No coital sex before marriage/engagement - male perspective

[Blut Aus Nord]

Is this such a bizarre concept? From a male perspective, without having made a lifelong commitment to a person, doesn't overlooking the possibility of impregnation that comes with coital sex seem more than a little risky, even irresponsible? If the relationship ends but the woman is impregnated and chooses to carry it to term, the man is automatically stuck with 18 years of child support, and the child is stuck with a broken family that may not be financially prepared to raise it.

Is my thinking warped? I just think if a man is not prepared to be a father, financially or otherwise, coital sex should be out of the question.

I realize I may be indirectly calling many here irresponsible, but please come set me straight if you disagree.

[DiosaBellissima]

Originally Posted by Blut Aus Nord

doesn't overlooking the possibility of impregnation that comes with coital sex seem more than a little risky, even irresponsible?

If she's on the pill and he wraps it up, the odds of impregnation are really pretty low. With my 10 years of sexual activity on and off the pill and even questionable condom use in my youth, I've never gotten knocked up. A few tiny steps can make the whole act perfectly safe on all fronts.

[appleciders]

Not at all. A man might easily make the judgment that the benefits of sex outweigh the serious but unlikely consequences. It's a numbers game.

[Shagnasty]

I am not a prude by any measure but I agree with to a large extent. The main problem is that a strict abstinence until marriage stance doesn't work for many people. However, it does seem like it swings to far in the opposite direction sometimes. When I got to college, sex suddenly switched from something only questionable young people did to a pure recreational sport according to comedic classroom demonstrations of condom usage and it is often portrayed that way in the general media as well.

I think males do get shortchanged on the long-term implications and consequences if things go wrong. Programs that focus on that type of thing are almost all female centered partly because males don't have any legal options at all when a condom fails or she lies and stops taking her birth control pills. Any male with half a brain should be able to see that they are playing with fire in an oil refinery but you could assume the same thing about females and they do have lots of support in that area. If you are male, it just becomes, you fucked up, suck it up, and now pay up and many people can't understand the long-term implications of that.

I think that fathers are supposed to be the ones to pass on the horror stories to their sons but not everyone has a good one or any male role models at all. It helps to get little tips like it is more cost effective to drop $100 at a strip club for a guaranteed good time with a good looking girl even if you have to take matters into your own hands rather than get desparate and hook up with the last girl left standing at the end of a long party. There is no shame in that and the numbers work out greatly in your favor.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by DiosaBellissima

If she's on the pill and he wraps it up, the odds of impregnation are really pretty low. With my 10 years of sexual activity on and off the pill and even questionable condom use in my youth, I've never gotten knocked up. A few tiny steps can make the whole act perfectly safe on all fronts.

Not perfectly safe. You can only say that because you are female but females lie sometimes. Men don't usually like condoms and they are often willing to trust their girlfriends that they are taking their birth control pills. Just ask my 37 (almost 38!) year old best friend who is a new grandfather. Some lessons don't get passed from father to son.

[DiosaBellissima]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

Not perfectly safe. You can only say that because you are female but females lie sometimes. Men don't usually like condoms and they are often willing to trust their girlfriends when that is misplaced with trust that they are taking their birth control pills. Just ask my 37 (almost 38!) year old best friend who is a new grandfather. Some lessons don't get passed from father to son.

Please reread my first sentence. I'm not advocating for the man who whines he can't cum with a condom on or the woman who is a space cadet and takes 1 pill every three days-- those people are idiots.

I suppose if you want to be pedantic, the OP is right that the only thing that is "perfectly safe" is abstinence, but the reality is that with proper (and frankly minor) precautions, the chances of impregnation are incredibly low.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It is always an assumed risk, but the risk can be reduced to near zero. Not quite zero, but close.

Look at it this way - every time you drive a car, you have statistically non-zero risk of being killed by a drunk driver, but the risk is low enough that most of us assume it every day.

I do think it would be stupid to take a woman's word about the pill if you don't know her very well, bu I also think the number of women looking to trick men into knocking them up is exaggerated around here. If you play for the NBA, or you're a rock star, that's a risk. For most guys, it isn't.

