Showing posts tagged contraception.
x

ROBOTS, FISH, etc.

Ask me anything   My Art   My Cosplays   Commissions   NEW FOLLOWER READ-ME   

Lo. Likes fish, robots, necromancy, and long walks on the beach. This is my moodboard.
For more info about me or feminism or whatever, check out the Read-Me page.

Professional-er Art Blog || Aquapunk || Transcostumers

twitter.com/CoronAndCo:


    Advocating Progress: breanieswordvomit: foulmouthedliberty: indigenousfeminist: “Men’s... →

    breanieswordvomit:

    foulmouthedliberty:

    indigenousfeminist:

    “Men’s indifference to learning about contraception and to taking any responsibility for it is a theme that emerges from many reports of projects that have attempted, and failed, to reach and educate men. One of the most successful programs of contraception education for men, a Planned Parenthood project in Chicago, abandoned its attempts to reach men over the age of twenty-five when it was found that these men simply would not participate, even when offered beer, sandwiches, free condoms—and “stag” movies. Instead, the project targeted a younger group, and as part of its research the project conducted a survey of over a thousand men aged fifteen to nineteen:

    • These young men were asked whether they agreed with the statement “It’s okay to tell a girl you love her so that you can have sex with her.” Seven out of ten agreed that it’s okay.

    • They were asked whether they agreed with the statement “A guy should use birth control whenever possible.” Eight out of ten disagreed and said a guy should not.

    • And when asked, “If I got a girl pregnant, I would want her to have an abortion,” nearly nine out of ten said no, they would not want her to have an abortion. These teenage men agreed: Deception to obtain coital access is okay; male irresponsibility in contraception is okay; but abortion is not okay—“because it’s wrong.”

    Largely because of attitudes such as these, one million teenage women—one tenth of all teenage women—become pregnant each year, and two thirds of their pregnancies are not wanted.”

    —John Stoltenberg, Refusing to be a Man

    This is all the more disturbing when you consider the vast majority of our lawmakers are male.

    image

    Well this is horrifying

    What’s even worse is that I’m not in the least bit surprised. And that the book is only 12 years old.

    "On the postpartum floor of a large New York City hospital, Dr. Maria Boria-Berna interviewed 130 women who had just given birth and approximately 100 men who had impregnated them. She asked the men how they felt about their wife’s using birth control. The majority of men "did not like the idea at all." She asked the women how they felt about using birth control, and eight out of ten replied that they "favored contraception without reservation." But about half the women favoring contraception said that if their husband objected, they would defer and not use any. […]

    In this phallocentric culture, a woman’s unwillingness to admit a man’s “manhood” and accept his proferred “seed”—or a woman’s unwillingness to incubate the stuff—is felt at some level to be an act of violence against men’s personhood. Since phallic personhood is contingent on female deference, nurturance, and sustenance all its life in order to differentiate and thrive, any female noncooperation—whether in fucking or breeding—is perceived as an attack on men’s core selves. […]

    I believe that men as a class know that reproductive freedom for women is not in men’s interest. Men know this in their guts. Men as a class know that if reproductive freedom for women ever became a reality, male supremacy could no longer exist. It’s as simple and logical as that; and men’s laws, men’s dollars, and men’s gods serve that knowledge.”

    — 1 year ago with 4012 notes
    #8 out of 10 men doing it the fuck wrong  #contraception  #feminism  #sex  #sexism  #patriarchy  #abortion 
    fuckyeahfeminists:

Why do so many women end up on the pill when it fails them?

