Why isn't there a reusable Instead?
Nov. 16th, 2003 05:06 pmThere *have* to be more women like me who have fallen in love with the Instead cups. They're not that expensive, if you order them off the softcup.com website, but I hate that they're disposable.
And I don't want a Keeper/Divacup because I don't like it riding low in my vagina- I like the place the Instead cups sit.
So WHY can't someone make a reusable Instead? Or something similar to it. Is there any reason it wouldn't be possible to make a reusable cup that sits where the Insteads do? I sure can't think of one. Who can I email and beg to make one?
Cross-posted to
vaginapagina
And I don't want a Keeper/Divacup because I don't like it riding low in my vagina- I like the place the Instead cups sit.
So WHY can't someone make a reusable Instead? Or something similar to it. Is there any reason it wouldn't be possible to make a reusable cup that sits where the Insteads do? I sure can't think of one. Who can I email and beg to make one?
Cross-posted to
no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 04:22 pm (UTC)1) because it sits closer to the cervix, there's more potential for (dangerous) infection or irritation or microbial growth than with the keeper. (somewhere on the mum.org website they quote dr. phillip tierno saying something about being totally in favor of instead for the same reason).
2) there's a chance (and, i *think*, documented occurences) of TSS in diaphragm users - although there's also a chance with instead or the keeper - it's possible that the TSS in diaphragm users is only because there's a larger number of women using them than keepers and instead.
BUT - maybe those things could be overcome, especially if silicon diaphragms (which could presumably be sterilized with alcohol or by boiling) exist. i guess in some ways, if the diaphragm can be sterilized, it wouldn't really be a greater risk than using instead plus using diaphragms for contraceptive purposes.
anyhow, that's just my $0.02 .
no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 04:32 pm (UTC)that should have read:
somewhere on the mum.org website they quote dr. phillip tierno saying something about NOT being totally in favor of instead...
also, they do make silicone diaphragms:
http://www.milexproducts.com/products/other/diaphrams.asp
no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 04:49 pm (UTC)i think there's movement to create new one-size-fits-all diaphragms, but most of them wouldnt' make sense for this use (e.g. the lea's sheild, which is specifically made with a one-way valve to keep allow vaginal secretions through but block semen from entering)
(for some reason i'm really fascinated by all this stuff...not sure why. i don't think i could ever trust a diaphragm for contraceptive purposes, personally, since my aunt is a self-confessed "diaphragm accident.")
no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 09:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 09:46 pm (UTC)Also, I've decided that the word diaphragm is EVIL, and should be changed to something that is easier to spell.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-16 07:36 pm (UTC)ionno about nondisposables. i can see why you'd want them, but they wouldn't be practical for me- i end up leaving my house at 7am and spending the day at school until nighttime (i work in the drama dept) so i really don't have a good place to wash them, and so on. anyways... the instead website has an email addy.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 12:42 am (UTC)*shrug* Might be an option for you...
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 07:39 am (UTC)