[TheWhoToTheWhatNow]

Originally Posted by Blut Aus Nord

Is this such a bizarre concept?

You want me to spend 3 month's of paycheques on a ring and legally bind myself into risking half my money/assets, custody of my future children, etc. and blow a ton of money on a wedding/honeymoon, and legally cut myself off from sex with any other woman in the world...

...WITHOUT knowing if she's a starfish during sex? Or if she doesn't like the same positions I do? Or if she won't take it in the pooper? Or if she doesn't have the same sex drive as me and I'll end up forced into a miserable sex life for the next 30 years until I finally escape through the sweet release of death?

That gamble seems a LOT riskier than a pill/condom combo! I'mma pass.

- TWTTWN

[Blut Aus Nord]

No coital sex != no sex. We're not discussing absolute abstinence.

How low exactly is the statistical risk of a pill/condom combo? I really have no idea. Is it really as a low as drunk driving accidents?

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by TheWhoToTheWhatNow

You want me to spend 3 month's of paycheques on a ring and legally bind myself into risking half my money/assets, custody of my future children, etc.

You're British? I had absolutely no idea.

[TheWhoToTheWhatNow]

Originally Posted by Blut Aus Nord

No coital sex != no sex. We're not discussing absolute abstinence.

Ya but going down on eachother isn't the same as having actual sex. I mean, it's fun, but some people's junk doesn't fit inside other people's junk well depending on the size/shape/tightness/etc. Or maybe the couple don't have the same rhythm, one likes it fast/hard and the other likes it slow/gentle, etc. There's lots of little things that you can guess at but not really tell until you're going at it and discover "man, this just doesn't work with us".

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

You're British? I had absolutely no idea.

Nah, I'd get a pre-nup but a lot of guys don't.

- TWTTWN

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I also think the number of women looking to trick men into knocking them up is exaggerated around here. If you play for the NBA, or you're a rock star, that's a risk. For most guys, it isn't.

I disagree with that. If you're a guy with a decent job, especially if you're in the military in a poor part of the country, you're very much a mark.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by RandMcnally

I disagree with that. If you're a guy with a decent job, especially if you're in the military in a poor part of the country, you're very much a mark.

I don't know how frequent it really is because it often goes unreported but I grew up in a poor part of the country and it was about as rare as getting killed in a car wreck. We had a lot of guys who liked to get liquored up and then either race or screw so that isn't saying much.

[needscoffee]

Originally Posted by Blut Aus Nord

How low exactly is the statistical risk of a pill/condom combo? I really have no idea. Is it really as a low as drunk driving accidents?

Birth control pills = 92% effectiveness, per year. Condoms = 85%. Together they are extremely effective, but not 100%.

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

I don't know how frequent it really is because it often goes unreported but I grew up in a poor part of the country and it was about as rare as getting killed in a car wreck. We had a lot of guys who liked to get liquored up and then either race or screw so that isn't saying much.

It may very well be one of those urban legends, but when in the military I was told to be very wary of local girls, wherever you were, because they'd love to snag a guy to where they're stuck paying child support for the rest of their life.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by TheWhoToTheWhatNow

Nah, I'd get a pre-nup but a lot of guys don't.

- TWTTWN

I asked if you were British because you used the term "paycheques." (Do they also spell it like this in Canada?)

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by needscoffee

Birth control pills = 92% effectiveness, per year. Condoms = 85%. Together they are extremely effective, but not 100%.

pregnant once on the pill, pregnant once on the pill and a condom, pregnant once on a tubal ligation.

Granted over the course of 15 years ...
[and I am safe now, had a hysterectomy, it would take an act of god to knock me up now.]

[TheWhoToTheWhatNow]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

I asked if you were British because you used the term "paycheques." (Do they also spell it like this in Canada?)

oh haha I thought it was the "pre-nups aren't valid in the UK" thing. Ya, we throw a bunch of q's and u's in our stuff in Canada. Colour and all that jazz.

Originally Posted by needscoffee

Birth control pills = 92% effectiveness, per year. Condoms = 85%. Together they are extremely effective, but not 100%.

