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

MODS: Please move if this is in the wrong forum, I assumed commercial=E&M.

Hello ATS. While watching TV I saw a commercial for the birth control "Mirena" that stated something that I found odd: This form of Birth Control is intended for women in a monogamous relationship only.

I can't find a video of that commercial, but on www.mirena.com, it echoes the same sentiments: (emphasis added)

Mirena® intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) is appropriate for women who:

* Have at least one child
* Are looking for a hassle-free and reversible form of birth control for up to 5 years (or less, if you choose)1
* Are in a stable, mutually monogamous sexual relationship

And under the same site's list of who sould NOT use Mirena:

Have more than one sexual partner, or a sexual partner who has more than one sexual partner

Those seem like odd things to include! It is very strange that a company with a product as universal as birth control would want to limit it.

Why cut out those who are not monogamous, and the even larger block of woman who may not be having sex but find a legitimate application of using the birth control to east their menstral pain (as this medicine does, if you read the site)?

I can't find any legitimate medical reason to limit it to monogamous relationships only. Opinion time, ATS: Is this merely a quirky advertising campaign, or is Mirena pushing the Sanctity of Marriage line?

Note: Speak up if you know of any other BCs that include that particular caveat.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by asmeone2]

Yeah I've heard this and similar statements for other types of birth control. However, in other commercials its phrase as just, "a stable relationship."

Like you, I have no clue why they add something like that to the commercial.

Hmm. Interesting.

Maybe because when you are with multiple partners or your partner is, you are at more risk for issues in that area: PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease), UTI, other infections, STDs, etc. All of these things maybe can affect the reliability and saftey of an IUD.

Also an IUD can slip (and that can be painful) and if it slips, you risk pregnancy. So maybe they think that if you are with a regular partner and get pregnant, not as bad as some random guy you may be with.

I dont know, just some thoughts - maybe not even a logical one. Just trying to figure it out with you

I actually never paid attention to that. Im only familar with ParaGard - which is also an IUD (non hormonal though).


[edit on 9/27/2008 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Hmm. Interesting.

Maybe because when you are with multiple partners or your partner is, you are at more risk for issues in that area: PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease), UTI, other infections, STDs, etc. All of these things maybe can affect the reliability and saftey of an IUD.

That's what I thought too, GEL, except that an IUD doesn't do anything to prevent any kind of STD. While the woman may be more likely to be exposed to a disease the more parners she has, the Mirena doesn't do a thing to prevent her from contracting them.

Also an IUD can slip (and that can be painful) and if it slips, you risk pregnancy. So maybe they think that if you are with a regular partner and get pregnant, not as bad as some random guy you may be with.

Nice thought but I doubt the company is that altruistic. I'd think they'd make more money if they didn't try to restrict their user demographic, which is why that tack-on makes 0 sense to me.

Originally posted by zephyrs
Yeah I've heard this and similar statements for other types of birth control. However, in other commercials its phrase as just, "a stable relationship."

Like you, I have no clue why they add something like that to the commercial.

Do you know which other ones, specifically? It would be great to look them up and see if they officially state that, to see just how common that kind of phrasing is.

I am not currently in a relationship so I am not using any birth control, therefor not as up-to-date as to what's out there, but I would be very, very angry if the gist of BC advertising seems to be "Protection is for married woman only!"

reply to post by asmeone2


I just checked ParaGard to see if they had something similar:

www.paragard.com...


Who shouldn't use ParaGard®?

You should not use ParaGard® if you

.......or have current behavior that puts you at high risk of PID (e.g. because you are having sex with several men, or your partner is having sex with other women)

[edit on 9/27/2008 by greeneyedleo]

And think about this:

If there is some legit medical reason that would cause multiple partners to lessen the device's effect, they need to be up front about exactly *why*. Think abotu all the woman that might fudge the number of partners, fearing condemnation, and would be put at an actual risk.

reply to post by asmeone2


Well, when you go into get an IUD, they do tell you all of this. At least they did me. I got a huge low down and a ton of questions - to find out if it was good for me to use.

The reason being.....an STD/PID can lessen the reliabilty and safety of the IUD since the IUD is inserted into the cervix....any infection or STD could cause problems.

Your post brings up an intriguing point. I live out in California where we have this wacky idea young people will not wait until they are married to have sex, so we give them condoms so they don't go around spreading diseases and having bastard children. Are other parts of the country so puritanical that only "deviants" use birth control? If so, does birth control need to be marketed as family values friendly to be acceptable?

reply to post by greeneyedleo


You edited that while I was typing:

Thanks for posting that! PID is still relatively uncommon. From the CDC:

Each year in the United States, it is estimated that more than 1 million women experience an episode of acute PID. More than 100,000 women become infertile each year as a result of PID, and a large proportion of the ectopic pregnancies occurring every year are due to the consequences of PID.

It goes on to state that some cases may be extremely mild or even asymptomatic, and of course condom use greatly diminishes the chance of transmission.

That said, a company has no business commenting on a customer's private life like that.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Your post brings up an intriguing point. I live out in California where we have this wacky idea young people will not wait until they are married to have sex, so we give them condoms so they don't go around spreading diseases and having bastard children. Are other parts of the country so puritanical that only "deviants" use birth control? If so, does birth control need to be marketed as family values friendly to be acceptable?

I don't know where this commercial is being marketed, outside of my state, but the information is right up their on their web side.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you are getting at other than trying to provoke an AOSE debate, which was not the point of this thread. If anything the marketing suppoerts the sex-after-marriage-only viewpoint.

