Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Tools

  • Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
  • Family Planning Investment Impact Calculator
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study Dashboard
  • State legislation tracker
  • Public-use data sets

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Impact Report 2025

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Tools

  • Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
  • Family Planning Investment Impact Calculator
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study Dashboard
  • State legislation tracker
  • Public-use data sets

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Impact Report 2025

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
News Release
September 8, 2008

Ambivalence Toward Pregnancy Undermines Couples' Consistent Use of Contraceptives

For some individuals, the perceived emotional and sexual benefits of becoming pregnant may outweigh their goal of preventing a pregnancy through contraceptive use, even when the pregnancy is not wholly intended, according to "Pleasure, Prophylaxis and Procreation: A Qualitative Analysis of Intermittent Contraceptive Use and Unintended Pregnancy," by Jenny A. Higgins et al., published in the September 2008 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

Recent studies have found that women’s ambivalence toward pregnancy can result in inconsistent or nonuse of contraceptives. In a new analysis of qualitative interviews with 36 men and women, half of whom had experienced at least one unintended pregnancy, the study authors explore the relationships between pleasure, pregnancy ambivalence and contraceptive use, and identify three categories of pleasure related to ambivalence that are associated with the misuse or nonuse of contraceptive methods.

The first category is defined as active eroticization of pregnancy risk, in which participants described increased sexual arousal at the prospect of a pregnancy, even when they did not actually desire a child or the responsibilities of parenthood. In the second, defined as passive romanticization of procreation, respondents, usually in the context of a long-term relationship, flirted with the romantic fantasy of pregnancy with a particular partner. The third category, escapist pleasures, was most common among socially disadvantaged women. For these women, even when they were not planning or hoping for a baby, respondents embraced unintended pregnancy as a way to foster a relationship, cultivate a new family and potentially escape the hardships of their lives. All of these scenarios resulted in decreased contraceptive use.

Because ambivalence about pregnancy seems to play such a prominent role in women’s consistent use of contraceptives and their ability to prevent unintended pregnancies, the authors suggest that future behavioral studies consider how flirting with the idea of procreation may decrease the motivation to use contraceptives, and that more research be done around developing reasonable programmatic and clinical guidelines that address this ambivalence directly.

Also in this issue:

Prior Pill Experiences and Current Continuation Among Pill Restarters, by Debra Kalmuss et al.;

Recent Evaluations of the Peer-Led Approach in Adolescent Sexual Health Education: A Systematic Review, by Caron R. Kim and Caroline Free;

Timing of Sexual Debut and Initiation of Postsecondary Education by Early Adulthood, by Aubrey L. Spriggs and Carolyn Tucker Halpern;

Implementing an Advance Emergency Contraception Policy: What Happens in the Real World? by Paul G. Whittaker et al.; and

Associations Between Low-Income Women’s Relationship Characteristics and Their Contraceptive Use, by Ellen K. Wilson and Helen P. Koo.

Printer-friendly version

Share

Media Contact

  • Rebecca Wind

    Guttmacher Institute
    212 248 1953
    [email protected]
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.®

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.