There was a thread on here where a guy's friend was re-using condoms to save money (I don't think they were off the floor and washed out or anything, just like if they didn't finish he'd pull out but leave the condom on and they'd fool around some more and he'd just stick it back in instead of throwing on a new condom).

I wonder if people like that, and situations where like, you pull out but don't hold onto the rim of the condom and it slips off, etc. factor into the 85%?

Either way if I'm not in a serious relationship, even with her (hopefully responsibly) taking the pill and me using a condom, I'll still pull out before finishing.

And if she seems crazy it's off to the sink to wash the condom out before tossing it because of that urban legend where the chick fishes the used condom out of the garbage after the guy leaves and uses it to get preggers haha

- TWTTWN

[Taomist]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

[and I am safe now, had a hysterectomy, it would take an act of god to knock me up now.]

Yeah, that's what my mom thought...


Teasing. 4 kids, 4 different types of birth control; after the 4th, they offered her a tubal, and she said "Only if you cut and cauterize, none of this 'tying up' shit".


What's funny is I wouldn't be surprised if she used those exact words. But yeah; nothing's 100%.

There is a side-effect of waiting until marriage that includes going way overboard in any relationship because the desire for the sex is so great that marriage seems like an awesome idea!! My second engagement was like that; I broke it off when it was apparant <to me, anyway> that the relationship itself was what he wanted, not me in particular. I believed then, and now, that if he hadn't been so eager to finally get laid, that it wouldn't have been more than a month-long fling.

Ok, maybe two or three. But NOT marriage material.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Blut Aus Nord

How low exactly is the statistical risk of a pill/condom combo? I really have no idea. Is it really as a low as drunk driving accidents?

Would you believe that I can't find a good answer for that? True. All these books and the whole wide internet, and all I can find is guesses. Seems no one's interested in resaarching combo failure rates in vivo. So I'll have to figure this out myself. Apologies if this is all wrong, but I'll explain my thought process so we can figure out precisely how I'm an idiot.

With typical use, the condom failure rate is 21% - if 100 women have sex for one year using condoms as their contraceptive method, 21 of them will get pregnant. (So it's not quite the same thing as saying that every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 21% chance of conceiving. Certainly most of the month, you have 0% chance of conceiving, since she's not fertile. So all the condoms that fail were used during a minority of a woman's cycle. I'm not sure how to work out the math there, but it makes it seem to me like the condom is a pretty crappy form of contraception, but it's good for STI prevention, so we should be using them anyhow, right? )

Anyhow, so if we take that 21% of women who had the potential to get pregnant from the condom's numbers, and now we point out that The Pill has a failure rate with typical use of 8%...oh dear, here's where the math comes in. Multiply, right? 8% of those 21% could still get pregnant? 0.08 * 0.21=0.0168, or 1.68% So, in one year of sex, 2 out of 100 women who use both the condom and Pill will get pregnant.

Are 2% of Americans killed by drunk drivers every year? 13,846 people were killed in 2010 in "alcohol-related fatalities." No good information as to what that means (does it include alcohol overdose? Falling off a ladder when you're drunk? Drunk drivers killing themselves, or drunk drivers killing other people?), so let's be generous and assume ALL of them were killed by drunk drivers. The 2010 Census found 308,745,538 people. So 0.0048% of Americans were killed in alcohol-related fatalities last year.

It's far more likely that you'll get pregnant or get someone pregnant, even if you use a condom and The Pill, than that you'll be killed by a drunk driver.

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

pregnant once on the pill, pregnant once on the pill and a condom, pregnant once on a tubal ligation.

Pregnant twice on the pill and once after a tubal ligation while still on the pill.*

Sex is never risk free. That said, I'm always amused by the idea that anyone would get pregnant to snag a man. Like I want to spend the next 20 years of my life parenting for the child support. There's easier ways to make money, thanks.

*antibiotics, who the hell knows, must have ovulated just before the ligation + who the hell knows

[statsman1982]

Or, the guy could just insist on doing it in the butt.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

(math)

It's far more likely that you'll get pregnant or get someone pregnant, even if you use a condom and The Pill, than that you'll be killed by a drunk driver.

