Question

easjer05

This is just something I am curious about, wondering how others facing IF might feel about this.

You know the statement that you are ttc if you are not actively using birth control?

Let's say someone is actively ttc for awhile, and having irregularities which lead them to their OB, who does some initial testing and eventually refers them to an RE.  While waiting on that, the person changes their story some.  Instead of saying they've been ttc for 10 months, they are suddenly ttc for over 2 years.

Their reasoning is that they weren't using birth control and were therefore ttc during that time, and it's important because it clearly indicates a problem. 

Would that offend you, or would you agree with that assesment?

ebat

Who are they telling?  general people,  slightly annoying, but really no big deal.  It's sometimes easier to not get into details.  With their doctor,  they should break it down and say 14 months of no prevention and 10 months of actively trying.

MrsO1111

when you say weren't using birth control, you mean they had an IUD, right? 

staycee

ebat:

  With their doctor,  they should break it down and say 14 months of no prevention and 10 months of actively trying.

I agree with specifically breaking it down into accurate assessments of how the timeline went down.

easjer05

MrsO1111:

when you say weren't using birth control, you mean they had an IUD, right? 

Bwaaaahhhhh haaaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaaaa.

 

Serendipitie

I think I would be bothered by that. My reasoning is that until you actually know when you ovulate and at least try to time sex, you aren't TTC, you know? I'm not saying that everyone needs to chart, time sex and all that crap to TTC, but if they just aren't avoiding, and then adjust their story to get medical help, that seems a bit douchey to me.

In fact, I waited until I had at least 6 cycles with a confirmed O in my chart and good timing before I went to the doc (I'm AMA). If I was not AMA I would have waited for 12.

On the flip side, not getting KU after 2 years with no protection would indicate something to me. But lying about it or changing your story to get into an RE sooner = wrong IMO

heather_09_15_07

I don't know. I have a friend who tried for years (7 or so). I kind of doubt they had timed intercourse every single month, you know? But they were trying.

KLRoy

I've been flamed on other boards for trying to make a distinction between "just letting nature take its course" and "TTC" even though I still go back and forth about whether that distinction truly exists.   

 

I think it's all in a person's mindset personally... no mater what the verbiage used is. 

 

easjer05

ebat:

Who are they telling?  general people,  slightly annoying, but really no big deal.  It's sometimes easier to not get into details.  With their doctor,  they should break it down and say 14 months of no prevention and 10 months of actively trying.

I don't know, it's just a scenario.  

But for these purposes, they are talking to their friends (who know they weren't ttc 2 years ago) or putting in their blog or something visible - not medical personnel.

I don't necessarily see it as a problem or harmful or anything, but I would sort of think they were doing it for extra sympathy. 

Chrysallys

That means, in theory, that it took me 14 years to get pregnant since I got off BC and was using no real means of BC other than pulling out since 1994. Yeah, I wouldn't count that.

However, that said, my RE was very interested in that information.

QCinOct

I think that would annoy me. Either you're trying or you're not. I went off bcp a year before we started trying but I charted (to avoid) so even though we weren't 'using' birth control, we certainly weren't TTC that year.

Serendipitie

They should at least be honest about what they were doing

Serendipitie

Okay, if this is just random and to friends and such, then not so douchey, but still dishonest.

easjer05

Well, I think there is a difference between actively trying and not preventing.

I would think for medical purposes that there isn't a huge difference, though well-timed/frequent sex and no pregnancy would be a red flag for most people.

But let's say you know they weren't trying or timing or even aware of ovulation/not ovulation - basically, they would have sex whenever and not use condoms and were not on birth control.

Is that really trying to conceive?  I don't think so, but maybe I'm splitting hairs and it's no big deal.  A post about not tta = ttc made me think of this.

yogisunam

Depends entirely of the situation.

I personally only count when I actively started timing sex to ovulation. I have always been aware of ovulation, though not to the degree I am now, so in the 6 months between removing the IUD and timing intercourse we were able to avoid.

If someone is off the pill, having regular, haphazard sex for a period before deciding they really want a baby and start timing to ovulation, I'd count the total numbers after birth control used. But would still advise they wait at least 6-8 months of perfectly timed sex before seeing an RE.

Nikki1007

I don't know how I feel about this. Not using protection and having sex frequently *should* get you KU, you know?  So if it has been over a year of that, then there is reason to believe there is a problem. MY RE said this before looking at my charts and seeing our 12 cycles of perfect timing.  Now changing  your story mid-way through, is douchy. See: Ashley.

Mainer-in-Texas

As far as talking to the doctor goes, I think just telling the truth is the best way. As far as talking to people, I consider regular sex w/o birth control & not TTA = TTC. Most people I know got PG without charting, and my OB said I was way ahead of most people by charting from the start.

totalpanic

Nikki1007:

changing  your story mid-way through, is douchy. See: Ashley.

^that

smilelari

I think that whatever the truth is is what they should go with.  When talking to the doctor, the answer is, I haven't been on BCP for 2 years, but we've really only been trying for 10 months.