Ways To Increase Conception and Fertility

[Mellonhead]

There are contraceptives that prevent pregnancy, but are there ways to increase conception and fertility? Would they be called "conceptives" due to their ability to help women conceive?

[Heather]

That's not a term used in the field I'm aware of, no.

The vast majority of people don't have any issues with fertility when they are having frequent penis-in-vagina intercourse, and when both people involved are generally in good health, and of reproductive age (as in, not too young or too old for conception to be possible or likely).

Those who do have troubles conceiving do for a very wide range of reasons, so what helps someone having trouble depends on the why of the trouble they're having.

[Mellonhead]

That's not a term used in the field I'm aware of, no.

The vast majority of people don't have any issues with fertility when they are having frequent penis-in-vagina intercourse, and when both people involved are generally in good health, and of reproductive age (as in, not too young or too old for conception to be possible or likely).

Those who do have troubles conceiving do for a very wide range of reasons, so what helps someone having trouble depends on the why of the trouble they're having.

Thank you for your speedy response.

So, the take-home message is that frequent penis-in-vagina intercourse can easily lead to conception in individuals of good health and of reproductive age, so contraceptives must be invented in order to interrupt what would otherwise occur spontaneously. That makes sense.

However, does the penis-in-vagina intercourse have to be frequent? Can conception occur in an one-time encounter? Do men have to do the thrusting motion in order to ejaculate in the vagina? Have there been situations where some men don't know how to have sex, and so, even though they think they are having penis-in-vagina sex to fertilize the female, they are really not? (I've heard that the lack of sexual knowledge can actually prevent successful reproduction. I don't have a source with me, because it's basically hearsay.)

[Ashleah]

Hi Mellonhead,

When you say "don't know how to have sex" I am assuming you mean people who intended to have vaginal intercourse and were not successful in doing so bc they did not penetrate the vagina. But sex is such a diverse thing that there really isn't a "know how to" or way to do it correctly.

Frequent intercourse is not required to achieve conception but it makes it more likely. The more individuals have sex, the more opportunity there is to produce a pregnancy. That does not mean that it can not occur from a one time encounter or that it is even rare for there to be a pregnancy after a one time encounter.

As far as a pregnancy occurring, direct vulval or vaginal contact with freshly ejaculated semen is whats needed. If the people involved can make this happen then pregnancy is possible.

[Heather]

Some people (not just men, people of all genders) don't know how pregnancy happens and that direct genital-to-genital contact and direct contact with semen is required, for sure. This isn't very common, but the times I have heard about this occurring, most often from colleagues of mine working in general or reproductive healthcare, it's occurred within very politically or religiously conservative populations where sex education hasn't been given or has been denied to people in those groups, either formally, or per talks within families.

For instance, I had a friend working in a clinic in an area with a large Frum community who did experience couples coming in now and then who thought they were infertile, but it turns out just didn't know they needed to have intercourse to conceive.

The reason frequency matters is that most people aren't charting fertility daily and don't have the education to know how to accurately predict fertility. For those who do, frequency matters less, because they can know pretty well when they are most likely to be fertile, and plan intercourse for those times. But too, some people just don't have fertility/menstrual cycles that are regular enough to do that in the first place.

[Mellonhead]

Some people (not just men, people of all genders) don't know how pregnancy happens and that direct genital-to-genital contact and direct contact with semen is required, for sure. This isn't very common, but the times I have heard about this occurring, most often from colleagues of mine working in general or reproductive healthcare, it's occurred within very politically or religiously conservative populations where sex education hasn't been given or has been denied to people in those groups, either formally, or per talks within families.

For instance, I had a friend working in a clinic in an area with a large Frum community who did experience couples coming in now and then who thought they were infertile, but it turns out just didn't know they needed to have intercourse to conceive.

The reason frequency matters is that most people aren't charting fertility daily and don't have the education to know how to accurately predict fertility. For those who do, frequency matters less, because they can know pretty well when they are most likely to be fertile, and plan intercourse for those times. But too, some people just don't have fertility/menstrual cycles that are regular enough to do that in the first place.

Thank you for your response.

I think your first paragraph highlights the importance of sex education. Without it, more people may wind up either lacking the knowledge to copulate or failing to link the act of copulation with pregnancy and childbirth.