With typical use, though, as you noted. So any given person can decrease the odds quite a bit by doing better than typical. Also, it looks like the figure you gave was for a female condom, whereas a male condom's typical use failure rate is only 15%.

So typical use of a male condom knocks off 6% of the risk vs. a female condom. Perfect use of a male condom knocks off an additional 13%, to get down to 2% yearly.

2% perfect use of a condom on a male X 8% for typical use of the pill gives us .16% per year. With perfect use of the condom and the pill, we get... what, .006%? But since this is from the male perspective, not from the perspective of a couple, I guess we can't do that.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Blut Aus Nord

Is my thinking warped? I just think if a man is not prepared to be a father, financially or otherwise, coital sex should be out of the question.

I think it should be in the question, but carefully considered. Women risk the physical repercussions of becoming pregnant plus the financial repercussions of either abortion or childbirth, plus the financial repercussions of parenthood. Men risk the financial repercussions of parenthood. (I don't recall seeing any court orders for men to pay any part of childbirth expenses. I could be wrong.)

If you use condoms correctly AND you only have sex with women you know and trust AND only have sex with that person once you have discussed what happens if she becomes pregnant AND only if her intentions match your desires, then it's not a hugely risky venture. If not, it is.

And this is ignoring the STD risks, which are there, though lessened significantly by condom use.

Use condoms. Discuss birth control and intentions if a pregnancy results. Don't get naked with anyone you can't talk to and don't trust.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Blut Aus Nord

Is this such a bizarre concept? From a male perspective, without having made a lifelong commitment to a person, doesn't overlooking the possibility of impregnation that comes with coital sex seem more than a little risky, even irresponsible? If the relationship ends but the woman is impregnated and chooses to carry it to term, the man is automatically stuck with 18 years of child support, and the child is stuck with a broken family that may not be financially prepared to raise it.

Is my thinking warped? I just think if a man is not prepared to be a father, financially or otherwise, coital sex should be out of the question.

I realize I may be indirectly calling many here irresponsible, but please come set me straight if you disagree.

Men are not ATMs for child support. Well, not just ATMs.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

pregnant once on the pill, pregnant once on the pill and a condom, pregnant once on a tubal ligation.

Granted over the course of 15 years ...
[and I am safe now, had a hysterectomy, it would take an act of god to knock me up now.]

I had to look a couple of times to make sure that wasn't MY name on that post. Got pregnant three times in two years, once on the pill, once using foam and condoms together, and once with an IUD. Two miscarriages and one full term pregnancy.

Guys should just make a deposit or two at a sperm bank and get a snip, especially if they're worried about some woman trying to fleece them. And, for the record, guys, the marital assets don't belong to just you. She's almost always contributed to building up the assets as well, so it's only fair that she gets her fair share. Alimony is almost never awarded any more, and in the rare cases when it is awarded, it's usually limited to a few years. In Texas, it's almost always limited to three years, and there's a limit as to how much the payment can be, too.

[markdash]

I don't know what's dumber, someone who spends 3 months' salary on a ring, or someone who doesn't have sex with their fiancee before marriage.

Although I suppose if someone did both they would take the cake.

[Little Nemo]

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to not have premarital sex.

Sex is an important part of a relationship. It's going to be a big problem if a couple finds out there not sexually compatible after they've made the commitment of marriage.

I can understand somebody not wanting to have casual sex (although I personally have never had a problem with it). But it seems strange to me that somebody could feel they loved another person enough to marry them but could be unsure if they loved them enough to have sex with them. Sex, to me, should be a step along the path to marriage, not vice versa.

And finally, regardless of what a person's moral beliefs are, people are still physical beings as well. Sexual desire can warp a person's perceptions. Somebody could end up jumping into a marriage in the belief that they are in love and then realize a month later that they were just really horny. I think it's better to assuage the sexual desire and make sure that there's a deeper basis to the relationship beyond it.