Women overestimate the effectiveness of the Pill and condoms — the two most popular methods of birth control in this country — according to a new study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. After the study group of 4,100 women was counseled about other methods of birth control, such as IUDs, 71 percent chose to go on that or an implant. The findings suggest that many women choose the Pill because they don’t receive thorough counseling about their other birth control options or the true effectiveness of the Pill — which isn’t as great as pharmaceutical companies tell you it is.
This helps explain why the most popular methods of contraception in this country are the birth control Pill and condoms — if you don’t know all the information about all the methods of contraception available to you, why would you choose the one you know the least about? What many women don’t know about the Pill is that only if you take it exactly according to the manufacturer’s instructions, including at the same time every day, that your chances of getting pregnant are 0.3 percent. But for whatever reason — business or forgetfulness — many women don’t take the Pill exactly according to the instructions, bringing its real failure rate to a rather startling 9 percent, according to Dr. Nancy Stanwood, obstetrician/gynecologist and board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. That means that nearly one out of 10 women will get pregnant while taking the Pill over the course of a year.

Read the rest at Buzzfeed

I take the pill because I’ve been poked and prodded and threatened with intra-muscular shots enough as it is, and they wouldn’t give me a partial hysterectomy like I’d asked. :P (I guess that’s what I get for sounding like I was joking or something… no really, Mr. Surgeon, you don’t have any idea how much I don’t ever want to get pregnant.)

    fuckyeahfeminists:

    Why do so many women end up on the pill when it fails them?

    Women overestimate the effectiveness of the Pill and condoms — the two most popular methods of birth control in this country — according to a new study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. After the study group of 4,100 women was counseled about other methods of birth control, such as IUDs, 71 percent chose to go on that or an implant. The findings suggest that many women choose the Pill because they don’t receive thorough counseling about their other birth control options or the true effectiveness of the Pill — which isn’t as great as pharmaceutical companies tell you it is.

    This helps explain why the most popular methods of contraception in this country are the birth control Pill and condoms — if you don’t know all the information about all the methods of contraception available to you, why would you choose the one you know the least about? What many women don’t know about the Pill is that only if you take it exactly according to the manufacturer’s instructions, including at the same time every day, that your chances of getting pregnant are 0.3 percent. But for whatever reason — business or forgetfulness — many women don’t take the Pill exactly according to the instructions, bringing its real failure rate to a rather startling 9 percent, according to Dr. Nancy Stanwood, obstetrician/gynecologist and board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. That means that nearly one out of 10 women will get pregnant while taking the Pill over the course of a year.

    Read the rest at Buzzfeed

    I take the pill because I’ve been poked and prodded and threatened with intra-muscular shots enough as it is, and they wouldn’t give me a partial hysterectomy like I’d asked. :P (I guess that’s what I get for sounding like I was joking or something… no really, Mr. Surgeon, you don’t have any idea how much I don’t ever want to get pregnant.)

    — 1 year ago with 222 notes
    #health care  #birth control  #sex  #contraception 
    womenaresociety:

Violence Against Women Act Divides Senate
With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama’s contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives.
The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March.
Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence.
“I am furious,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. “We’re mad, and we’re tired of it.”
Republicans are bracing for a battle where substantive arguments could be swamped by political optics and the intensity of the clash over women’s issues. At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday.
Some conservatives are feeling trapped.
“I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”
The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.
Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.
Critics of the legislation acknowledged that the name alone presents a challenge if they intend to oppose it over some of its specific provisions.
“Obviously, you want to be for the title,” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said of the Violence Against Women Act. “If Republicans can’t be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative.”
The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month.
As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats’ timing. The party just went through a bruising fight over efforts to replace the Obama administration’s contraception-coverage mandate with legislation allowing some employers to opt out of coverage for medical procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds.
*Click link above to continue reading

    womenaresociety:

    Violence Against Women Act Divides Senate

    With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama’s contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives.

    The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March.

    Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence.

    “I am furious,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. “We’re mad, and we’re tired of it.”

    Republicans are bracing for a battle where substantive arguments could be swamped by political optics and the intensity of the clash over women’s issues. At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday.

    Some conservatives are feeling trapped.

    “I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”

    The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

    Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.

    Critics of the legislation acknowledged that the name alone presents a challenge if they intend to oppose it over some of its specific provisions.

    “Obviously, you want to be for the title,” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said of the Violence Against Women Act. “If Republicans can’t be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative.”

