say that since I have no hard proof or way of investigating the money trail here,

But that is exactly what I think has taken place.

Some of these faith-based groups have staggering budgets. I would not at all be surprised if they attempted to influence advertising in this way.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
It isn't a matter of limiting a demographic; it is a matter of safety.

IUDs are not cheap. They cost a lot to get inserted and it is not a fun experience. IUDs are for women who want a semi-permanent type of birth control that they really don't have to worry about for 5 or 10 years (depending on the type they get).

Some women can't take the Pill due to the side effects of the hormones (I am one of them; the migraines I got made me basically unable to function). Some women don't want to take the Pill due to having to remember to take it daily.

Some women prefer to have Depo Provera shots. The side effects are far less than the Pill and you only have to have them done every 3 months. Insurance (most insurance) covers them, they are relatively safe (except for the risk of a loss in bone density if the woman doesn't take extra calcium supplements), and they aren't that much of a hassle.

It all depends on what is right for the woman and the situation she is in. Female contraception isn't like condoms for men. There are risks and dangers for us and we need to be able to pick what is right for us. IUDs aren't right for all women....just like the Pill or the patch or the shots.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


It's not the fact that they are bringing up side effects that I call into question, it's the way that they insinuate that married, at least monogamous woman, are the only ones for whom this prescription is the right fit.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


A lot of it has to do with the contraction of a STD or an infection that can cause PID.

IUDs aren't the safest form of birth control. And, when I say safe, I mean in a physical sense. IUDs and infections aren't a good combo, and IUDs can also perforate a woman's uterus.

If you are at high risk for a STD or an infection that can cause PID, then an IUD isn't right for you. And, women who are in a stable relationship with one man who is monogamous are at much less risk for an STD or a PID causing infection.

Like I said before, female contraception isn't as easy as a condom is for a man. We have to weigh the risks to our health and choose the birth control that is right for us and our situation.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Possibly an increased risk of contracting an STD on this thing?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I understand what you're saying. I just think there is more to it than just the risk of infections.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 




It's not the fact that they are bringing up side effects that I call into question, it's the way that they insinuate that married, at least monogamous woman, are the only ones for whom this prescription is the right fit.


But that is accurate. Because a woman who is sleeping with numerous people, is at HIGH risk of getting some STD/PID. And if she has an IUD, she is at risk of it causing harm. IUD + STD is a very bad situation.

Therefore, it is safer for a monogamous woman to use this form of birth control then it is for someone who is not.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo and skeptic1

I'm going to try to find some statistics overnight on exactly how much more likely a woman is to contract a PID infection with each additional partner. That will help us continue; I feel like we've going to descend into a shouting match without knowing the exact numbers.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I agree this could be a conspiracy to promote the pro-marriage agenda, but it wouldn't be the most likely reason to push monogamy in my opinion. My wife has this contraceptive. They "say" they won't give it to you unless you are monogamous because if any STDs are present it can cause serious health problems including death. This may very well be the true case also. I am not a doctor, and if even I was, I could have been payed to push this message. We may never know. I was skeptical at first, but the doctor explained it fairly thoroughly to my wife, who then told me, and it seems the STD = Death part could be somewhat legitimate.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Unmask The Deception]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Come on people. It's simple. Mirena only stops pregnancy, not STD's. Any person who is not in a mononogamous relationship should use a form of birth control that also protects from STD's. Mirena is simply covering their butts by saying that is for monogamous women, so some young promiscuous woman doesn't sue the company when she contracts HIV.

Btw, what is so wrong with monogamous relationships?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by asmeone2
 


A lot of it has to do with the contraction of a STD or an infection that can cause PID.

IUDs aren't the safest form of birth control. And, when I say safe, I mean in a physical sense. IUDs and infections aren't a good combo, and IUDs can also perforate a woman's uterus.

If you are at high risk for a STD or an infection that can cause PID, then an IUD isn't right for you. And, women who are in a stable relationship with one man who is monogamous are at much less risk for an STD or a PID causing infection.

Like I said before, female contraception isn't as easy as a condom is for a man. We have to weigh the risks to our health and choose the birth control that is right for us and our situation.


I agree with this. I think you might all be reading too much into it. I think the line is there to reinforce the point that birth control pills aren't appropriate for protecting against STIs. It's basically saying "If you use our product, you won't get pregnant, but if you're having unprotected sex with many different people, you could still get an STI".