[DiosaBellissima]

Originally Posted by RandMcnally

It may very well be one of those urban legends, but when in the military I was told to be very wary of local girls, wherever you were, because they'd love to snag a guy to where they're stuck paying child support for the rest of their life.

Yeah, but look how that turned out for you. . .










In the interest of full disclosure- I'm friends with him and his wife (a girl who was a local where he was stationed.)

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by DiosaBellissima

Yeah, but look how that turned out for you. . .

I planned to hit it and quit.

It didn't work out that way...

[Indygrrl]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I do think it would be stupid to take a woman's word about the pill if you don't know her very well, bu I also think the number of women looking to trick men into knocking them up is exaggerated around here. If you play for the NBA, or you're a rock star, that's a risk. For most guys, it isn't.

No shit! The idea that there are a ton of opportunistic women out there trying to "trap" any halfway ok dude with a decent job into impregnating them is laughable. Even if she gets knocked up and this guy is on the line for child support for 18 years, that's nothing compared to what she's getting into.
.
.
Nine months of pregnancy, followed by labor and delivery of a baby that she gets to be a single mom to. Oooh, what a jackpot! Guys have the option of being deadbeat dads who pay the tab and do nothing else. Moms don't typically walk away from their children at the same rate.
.
.
Again, that's a big bill for dad and EVERYTHING ELSE the child ever needs for mom. And you think women want this? I assure you, I've never known anyone to get in that position on purpose.
.
.
It's laughable that a significant number of egomaniacs are convinced that women are lining up to trap them into sperm donation. Honestly, it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by Indygrrl

No shit! The idea that there are a ton of opportunistic women out there trying to "trap" any halfway ok dude with a decent job into impregnating them is laughable. Even if she gets knocked up and this guy is on the line for child support for 18 years, that's nothing compared to what she's getting into.
.
.
Nine months of pregnancy, followed by labor and delivery of a baby that she gets to be a single mom to. Oooh, what a jackpot! Guys have the option of being deadbeat dads who pay the tab and do nothing else. Moms don't typically walk away from their children at the same rate.
.
.
Again, that's a big bill for dad and EVERYTHING ELSE the child ever needs for mom. And you think women want this? I assure you, I've never known anyone to get in that position on purpose.

But if you're from bumfuckville nowhere and you can get some stupid 18 year old E1 to knock you up and marry you, to "do the right thing" then you're way better off than how you were.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by RandMcnally

But if you're from bumfuckville nowhere and you can get some stupid 18 year old E1 to knock you up and marry you, to "do the right thing" then you're way better off than how you were.

Or if she's the kind of girl who thinks "If I get pregnant, then he'll love me!"

[Voyager]

There is a middle ground between screwing anything that moves and waiting until engagement. I'm from way before the friends with benefits generation, but getting engaged without sex sounds pretty dumb. (Ditto for getting engaged and not understanding views of money.)
There are other ways also, like IUDs. We never had any problems, and my wife got pregnant the very first time we tried to have a kid, so it was not from lack of fertility.
Our daughters got taught all about birth control, and haven't had any issues either.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to not have premarital sex.

Sex is an important part of a relationship. It's going to be a big problem if a couple finds out there not sexually compatible after they've made the commitment of marriage.

I can understand somebody not wanting to have casual sex (although I personally have never had a problem with it). But it seems strange to me that somebody could feel they loved another person enough to marry them but could be unsure if they loved them enough to have sex with them. Sex, to me, should be a step along the path to marriage, not vice versa.

And finally, regardless of what a person's moral beliefs are, people are still physical beings as well. Sexual desire can warp a person's perceptions. Somebody could end up jumping into a marriage in the belief that they are in love and then realize a month later that they were just really horny. I think it's better to assuage the sexual desire and make sure that there's a deeper basis to the relationship beyond it.

Actually, if I were empress of the universe I would actually require positive birth control on all females as soon as they hit menarch, mandatory sex ed for both sexes, and a limited term trial marriage of 1 year or 5 year that automatically dissolves at the end of term, and you have to do at least the 1 year trial marriage before any permanent marriage, or opt for a reproductive marriage contract, you contract for a kid, and the marriage lasts from whenever contracted until the kid turns 18. Religious weddings have no legal standings. You would also need to take and pass a child parenting course before being able to go off mandatory birth control. There would be no religious exceptions. No permanent marriage prior to the age of 25.