    The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month.

    As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats’ timing. The party just went through a bruising fight over efforts to replace the Obama administration’s contraception-coverage mandate with legislation allowing some employers to opt out of coverage for medical procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds.

    *Click link above to continue reading

    — 2 years ago with 12 notes
    #republicans  #women  #war against women  #democrats  #contraception  #women's rights  #protection  #law  #domestic violence  #senate  #conservatives  #female senators  #harry reid  #violence  #violence against women act  #immigration  #controversy  #new york times  #lisa murkowski  #jeff sessions  #politics  #stalking  #same-sex couples  #gay couples  #roy blunt  #michael d crapo  #obama  #president obama 
    The FACTS about the cost of birth control →

    think-progress:

    • Oral contraceptives, or “the pill,” can cost $1,210 per year without health insurance. 
    • Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs.
    • Surveys show that nearly one in four women with household incomes of less than $75,000 have put off a doctor’s visit for birth control to save money in the past year.
    • Twenty-nine percent of women report that they have tried to save money by using their method inconsistently.
    • More than half of young adult women say they have not used their method as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.
    • Nearly half of women ages 18–34 with household incomes less than $75,000 report they need to delay or limit their childbearing because of economic hardships they’ve experienced in recent years.

    Just as a little addendum, I have no insurance and my Rx currently costs me about $520 a year. So it depends on what you take— some brands/formulas might be even cheaper (and it definitely will if you aren’t on a continuous schedule like me and don’t chuck your placebo pills). And no, what your doctor prescribes you is NOT the last word. Feel free to tell them you want a cheaper medication (we really need to start realizing that birth control is medication, not some other kind of thing that we get prescriptions for) because they are being paid by the big brand names to have their expensive stuff pushed first.

    An yes, I am one of those people who doesn’t take her pill every day to try and stretch my dollar. Though I don’t often have to do it deliberately because I just forget like a dumb asshole. It’s probably not particularly advisable, but hey— you do what you can when you live under poverty level.

    (Source: americanprogress.org, via barackobama)

    — 2 years ago with 2930 notes
    #politics  #contraception 
    womenaresociety:

Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Birth Control
The Senate on Thursday upheld President Obama’s birth control policy, voting to kill a Republican effort to let employers and health insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives and other items they object to on religious or moral grounds.
 
The 51-to-48 vote illustrated a sharp divide between the parties and brought to the Congressional forefront the social issues that have roiled the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Over four days of debate, Democrats accused Republicans of infringing on women’s rights and focusing on issues long settled while Republicans accused Democrats of threatening religious freedom and violating the Constitution.
“The Senate will not allow women’s health care choices to be taken away from them,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington.
The politically charged fight heated up last month after the Obama administration unveiled its policy requiring health insurance plans to offer free contraceptives for women — a rule that provoked furious criticism from Roman Catholic institutions and some other religious groups. The administration quickly offered a revision that would force the health insurers — not the institutions — to bear the cost.
Still, Senate Republicans tried to seize on the uproar surrounding the administration rule and offered a Senate proposal that would allow a broad exemption for employers, framing it as a matter of conscience as much as contraception.
“The president is trampling on religious freedom,” said Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska.
Democrats saw the issue tilting politically in their favor in recent days and forced the Senate vote even as some Republicans indicated unease about pressing the matter. One Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, joined 48 Democrats and two independents in opposing the plan, days after she announced she was retiring from the Senate. Three Democratic senators — Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — voted for the proposal, along with 45 Republicans. Mr. Casey and Mr. Manchin are up for re-election this year. Mr. Nelson is retiring.
Despite the vote, Congress is not done with the contraception debate. Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that House Republicans also wanted to protect religious employers who object to the requirement for contraceptive coverage.
“It’s important for us to win this issue,” Mr. Boehner said. He did not offer any details about a legislative path forward, but hinted that it would differ from the one tried by Senate Republicans.
Illustrating the political power of the issue, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, moved quickly on Wednesday to clarify a comment that he was against the Republican plan by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. Mr. Romney said that he had misunderstood the question and that he supported Mr. Blunt’s proposal. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. weighed in on the issue during a visit to Iowa State University on Thursday, saying that the administration plan was “screwed up in the first iteration” but that the compromise was the correct approach.
In the Senate, Democrats, defending the new health care law, said the Republican proposal went far beyond contraception and would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected.
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, said Republicans were attacking women’s health care as part of “a systematic war against women.”
Mr. Blunt offered the proposal as an amendment to a highway bill. Under the proposal, health insurance plans and employers could refuse to provide or pay for coverage of “specific items or services” if the coverage would be “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.”
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, urged the Senate to reject the proposal. “The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss,” Ms. Sebelius said.
*Click above link to continue reading. Please CLICK HERE to take 10 seconds to thank your senators for voting to protect women’s health & urge them to keep up the fight.