Assuming the right sex position (the kind that allows the highest chance of fertility) and knowing the thrusting behavior may be useful too. There may be a reason why the missionary sex position is so widespread! In contrast, the doggy-style position seems to require some level of skill and stamina, along with some level of confidence that the penis does not accidentally go into the wrong target (anus) instead of the vagina. Also, knowledge that you have expose your genitals (not just lying on top of a person) may be useful, practical knowledge. In the English language, "sleeping with someone" means to have sex with someone. This does not mean that literally sleeping next to someone of the opposite sex will cause a pregnancy. Rather, the phrase is actually alluding to the fact that sleeping with someone of the opposite sex will lead to sexual foreplay, which will lead to sexual intercourse and then pregnancy. Understanding the allusion is critical.

If frequency matters, then that may provide a plausible explanation why sex is or has to be pleasurable. Otherwise, there needs to be some incentive for people to continue doing it without making it feel more like a chore than a passion.

[Heather]

That sexual positions make a real difference is actually a bit of a myth. There isn't any scientific data to back that idea up.

By all means, positions where gravity isn't working with ejaculation moving towards the cervix can be an issue, but only if people stay in them *after* ejaculation. What most fertility experts say is that if the person with the uterus just lies down right after ejaculation (or, if they like and it feels better, lies down with their hips or legs a little elevated), it's all good. It most likely makes no difference at all (and when you think about it, you can probably see how that's a bit obvious ) what positions people were in before ejaculation occurs.

[Mellonhead]

That sexual positions make a real difference is actually a bit of a myth. There isn't any scientific data to back that idea up.

I am happy to hear that. I think I am going to read more about this in the literature. This sounds interesting.

This may give some hope to individuals who may not be instructed on the exact sex position. It'd be really nice, if schools actually teach sex positions. But since they don't, there is always visual pornography, but that is so diverse that it may be impossible to pick out an easy way. Knowing that any type of sex position works to achieve conception sounds like a good thing.

[Snorkmaiden]

It might be interesting or good to know that it's not true that one specific partner has to do the thrusting. Either, or both, partners can make lower body movements during intercourse. It's perfectly possible for the person with the penis to stay completely still and not thrust at all, and still ejaculate.
Also, it doesn't have to be an in-and-out movement (which is what most people mean when they talk about thrusting); pretty much any movement that causes friction between the genitals may be pleasurable.

Sexuality really is very diverse, even if we just look at penis-in-vagina intercourse!

[Heather]

Great adds! By all means, the idea that with penis-in-vagina intercourse, the vagina is passive while the penis is active (and the accompanying idea that the person with the vagina is passive, the person with the penis active), is a false one, unless people choose to go about it that way.

Mind, even if someone with a vagina chose to be as passive as they could be during intercourse, the muscles of and around the vagina would still be engaged, doing what they actively do involuntarily.

These kinds of ideas also often play a part in people misunderstanding conception, thinking the sperm cells are the only moving parts, rather than knowing that parts like the ovum and cervix also must be active for conception to occur.

[Snorkmaiden]

Oh yes, that is a pet peeve of mine for sure! We're so often talking about the penis doing things (such as entering, penetrating) and hardly ever about the vagina doing things (such as engulfing, enveloping, or even kneading, gripping or massaging the object inside). And yes, we tend to see the people involved as active (if they have a penis) or passive (if they have a vagina) as if it's a law of nature. Such a rigid, limiting way to view sexuality and gender!

[Heather]

Agreed!

[Mellonhead]

If you observe the mating process of other animal species, then you would notice that some animal species (not all!) have an incredibly rigid way of copulation, and failure to copulate in a particular way (i.e. genital misalignment) may result in mechanical isolation. Speciation occurs at the population level, not the species level, so two individuals that fail to procreate will probably not make much difference. Bonobo monkeys are known for their diverse ways to have sex.

As this thread shows, humans procreate differently, and the manner by which humans use to procreate the species may not be easily observed by a third party because of privacy. However, with the advent of free Internet pornography, this private behavior has gone public. Some people say (forgive me for using this weasel word) that pornography exaggerates real sex for the sake of the camera. So, take a random pornographic video, and minimize its intensity - and then you have real sex. I've read a study on pregnant Brazilian women and how they manage to initiate intercourse during their pregnancy. The study interestingly adds a wide range of illustrated sex positions that simulate real sex. Throw in some very small movements here and there, and add in some mild thrusting movements here and there - and I believe you can visualize real sex.

[Heather]

I'm not sure what "visualizing sex" has to do with questions of conception and fertility, but.

I have to greatly disagree that pornography depicts sex in realistic ways: sometimes it does, in some ways, but more times than not, it really doesn't. For the most part, porn gives pretty lousy sex education. That's likely hard to know without any of one's own real life sexual experiences, but those with it (including -- and often especially -- those who also work in pornography!) can usually attest to that, even with a minimum of personal sexual experience.