I beleive that everyone of age should have access to prescription birth control if they want it and can pay for that, no questions asked, unless there is a medical reason that they should not such as an adverse reaction to hormones. That is my opinion, I will stand on it, and I will NOT debate you if that is what you are trying to do.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by asmeone2]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


By "they" I meant the company, not the individual doctors. It's common knowledge that multiple partners increases one's chances of contracting an STD, but that shoudln't be a condition as to whether or not they can use birth control.

reply to post by asmeone2


I was being sarcastic in my post. I think people should have access to birth control. I guess there might be a medical reason in not allowing some women to have this type of birth control if they are risk of contrating an STD due to the fact they are not in a long term monogamous relationship. Of courst, the "good Christian" wife who is married to a man that goes to brothels or other dubious places may arguably be at more risk of getting an STD than an unmarried woman who has had a small handfull of sexual partners.

You would think it would make no difference to these companies so long as the number of people you are having sex with is greater than 0..

Notice though if you will; the commercials for female contraception include advisory message against having more than one partner and almost always portray a married woman with her husband having a night out or similar.

On the other hand, commercials about male contraception like condoms always portray a younger guy at a bar or party, in the midst of sealing the deal for a one night stand

Gender roles my have existed like this in the 50's but imo they need to reexamine their demographic!

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by asmeone2

 

I was being sarcastic in my post. I think people should have access to birth control. I guess there might be a medical reason in not allowing some women to have this type of birth control if they are risk of contrating an STD due to the fact they are not in a long term monogamous relationship. Of courst, the "good Christian" wife who is married to a man that goes to brothels or other dubious places may arguably be at more risk of getting an STD than an unmarried woman who has had a small handfull of sexual partners.

I didn't pick that up. Totally sorry if I came off as a jerk, I've just had other threads side-tracked by that kind of debating.

I think it would be difficult to prove, but I'd wager the majority of people who contract STDs get it from a monogamous partner who didn't know or didn't tell them that they were infected, or as you stated, brought it in when they cheated.

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
You would think it would make no difference to these companies so long as the number of people you are having sex with is greater than 0..

Notice though if you will; the commercials for female contraception include advisory message against having more than one partner and almost always portray a married woman with her husband having a night out or similar.

On the other hand, commercials about male contraception like condoms always portray a younger guy at a bar or party, in the midst of sealing the deal for a one night stand

Gender roles my have existed like this in the 50's but imo they need to reexamine their demographic!

In the case of this particular commerical, the woman was married, with a house and a handful of kids.

The thing that REALLY bothers me though is that female contraceptives focus on 'turning off' some part of their biology, wheras the male ones typically emphasize that the product will make the experience better for him, or "keep her coming back for more."

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
You would think it would make no difference to these companies so long as the number of people you are having sex with is greater than 0..

Notice though if you will; the commercials for female contraception include advisory message against having more than one partner and almost always portray a married woman with her husband having a night out or similar.

On the other hand, commercials about male contraception like condoms always portray a younger guy at a bar or party, in the midst of sealing the deal for a one night stand

Gender roles my have existed like this in the 50's but imo they need to reexamine their demographic!

In the case of this particular commerical, the woman was married, with a house and a handful of kids.

The thing that REALLY bothers me though is that female contraceptives focus on 'turning off' some part of their biology, wheras the male ones typically emphasize that the product will make the experience better for him, or "keep her coming back for more."

Hmm I see your point, never really considered that angle.

The pill is widely considered to be a liberating development in the women's rights movement. Let me get this straight; your argument is how it's presented as a "cure" for a natural function. While condoms are somewhat of a "utility" that not only protects you from disease on top of pregnancy but also enhances your experience? Condoms are associated with pleasure, sex and safety; BC is associated with preventing pregnancy.

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE

Hmm I see your point, never really considered that angle.

The pill is widely considered to be a liberating development in the women's rights movement. Let me get this straight; your argument is how it's presented as a "cure" for a natural function. While condoms are somewhat of a "utility" that not only protects you from disease on top of pregnancy but also enhances your experience? Condoms are associated with pleasure, sex and safety; BC is associated with preventing pregnancy.

Ugh, my opinion gets a little bit complex here.

While I wholehartedly beleive that both genders should be equal, I believe that "traditional" gender roles are a beutiful thing when balanced equally. But that's a whole other story.

Of course it has been very liberating to woman to have birth control availible. What I object to is the way that advertising tends to imply that certain parts of womanhood are undesirable or inconvenient and she can or should turn them off at will.

That itself isn't so bad except for the way that it is combined with male BC advertising, as I've already mentioned. It's like we've gone from valueing woman as an object that spits out babies to an object that gives men all of the sexual service, without the commitment.

I don't know what the alternatives are, really, and I can certainly see why they advertise this. I'd just like to see the condoms presented as an absolute must, as an insult to your partner if you don't wear them, and the female birth control presented as a medication, not a body modification.

Originally posted by asmeone2
Ugh, my opinion gets a little bit complex here.

While I wholehartedly beleive that both genders should be equal, I believe that "traditional" gender roles are a beutiful thing when balanced equally. But that's a whole other story.

Of course it has been very liberating to woman to have birth control availible. What I object to is the way that advertising tends to imply that certain parts of womanhood are undesirable or inconvenient and she can or should turn them off at will.

That itself isn't so bad except for the way that it is combined with male BC advertising, as I've already mentioned. It's like we've gone from valueing woman as an object that spits out babies to an object that gives men all of the sexual service, without the commitment.

I don't know what the alternatives are, really, and I can certainly see why they advertise this. I'd just like to see the condoms presented as an absolute must, as an insult to your partner if you don't wear them, and the female birth control presented as a medication, not a body modification.

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.

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!"