July 15, 2004
GET RHYTHM:
A New Bead on Birth Control: Behind This Funny-Looking Plastic Necklace Is Research That Could Restore the Much-Maligned Rhythm Method to Fashion (Alison Stein Wellner, July 13, 2004, The Washington Post)
It looks like an uncommonly ugly necklace, made up of 32 oblong plastic beads. Slightly more than half are a translucent amber brown, a dozen are white, like piña colada jelly beans. One bead in the center is throat-lozenge red, and next to it is a small black plastic cylinder, which bears the necklace's brand name: CycleBeads.CycleBeads are not jewelry, exactly. They're integral to a new pregnancy-prevention method called the Standard Days Method, developed at the Institute for Reproductive Health (IRH) at Georgetown University.
The necklace is a tool that helps a woman track her menstrual cycle: Slide the little black gasket onto the fat part of the red bead on the first day of a period. Then advance that gasket across the brown beads, at the rate of one a day. When the gasket reaches the 12 white beads, pregnancy is likely if a woman has unprotected sex. (This danger zone is easy to confirm in the darkness of the bedroom, since the white beads glow in the dark.) After the gasket slides past the white beads, it resumes its march across brown beads, and pregnancy is unlikely once more.
According to two studies in the peer-reviewed journal Contraception -- one published this year and one two years earlier -- the method, used correctly, is more effective than a diaphragm and nearly as effective as a condom. This summer, the Standard Days Method and CycleBeads will be inducted into the bible of contraception, "Contraceptive Technology." Being included in the latest update of this family planning reference book used by health care professionals could feed demand for CycleBeads, which retail for $12.95, and never require a refill. In the 13 months since they became available, 30,000 women have started to use this method, according to the IRH. CycleTechnologies, the New York-based company that's manufacturing CycleBeads, projects that figure will double by the end of 2005.
CycleBeads are the latest variation on one of the oldest methods of birth control: periodic abstinence, commonly known as the rhythm method.
Best of all it puts the control back in birth control. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 15, 2004 8:15 AM
Sounds like a perfect candidate for a variation of the old joke:
Know what they call people who practice the rhythm method of birth control?
Answer: parents!
Another reason to keep returning to The Brothers Judd: where else would a contraception story be headed with a Johnny Cash reference? (And it's a B-side, yet!)
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at July 15, 2004 10:09 AMMeaningless in a world where the only sexuality is homo.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 15, 2004 3:01 PMMy old religion teacher at a Catholic high school, who was a married man, said that certain natural family-planning programs existed that required a woman's saliva to be tested every so often. When that method was utilized, the "no sex" period could be as little as 7 days, and the regimen was only about a percentage point less effective than the birth control pill. I've heard similar figures from other sources.
Posted by: Matt at July 15, 2004 4:53 PMSocial conservative that I am, I have never understood those who hold that the rhythm method is any different qualitatively or morally than contraception.
Posted by: Peter B at July 15, 2004 6:19 PMBut, no matter what, count on them all to be antisex.
Why a mere 7-day no-sex plan is considered to be a good thing is a mystery to me.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 15, 2004 7:18 PMYes, self restraint it would mystify an egomaniac.
Posted by: oj at July 15, 2004 7:25 PMPoint, set, and match OJ!
Posted by: Ptah at July 15, 2004 9:00 PMOJ:
I can always tell when you don't have an argument worthy of the name--you launch an ad hominem attack.
I, too, am confused. Peter has a point, leading to the conclusion the utility of a 7-day no sex interval is obscure, to the point of non-existence.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 15, 2004 9:23 PMOf course it is--you don';t believe in morality which is nothing more than the acceptance of limitations on desires.
Posted by: oj at July 15, 2004 9:33 PMYou guys need to get out more - there are lots of ways to spice things up without any possibility of pregnancy (for both husband and wife).
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 15, 2004 9:50 PMjim:
You're missing the point--anything that gets between them and instant gratification is intolerable to the self-consumed.
Posted by: oj at July 15, 2004 9:54 PMI know, but Harry occasionally slides into Cosmo mode - I figured he would already be on top of this.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 15, 2004 10:26 PMI do believe in morality--restrictions on behavior with a point.
There is no point here to be had.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 16, 2004 6:53 AMVirtually all of us practice certain sexual restraints. Few of us copulate in the yard like hens and roosters.
The question then becomes, what is the appropriate threshold of restraint, and who decides?
Again, why there should be any restraint at all -- other than their own tastes -- between a husband and a wife is entirely mysterious. Cui bono?
On the other hand, if you are going to avoid sex just for the pleasure and morality of avoiding sex, it's hard to justify not taking a vow of complete celibacy.
The Catholic church is not famous for following out the logical consequences of its moral teaching, but this is one case where it toes the line -- dare I say, religiously?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 16, 2004 1:58 PM