IUDs are generally recommended for women who've had children, because a) placement is easier when the cervix has already been pre-expanded once, and b) women with children are statistically less likely to be sexually promiscuous (IUDs are not recommended for anyone in a higher STD risk bracket, since people tend to eschew other forms of contraception--like condoms--when using one). In the case of Mirena, it's mostly an ad campaign tarketing a particular market; of all the IUDs and IUSs out there, it's the one best suited for women who have not had children.
So aside from the placement discomfort, it is basically "we suggest". I didn't know if maybe there were some small associated risk of, say, never being able to have kids afterward (which wouldn't jibe at all with the description of the product) or some other kind of Doom.
I have several non-parent friends who are very happy with their IUDs, but while some of them are poly I wouldn't call any promiscuous. I do recall none of them were particularly happy with the insertion, but that's to be expected.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2004-01-29 08:24 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-01-29 09:28 pm (UTC)I have several non-parent friends who are very happy with their IUDs, but while some of them are poly I wouldn't call any promiscuous. I do recall none of them were particularly happy with the insertion, but that's to be expected.