We Got Our BFP: Everything We Did Differently on the Cycle That Worked

The test was on the bathroom counter. Danielle had set a timer for three minutes and walked into the kitchen to wait. We had done this six times. We knew what the three-minute wait felt like. We had both, in our separate ways, developed a kind of performance of casualness we put on during those minutes — something that looked like not caring very much, because it turned out caring too much made the negative results harder to survive.

Rafael was making coffee. Danielle was standing at the kitchen window. The timer went off.

She walked in first. She looked at the test. She picked it up. She said — and we will remember exactly how she said it for the rest of our lives — “Raf, there are two lines.”

We want to be careful about how we tell this story because we know what it is like to read a success post during a cycle that didn’t work. We have read dozens of them. Some of them made us feel hopeful. Some of them made us feel the particular loneliness of wanting something badly that other people are getting. We want this post to be useful regardless of where you are right now.

This is the honest account of what was different on the cycle that worked. Not what we think was different, not what we want to believe was responsible — what we can actually identify as having changed compared to previous attempts.

Background: The Five Cycles Before

We have written about our ICI journey in other posts, but here is the condensed version for context.

We came to at-home ICI after two years of trying naturally and three clinical IUI cycles that did not result in pregnancy. We shifted to home ICI partly for emotional reasons (we needed the process to feel like ours again) and partly because we had come to believe, after our own research and a conversation with our RE, that our fertility picture — mild male factor, no female anatomical issues, regular ovulation — was not incompatible with success at home if we got our protocol right.

Cycles one and two: timing errors. We were using a cycle app and once-daily OPK tests. We were inseminating on what we thought was the surge but was probably the day before or the day after.

Cycles three and four: improved timing (twice-daily digital OPK), but suboptimal sperm quality on cycle three (borderline post-thaw motility from a donor vial). Cycle four had better sperm quality and better timing but still no pregnancy.

Cycle five: we added the second insemination (12 hours after the first) and changed our post-insemination positioning. No pregnancy. But we felt closer to having everything right.

Cycle six: the one that worked.

What We Did on Cycle Six

We want to be transparent that isolating causation from a single success cycle is genuinely difficult. We cannot know with certainty which of the changes we made contributed, which were irrelevant, and whether this cycle simply represented the statistical probability finally working in our favor. ICI per-cycle success rates are real, which means some cycles fail despite everything being right — and some succeed.

What follows is the honest inventory of what was different.

1. We Switched Sperm Banks

We had been using a bank that we had initially chosen for its large donor catalog and open-identity options. After our experience with the borderline post-thaw motility vial on cycle three (which we’ve written about in our sperm quality post), we had continued with that bank but asked more careful questions.

On cycle six, we switched to a different bank that provides individual batch post-thaw motility data before shipping. We selected a batch with documented post-thaw progressive motility above 40%. The TMSC for the vials we received was above 12 million — well above the 5 million minimum we’d learned was needed for effective ICI.

We can’t say this was the decisive factor. But it was the most significant protocol change we made.

2. We Used the Full Double Insemination Protocol

In previous cycles, we had done one insemination per cycle, then in cycle five we added a second. In cycle six, we used the double protocol with more precise spacing.

Our digital LH monitor showed surge onset on Saturday evening. We inseminated at 9pm that evening (surge onset). We inseminated again Sunday morning at 8am (approximately 11 hours later, at or near peak surge). Based on everything we had read — including the timing protocols on intracervicalinsemination.org — ovulation most likely occurred sometime Sunday afternoon, which meant we had sperm present both before and at the time of ovulation.

3. We Used a Different Kit

This felt like a smaller change at the time, but it may have mattered. We switched from the kit we had been using — which had a slightly stiffer catheter — to the kit from makeamom.com, which had a softer, more flexible catheter and a syringe design that allowed for slower, more controlled delivery.

The practical difference: with the softer catheter, Danielle was able to place the tip more comfortably and hold position without discomfort during the slow delivery of the sample. In previous cycles, there had been a slight urgency to the process that we now think may have contributed to less optimal placement. The new kit allowed for a calmer, more deliberate procedure.

The reviews we had read at intracervicalinsemination.com had noted the catheter flexibility as a differentiator in the makeamom kit, and we had been meaning to switch for a couple of cycles. We finally made the change and it noticeably improved the procedural experience.

4. Post-Insemination Protocol: What We Changed

In prior cycles, Danielle had rested for 15–20 minutes after insemination — lying flat. In cycle six, we extended to 30 minutes and added a tilted position (pillow under the hips, elevating the pelvis by about 20–30 degrees) for the first 15 minutes before returning to flat.

The evidence on post-insemination positioning is limited and somewhat conflicting. We made this change not because we were convinced it would be decisive but because it cost nothing and felt like eliminating a potential variable.

5. The Week Before: Lifestyle Factors

We were more deliberate in the week before insemination than in previous cycles. Rafael had been maintaining the supplement regimen (CoQ10, zinc, Vitamin C, folate) for approximately 90 days by this point — the full spermatogenesis cycle. Danielle had been taking a prenatal vitamin with methylfolate for several months.