    womenaresociety:

    Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Birth Control

    The Senate on Thursday upheld President Obama’s birth control policy, voting to kill a Republican effort to let employers and health insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives and other items they object to on religious or moral grounds.

    The 51-to-48 vote illustrated a sharp divide between the parties and brought to the Congressional forefront the social issues that have roiled the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Over four days of debate, Democrats accused Republicans of infringing on women’s rights and focusing on issues long settled while Republicans accused Democrats of threatening religious freedom and violating the Constitution.

    “The Senate will not allow women’s health care choices to be taken away from them,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington.

    The politically charged fight heated up last month after the Obama administration unveiled its policy requiring health insurance plans to offer free contraceptives for women — a rule that provoked furious criticism from Roman Catholic institutions and some other religious groups. The administration quickly offered a revision that would force the health insurers — not the institutions — to bear the cost.

    Still, Senate Republicans tried to seize on the uproar surrounding the administration rule and offered a Senate proposal that would allow a broad exemption for employers, framing it as a matter of conscience as much as contraception.

    “The president is trampling on religious freedom,” said Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska.

    Democrats saw the issue tilting politically in their favor in recent days and forced the Senate vote even as some Republicans indicated unease about pressing the matter. One Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, joined 48 Democrats and two independents in opposing the plan, days after she announced she was retiring from the Senate. Three Democratic senators — Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — voted for the proposal, along with 45 Republicans. Mr. Casey and Mr. Manchin are up for re-election this year. Mr. Nelson is retiring.

    Despite the vote, Congress is not done with the contraception debate. Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that House Republicans also wanted to protect religious employers who object to the requirement for contraceptive coverage.

    “It’s important for us to win this issue,” Mr. Boehner said. He did not offer any details about a legislative path forward, but hinted that it would differ from the one tried by Senate Republicans.

    Illustrating the political power of the issue, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, moved quickly on Wednesday to clarify a comment that he was against the Republican plan by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. Mr. Romney said that he had misunderstood the question and that he supported Mr. Blunt’s proposal. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. weighed in on the issue during a visit to Iowa State University on Thursday, saying that the administration plan was “screwed up in the first iteration” but that the compromise was the correct approach.

    In the Senate, Democrats, defending the new health care law, said the Republican proposal went far beyond contraception and would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected.

    Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, said Republicans were attacking women’s health care as part of “a systematic war against women.”

    Mr. Blunt offered the proposal as an amendment to a highway bill. Under the proposal, health insurance plans and employers could refuse to provide or pay for coverage of “specific items or services” if the coverage would be “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.”

    Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, urged the Senate to reject the proposal. “The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss,” Ms. Sebelius said.

    *Click above link to continue reading. Please CLICK HERE to take 10 seconds to thank your senators for voting to protect women’s health & urge them to keep up the fight.