And intensity varies both in sex in real life and porn, so the idea porn has X level of intensity while IRL sex has a different, lower level, just isn't sound. How intense sex between people feels or appears, on or off-camera, is diverse.

What you see in pornography is sex as performed intentionally for an audience and what that audience most often will pay for, on film or video -- and all that involves, like very intentional for-the-audience posing, framing, lighting, editing, etc. It leaves out how things feel, and things people experience with senses besides their eyes and ears during sex, like tastes and smells. And of course, when we're talking about things like what happens with internal organs, that's not something that can be seen in pornography, while it is something that can be felt by people engaging in sex together.

Saying sex in porn is very akin to sex in real life is like saying romantic comedies give us a very good idea of what romantic relationships are like in real life, or like saying that seeing how it is to be in space in a movie can give someone a good idea about what it's actually like to be in space.

"Real" sex also is about a whole lot more than mere mechanics or what can only be seen and heard!

[Mellonhead]

The aforementioned study is a real study. Here it is in APA citation format.

Sacomori, C., & Cardoso, F. L. (2010). Sexual initiative and intercourse behavior during pregnancy among brazilian women: a retrospective study. Journal Of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36(2), 124-136. doi:10.1080/00926230903554503

Like many peer-reviewed journals, it may require subscription. Many people just access academic papers by purchasing them directly, requesting them through their libraries and universities, or searching through their institution's databases.

I'm not sure what "visualizing sex" has to do with questions of conception and fertility, but.

I have to greatly disagree that pornography depicts sex in realistic ways: sometimes it does, in some ways, but more times than not, it really doesn't. For the most part, porn gives pretty lousy sex education. That's likely hard to know without any of one's own real life sexual experiences, but those with it (including -- and often especially -- those who also work in pornography!) can usually attest to that, even with a minimum of personal sexual experience.

And intensity varies both in sex in real life and porn, so the idea porn has X level of intensity while IRL sex has a different, lower level, just isn't sound. How intense sex between people feels or appears, on or off-camera, is diverse.

What you see in pornography is sex as performed intentionally for an audience and what that audience most often will pay for, on film or video -- and all that involves, like very intentional for-the-audience posing, framing, lighting, editing, etc. It leaves out how things feel, and things people experience with senses besides their eyes and ears during sex, like tastes and smells. And of course, when we're talking about things like what happens with internal organs, that's not something that can be seen in pornography, while it is something that can be felt by people engaging in sex together.

Saying sex in porn is very akin to sex in real life is like saying romantic comedies give us a very good idea of what romantic relationships are like in real life, or like saying that seeing how it is to be in space in a movie can give someone a good idea about what it's actually like to be in space.

"Real" sex also is about a whole lot more than mere mechanics or what can only be seen and heard!

On first impression, I am not entirely sure how my comment to the previous posts has led to this.

On a closer examination, I think my thread about fertility led me to comment on the reproduction in several animal species, which led me to extrapolate to humans in the hopes of finding a more "natural" (I hate that word; so vague!) way to reproduce that would come intuitively. Then, I realize that, if bonobo monkeys can have a variety of sex positions, recreational sex, and pair-bonding, then it is not so far-fetched that humans - who are primates, by the way - would instinctively do the same thing and much more! Someone (not I) once asked a question on the Skeptics Stack Exchange about whether oral sex and anal sex were instinctive, and there seems to be enough evidence to support that it is instinctive.

Here it is: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest ... behaviour/

Maybe I am irrational for initially assuming that the sex acts (whatever it is) are unnatural, but as a human being, I am aware that I do not behave like a male giraffe and would court a female giraffe at every opportunity and compete against other male giraffes for a mate. Instead, I would expect that the couple would remain faithful to each other, and if I happen to find one partner in the couple very attractive, I should not intervene, break up the relationship, or enter a horribly dramatic love triangle, unless the couple becomes a polyamorous relationship involving three individuals. In the United States, most marriages and courtships that I am aware of involve two persons, not three or four or five. I've heard creepy stories about jealousy in relationships and how they can turn awfully bloody. For my own personal safety, I think it's best to assume that if a person is in a relationship, then do not intervene. Any feeling of sexual attraction to an already committed partner must be suppressed, because not doing so may lead to trouble. The narrative of unrequited love has been repeated many times in literature, which deals with the human condition. If unrequited love and the ability to suppress feelings of love are explored as part of the human condition, then aren't they be perfectly natural human behaviors too?

This discussion has become overly complicated, and I am not sure what I am talking about now or whether it is on-topic on this thread.

[Heather]

You started this thread yourself, so what it is and becomes is up to you.