In the specific week before cycle six, Rafael had appropriate ejaculatory timing (48 hours before the insemination). Danielle had been avoiding alcohol for the cycle entirely (she had been having the occasional glass of wine during earlier cycles — not heavy drinking, just the casual occasional glass, which she had read was probably fine but had decided to eliminate as a variable).

We also both slept better that week than in any previous cycle. This sounds like wishful narrative construction, and maybe it is. But the prior cycle’s two-week wait had been particularly hard and we had both been running on poor sleep for weeks. Cycle six happened during a calmer stretch. We do not think this was responsible for the result, but we mention it because the mind-body connection in fertility is real and probably underweighted in protocol-focused discussions.

6. Our Mindset — And How It Was Different

This is the part that is hardest to write honestly, because “we were calmer and it worked” is the kind of thing that sounds like a platitude directed at people who are struggling. We hated reading that when we were struggling. We do not believe stress causes infertility (the evidence does not support that), and we are not saying relaxing is what did it.

What we are saying is that by cycle six, we had — genuinely, not performatively — reached a kind of peace with the process that we hadn’t had before. We had worked through a lot in therapy and between ourselves about what failure would mean, about the other paths available to us, about who we were as a couple separate from the outcome of this particular journey. We had made real decisions, not just deferred ones, about our limits and our options.

The cycle six insemination was quiet and loving and unhurried. That was different from the earlier cycles, which had carried a faint edge of desperation even when we tried to hide it from each other.

We do not think this caused the positive result. We think it was the product of having processed a lot — and that processing was worth doing regardless of outcome.

The Test

We tested on a Sunday morning, fourteen days after our first insemination, one day past when Danielle’s period would have been expected. We had agreed on this date at the start of the cycle and held to it.

Danielle used an early response pregnancy test with the first morning urine sample. She set the timer. She walked into the kitchen.

The two lines were both clear. Not the faint, is-that-a-line, hold-it-up-to-the-window situation we had read about extensively. Both lines were clearly pink. No ambiguity.

We stood in the bathroom together for a while. We were not the couple who screams and cries in the bathroom — we are both quieter than that. Rafael put his forehead against Danielle’s forehead. Neither of us said anything for probably a full minute.

Then Danielle said, “I think we’re going to need to call some people.”

What We Want You to Know

If you are reading this from inside a cycle that hasn’t worked yet, we want to say: we know what it cost to read success stories during our negative cycles. We hope this post is one of the useful ones rather than one of the ones that made it harder.

We also want to say that the things that changed for us — the kit, the timing protocol, the sperm quality data, the post-insemination positioning — are all replicable. They are not magic. They are iterations.

The at-home ICI resources that helped us most throughout this journey:

Clinical protocol and evidence: intracervicalinsemination.org
Kit reviews and comparisons: intracervicalinsemination.com
Procedural guides for at-home use: intracervicalinseminationsyringe.info
Kit selection and cost comparison: intracervicalinseminationkit.org and intracervicalinseminationkit.info
Community across different family types: homeinsemination.gay
The kit we used on the cycle that worked: makeamom.com

None of these were the reason it worked. All of them contributed to us having a protocol that gave the biology a real chance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What would you tell someone starting their first ICI cycle?

Get your timing right before everything else. Then get your sperm quality data. Then use a kit with a soft, flexible catheter. In that order. Everything else is secondary.

Did you do anything special after the positive test?

We confirmed with a blood test (serum hCG) through Danielle’s OB-GYN three days later. We did not change anything we were doing. We waited for the 6-week ultrasound before telling family.

How do you know the ICI is what caused the pregnancy versus it just happening naturally?

For our specific situation, we were using donor sperm on cycle six, so “naturally” was not an available option. For couples using partner sperm with ICI, the question is fair — and the honest answer is that you often can’t know. What you can know is that you gave the sperm the best possible placement and timing, and that the pregnancy followed.

Was the therapy you mentioned during the journey ICI-specific?

No — we were seeing a general therapist who had some experience with fertility-related grief. We would recommend any therapist with experience in reproductive or health-related anxiety and loss, even if they don’t specialize in ICI specifically.

What comes next?

We are currently expecting. We are not ready to share the due date or many details publicly — this blog has always been our way of processing in real time, and we want to protect some of the next chapter while it’s still fragile and new.

What we will say: we plan to keep writing. Not just success posts — the full story of what it has been like to be pregnant after fertility struggle. Because that has its own texture and difficulty that nobody told us about either.

Two lines. We are going to be parents.

The road was longer than we expected and cost us more than the financial tally. But it also gave us things we wouldn’t trade: a depth of communication in our relationship we hadn’t had before, a community we hadn’t known existed, and a clarity about what matters that only arrives through sustained difficulty.

We are grateful. And we are still here, writing, for everyone still in the waiting.