    — 2 years ago with 41 notes
    #senators  #senate  #vote  #women's rights  #healthcare  #women's health  #controversy  #birth control  #contraception  #health insurance  #religion  #moral  #catholic  #olympia j snowe  #olympia snowe  #mitt romney  #joe biden  #barbara mikulski  #roy blunt  #kathleen sebelius  #obama  #obama administration  #patty murray 

    womenaresociety:

    fuckyeah-nerdery:

    Middle aged men explain why middle aged men know more about women’s health than women. I lul’d.

    I love Nick Offerman.

    — 2 years ago with 1083 notes
    #birth control  #funny or die  #misogyny  #nick offerman  #planned parenthood  #sexism  #sexist  #video  #women's health  #women's health experts  #reproductive health  #contraception 
    fuckyeahfeminists:

knittingwitch:

uglyorangecouch:

thoseareturkeys:

think-progress:

Take a look at who relies on contraception: 58 percent of women use it for purposes OTHER than family planning.

The last two times I took oral contraception, it was to calm down my cramps and what not. A couple of days a week, every month, I can barely function. I had negative side effects and opted not to continue.
To be on certain kinds of acne medication, you need an oral contraceptive to regulate your hormones.
Some women have periods all over the fucking calendar and oral contraceptives help them regulate it.
I think these “houses of worship”, run mostly by men, should grow the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Management

When I first went on the pill it was because my periods were up to nine months apart so regulating them severely reduced my risk of uterine cancer.
I mean, now I need it for birth control, but not having cancer is also a plus.

 I use birth control for pregnancy prevention, menstrual cramps (I am often left bed-ridden the first full day of the cycle - but not on the pill!), and acne especially. There’s nothing immoral about it. And if the military didn’t pay for it, I wouldn’t be able to afford it. Then it’d be back to buying condoms (which is a huge waste in landfills), loads of pain medication, and different acne medicines that just don’t work on me because my acne problem is HORMONAL not due to “bad hygiene” or whatever else people give as an excuse.

This image should say “Because millions of people need it” instead of “women need it”, but otherwise I’m lovin’ this.

FUCK YEAH ENDOMETRIOSIS
Er
I mean

    fuckyeahfeminists:

    knittingwitch:

    uglyorangecouch:

    thoseareturkeys:

    think-progress:

    Take a look at who relies on contraception: 58 percent of women use it for purposes OTHER than family planning.

    The last two times I took oral contraception, it was to calm down my cramps and what not. A couple of days a week, every month, I can barely function. I had negative side effects and opted not to continue.

    To be on certain kinds of acne medication, you need an oral contraceptive to regulate your hormones.

    Some women have periods all over the fucking calendar and oral contraceptives help them regulate it.

    I think these “houses of worship”, run mostly by men, should grow the fuck up.

    Sincerely,

    Management

    When I first went on the pill it was because my periods were up to nine months apart so regulating them severely reduced my risk of uterine cancer.

    I mean, now I need it for birth control, but not having cancer is also a plus.

     I use birth control for pregnancy prevention, menstrual cramps (I am often left bed-ridden the first full day of the cycle - but not on the pill!), and acne especially. There’s nothing immoral about it. And if the military didn’t pay for it, I wouldn’t be able to afford it. Then it’d be back to buying condoms (which is a huge waste in landfills), loads of pain medication, and different acne medicines that just don’t work on me because my acne problem is HORMONAL not due to “bad hygiene” or whatever else people give as an excuse.

    This image should say “Because millions of people need it” instead of “women need it”, but otherwise I’m lovin’ this.

    FUCK YEAH ENDOMETRIOSIS

    Er

    I mean

    — 2 years ago with 2449 notes
    #contraception 
    "A great effort has been made to make condoms more pleasurable for men, but you don’t hear about this same effort going toward reducing the negative impact of contraception on women’s sexual functioning."

    Nicole Smith, lead researcher on an Indiana University study that examines the sexual side effects of all hormonal forms of birth control. (via newsweek)

    This is relevant to… keeping me from going under the knife again soon.

    (via fuckyeahfeminists)

    — 2 years ago with 397 notes
    #birth control  #contraception  #women's health  #sexuality