Unfortunately the most recent generations of the human race aren't particularly street smart, so to avoid a huge rise in sexually transmitted infections, things need to be spelt out.

That's all it's saying "if you want to have sex with loads of different people, best use condoms".



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unmask The Deception
I agree this could be a conspiracy to promote the pro-marriage agenda, but it wouldn't be the most likely reason to push monogamy in my opinion. My wife has this contraceptive. They "say" they won't give it to you unless you are monogamous because if any STDs are present it can cause serious health problems including death. This may very well be the true case also. I am not a doctor, and if even I was, I could have been payed to push this message. We may never know. I was skeptical at first, but the doctor explained it fairly thoroughly to my wife, who then told me, and it seems the STD = Death part could be somewhat legitimate.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Unmask The Deception]


I'm trying to look up the statistics on just how likely it is to contact an STD serious enough to notice, and then how likely one is to die.

I wonder if they have the same kind of "fuzzy math" that they used to market Gardasil.

And of course, being monogamous doesn't guarantee that there aren't STDs involved.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Unfortunately the most recent generations of the human race aren't particularly street smart, so to avoid a huge rise in sexually transmitted infections, things need to be spelt out.

That's all it's saying "if you want to have sex with loads of different people, best use condoms".


It isn't that the current generation is lacking in smarts, but that there has been a concerted effort to deny them comprehensive birth control education.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Greetings,
first post here......

I have to agree with a hostile me that this is just the company covering their butts.
Its their way of saying :"Do NOT confuse this with a condom"
as some people might actually be naive enough to confuse birth "protection" for STD "protection.

Thas said, i think theres is a definite agenda going on against sex outside of marriage by the christian right "kooks".

For instance , while there is a vaccine against HPV, i hear a lot of evangelicals that are against it , even for their own daughters. Thats essentially saying :"If she has sex outside of marriage, she gets what she gets (HPV/CANCER?STD PREGNANCY ETC..."

They WANT there to be consequences to sex , be it death or pregnancy.

Just my two cents. Hope i stepped on no toes as this is my first post on this forum.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by clearlight808]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I would lean toward population control.

slowly but surely expose us to things like this; phrases, ideas, etc., that promote having 0 or 1 child.

seems like it would make sense to me. (not that i support it)

either way I'd say more anti-big family than pro-marriage



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearlight808
Greetings,
first post here......

I have to agree with a hostile me that this is just the company covering their butts.
Its their way of saying :"Do NOT confuse this with a condom"
as some people might actually be naive enough to confuse birth "protection" for STD "protection.

Thas said, i think theres is a definite agenda going on against sex outside of marriage by the christian right "kooks".

For instance , while there is a vaccine against HPV, i hear a lot of evangelicals that are against it , even for their own daughters. Thats essentially saying :"If she has sex outside of marriage, she gets what she gets (HPV/CANCER?STD PREGNANCY ETC..."

They WANT there to be consequences to sex , be it death or pregnancy.

Just my two cents. Hope i stepped on no toes as this is my first post on this forum.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by clearlight808]


It would be much easier--and much safer, I would think, from a legal position--for them to just come out and say "Use with a condom for maximum disease protection" if the fear of litigation is why they are adding in that phrase.

And hey, this is Big Pharma we're talking about--why prevent STDs anyway? The more people who have them, the more medicine they can sell.

PS: Personally I am very against the HPV vaccination, but for reasons entirely unconnected to the morality of having sex.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmilla
I would lean toward population control.

slowly but surely expose us to things like this; phrases, ideas, etc., that promote having 0 or 1 child.

seems like it would make sense to me. (not that i support it)

either way I'd say more anti-big family than pro-marriage


Hmm, population control is an angle that I didn't think about here. I guess because it's so obvious when talking about birth control?

Anyways, if that is their idea, interesting that they market this drug towards what the supposed population-control proponants typically think of as the most "desirable"--that is white, married, upper-middle-class--women.

It will be intersting to see if BC adevertisments come closer and closer to the "eugenics" line as time progresses.

And yes, I find myself frustrated with people that have big families, and then can't support them.... I didn't mean to imply that I thought marriage was undesirable some how, just that I think it is odd for the company to market only to that demographic.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by asmeone2]





top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join