I have seen more people screwed up by getting saddled with kids too young, kids they had no idea on how to raise, and marriages that just plain sucked but they were locked into them because their religion refused to allow divorce.

[Lynn Bodoni]

if I were empress of the universe I would actually require positive birth control on all females as soon as they hit menarch

When *I* am empress of the universe, all males will give a couple of sperm samples, which will be split into several deposits in sperm banks scattered throughout the area. Then the boys get a vasectomy. NO exceptions. Withdrawals can be made only if both the grown up man and his grown up woman friend come by, in person, with proof that both are in reasonably good health, are reasonably solvent, and capable of taking care of themselves, so maybe they can be entrusted with a baby human. Yes, much signing of paperwork will occur, stating that both parents WANT this pregnancy, that both are willing to make a commitment to raising this child, and that both understand what this means. No more kids raising kids. No more men claiming that women trapped them into paying child support. Almost all abortions are eliminated. Quite a lot of welfare and food stamps would be eliminated too. In the old days, if people had kids that they couldn't feed, then the people and their kids starved.

[Khaki Campbell]

Originally Posted by needscoffee

Birth control pills = 92% effectiveness, per year. Condoms = 85%. Together they are extremely effective, but not 100%.

Why a condom would be only 85% safe if you use it properly ?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

When *I* am empress of the universe, all males will give a couple of sperm samples, which will be split into several deposits in sperm banks scattered throughout the area. Then the boys get a vasectomy. NO exceptions.

Forced surgery isn't very ethical. How would you feel about the forced surgical sterilization of women? Or is it only males who have no rights over their body? And do you realize that your position massively undercuts the central reason for women having a right to abortion and birth control, namely that people have the right to control their own bodies?

[kanicbird]

To me your OP is motivated by fear, which will cause one to miss out on exploring sexuality and possibly the wonders of having a child. Fear is no way to live one's life, especially when it gets int he way of true closeness. Luckily the power of Love and passion in the moment can overcome this block.

Usually looking back in life a person's greatest regrets is what they had a chance but did not do. Sex is very personal, and different in meaning to each person and something that has to be experienced by the person to really know what its like.

Even though usually a goal of sex in a early relationship is to avoid pregnancy, having a child is also unique to the person and can also be a wonderful experience, and again one that may be regretted if one had a opportunity and didn't take it.

[Zsofia]

Originally Posted by Khaki Campbell

Why a condom would be only 85% safe if you use it properly ?

85% is "typical use", not perfect use. There is a lot of crappy condom use out there.

ETA - I don't know what the hell they teach them in school these days, so sometime next week I'm trapping my 16 year old niece in the car with me and having a serious talk about contraception. I am bringing condoms and bananas. I may never look her in the eye again, but damn it she'll have the information.

[Vihaga]

Originally Posted by Khaki Campbell

Why a condom would be only 85% safe if you use it properly ?

Nah, if people use it typically it's 15% failure. Perfect use is 2% failure. People are really bad at using stuff.

/edit: Serves me right for tabbing out to double check the percentages. hehe.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

Then the boys get a vasectomy. NO exceptions.

And all girls get tubals. NO exceptions.

[don't ask]

Last year, out of the blue, my sex partner (we first had sex decades ago) decided we would become "celibate" which actually meant no fucking, orgasms by other methods only. It lasted for a few months and was damn good fun.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood

With typical use, though, as you noted. So any given person can decrease the odds quite a bit by doing better than typical. Also, it looks like the figure you gave was for a female condom, whereas a male condom's typical use failure rate is only 15%.

Oops, you're right, I did. Sorry about that. Simple carelessness on my part - I've never seen a chart which puts female before male and I didn't read closely enough!

