This attitude has served our young people terribly [0]. Whether or not you support abstinence-only education, your absolute refusal to acknowledge the reality of human relationships and the sexual involvement that comes with it makes your advice worthless, akin to saying "Don't want to die in a car-wreck? Don't want to take chances? Don't leave your house."
All I'm saying by that is that there is one and only one guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy. I'm all for proper education on the alternatives but abstinence is the only contraceptive that's 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.
That's why the "don't want to take chances" portion of my conclusion is so critical. Education that contraceptives are imperfect is also critical IMO.
Abstinence is basically off topic in this discussion. The goal is to "avoid pregnancy while having sex". Not having sex, is not a solution to this goal.
Telling someone not to drive if they don't want to die in a car crash, does not move car safety forward. Abstinence is often used as an extinguisher of information, not as a motivator.
For your reference: The issue with IUDs and fertility is PID (Pelvic Inflamatory Disase). It was previously thought that having an IUD increased your risk of PID, but the latest research shows that the risk of PID is not associated with IUD use, but with IUD insertion. If you do not have an STI at the time of insertion, you're safe. Some research has even shown that the Mirena will lower the long term risk of PID, and a large study from China just came out showing that long-term use of IUD does not impact fertility.
You seem primarily concerned not with PID, but the risk of perforation during insertion in roughly 1 in every 2,000 women. Which, first off, is a pretty damn low rate, and compares favourably to the risks of other birth control options. And second, while a perforation can be serious, even if not caught it should just heal on its own. Worst case, it might require surgery, but it's not going to cause long term fertility issues.
Everyone has the right to choose which risks they're willing to take, to be sure. But I think you may be grossly misinformed if you think that the Mirena and similar IUDs convey significant risks of infertility. Don't get one inserted without an STI test, and get a followup check to make sure there's no perforation, and then there is no (repeat no) evidence of an increased rate of infertility.
http://livescience.com/21866-iud-gynecologists-birth-control...
Modern IUDs do not cause disease; may be protective against disease; and the original faulty models may have been wrongly blamed for disease which was prevalent in the population.
Everything carries some risk. Female hormonal contraception carries some risk of death. (About 12 women per 10,000 taking the pill will experience a blood clot each year. This is potentially a life-changing or even life ending event.)
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02February/Pages/Media-hype-bloo...
If you are done with predetermined quota, one can go under the knife and start shooting blanks at no bodily cost.
I did the chop, and had I wanted more, I would have frozen some sperm. The procedure itself is also reversible. Considering the cost/benefit ratio, and the risks of male vs. those of female sterilisation, I consider not doing it selfish and boorish.
It is potentially reversible, not 100% reversible. There is a huge chance you'll be sterile for life. Some men also report post-vasectomy pain syndrome.
Of course, this is a mating game. The time to get a vasectomy is after having children in a relationship that you know is going to last.
Regardless, I do really feel you're spot on about the attitudes that some gentlemen out there have towards condoms. Or, condoms are so inexpensive and practical, it makes a lot of sense to use them. Not to mention if they're properly sized they won't hurt or feel uncomfortable.
Unsurprisingly, trying to make your body think it's already pregnant via external hormones can have some significant side effects. I mean, I suppose decreased libido probably contributes to the effectiveness of a birth control method, but why bother? Or how about some frustrating weight gain from your body trying to nurture and protect a non-existent baby? Or maybe you prefer that sex become uncomfortable or painful? Even IUDs are only recommended if you're not thinking about ever having kids; the danger of infertility is still too high.
"I don't want to wear condoms" is all-too-often the only reason that hormonal birth control is ever considered. It's my personal opinion that men are the ones that need to suck it up. Every time.
Chances sex is less pleasurable for men? Probably 100%. But the chances that hormonal birth control will significantly diminish some woman's quality of life are statistically significant. The only way to avoid it is to go with condoms.
Don't want kids? Don't want to take chances? Don't have sex. You think it's a coincidence that one of the most pleasurable experiences possible also happens to lead to the continuation of our species? Ha.