I disagree with using Perfect Use numbers, though. We're none of us perfect (see previous paragraph!) Sure, you can try to do things better, but condoms still break and slip. The Pill can be rendered less effective if you're taking antibiotics or other drugs - some of which may not have been identified yet, or you can get a stomach virus and throw up before it's absorbed into your system. Contraceptive failure is not always due to people being ignorant or careless.

Originally Posted by Khaki Campbell

Why a condom would be only 85% safe if you use it properly ?

Because it's a physical object and physical objects break. They slip. Even if you put it on at the right time with the right method, use the proper amount of the right kind of lube and withdraw the penis while it's still erect while grasping the base of the condom...they can still break. They can slip off the penis and leak their contents inside the vagina.

I honestly think Perfect Use numbers should be eliminated from Contraceptive Effectiveness rate charts and packaging info. It's like if Microsoft ran some numbers and declared that, with Perfect Use, Windows will fail 1 time in every 100 user years. Ok, maybe, but we all know that in reality, it fails a lot more than that, once you get applications working at the same time that cause system errors, or automatic updates that restart your computer without warning just as you're about to hit Submit (and I shit you not - this just happened to me, and I had in fact already used Windows as my analogy in this reply. I think Windows was trying to get revenge.). When I'm choosing an operating system, Perfect Use numbers are useless - I want to know how often here, in the real world, I'm going to have problems.

Perfect Use numbers are theory. Typical use are reality. Babies aren't very theoretical at 2 AM when they're hungry and you have to be at work in 5 hours.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Derleth

And all girls get tubals. NO exceptions.

As soon as egg harvesting is a safe as ejaculating into a cup and a tubal is as safe and no more invasive than a vasectomy, I'd advocate for both in Hypothetical Land. After all, vasectomies fail, too.

[flight]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

When *I* am empress of the universe, all males will give a couple of sperm samples, which will be split into several deposits in sperm banks scattered throughout the area. Then the boys get a vasectomy. NO exceptions. Withdrawals can be made only if both the grown up man and his grown up woman friend come by, in person, with proof that both are in reasonably good health, are reasonably solvent, and capable of taking care of themselves, so maybe they can be entrusted with a baby human. Yes, much signing of paperwork will occur, stating that both parents WANT this pregnancy, that both are willing to make a commitment to raising this child, and that both understand what this means. No more kids raising kids. No more men claiming that women trapped them into paying child support. Almost all abortions are eliminated. Quite a lot of welfare and food stamps would be eliminated too. In the old days, if people had kids that they couldn't feed, then the people and their kids starved.

Of course, with this method the human race will be extinct in a couple hundred years.

[justrob]

Originally Posted by Blut Aus Nord

Is this such a bizarre concept? From a male perspective, without having made a lifelong commitment to a person...

With the much tauted 50% divorce rate doesn't your whole argument break down here? Completely ignoring the whole idea of whether or not you are physically compatable for coital (?) sex with each other lifelong commitment to someone isn't what it used to be.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

As soon as egg harvesting is a safe as ejaculating into a cup and a tubal is as safe and no more invasive than a vasectomy, I'd advocate for both in Hypothetical Land. After all, vasectomies fail, too.

Actually, my idea was for the procedures to be reversed at some point, which, looking harder at Lynn's post, I should have specified.

[Zsofia]

That's true, WhyNot, but I also need some number that indicates "effectiveness when not used by fucking morons". I guess "typical use while following product directions". Because I know better than to get the condom on wrong, take it off, flip it around, and use it. Or than to use that condom that's been in a guy's wallet for three years. Or than to use the same condom for more than one encounter, etc., etc.

[ZPG Zealot]

Originally Posted by DianaG

Pregnant twice on the pill and once after a tubal ligation while still on the pill.*

Sex is never risk free. That said, I'm always amused by the idea that anyone would get pregnant to snag a man. Like I want to spend the next 20 years of my life parenting for the child support. There's easier ways to make money, thanks.

*antibiotics, who the hell knows, must have ovulated just before the ligation + who the hell knows

It's good that you have that opinion, but other women do not. A very large component of the clients I see in my spiritual advising (fortune telling business) have no higher dreams than to latch on to a man (anyway they can) who will take them out of working class life.