Don't Pop The Pill If He Won't Share The Bill

[PyronIkari]

In my book, paying for the condoms without sharing the responsibility of bringing them isn't enough to qualify as "win".  What if, in the heat of the moment, the boy suddenly realizes that he ran out of condoms?  There are some very major differences between birth control pills and condoms, and I wouldn't consider the situation you described to be a winning scenario.  It's not enough to just buy the condoms: they have to be on hand at the right times too.  By itself, putting down money doesn't fundamentally solve any problems.  With the nature of humankind these days, money seems to be far easier to come by than responsibility.

In any case, I believe that anybody of any gender who wants to be having sex (and isn't trying to have a baby) should buy their own condoms and keep some on hand.  Unlike birth control pills, condoms are still useful no matter who brings them.  If either party fails to bring condoms, it's still useful for the other to be able to provide.  (In contrast, if the girl doesn't take her birth control, the boy's just out of luck.)  The only good reasons for any active heterosexual to not carry their own condoms are (1) they want children or (2) they're sure that they would prefer to not have sex.

Again, everybody who wants to have sex should carry their own condoms.  It's just that important.

What does this have to do with ANYTHING that was posted. It's like you're purposely being confrontational on a comment that meant nothing.

Most of this isn't even realistic or nonsensical. I don't carry around a roll of condoms with me 24/7. I have no reason to. Every single one of your posts, you act like a damned teacher, talking down to children. Look, most of us are adults. This is NOT A SEX ED CLASS... and you are not an authority of ours who needs to explain to us how sex and protection works. This had jack nothing to do with anything... and then you completely changed the flow of this thread by preaching to us math and crap that you ARE WRONG ABOUT.

PS: OBVIOUSLY... we know... a condom is useless unless the guy is wearing it correctly.

Frankly, it's "pretty damn stupid" to expect to have sex without also expecting some possibility of conception.  Conception is always a gamble (whether you want it or want to avoid it).  Even with birth control, condoms, AND morning-after pills, conception can still happen, especially among people who want sex the most.  (Raging hormones seem to correspond with high fertility.)  The overall success rate of the morning-after pill is only around 75%.  The success rate of condoms (with perfect use) is only 97%.  The success rate of birth control pills (with perfect use) is 96%.  That still leaves a 0.03% chance that, even if a couple uses pills and condoms perfectly all the time and get a morning-after pill as a backup plan, conception can still occur.  At "typical use", the chance is closer to 2%.  Doing the math, if a couple has sex merely once per week, then they're still statistically likely to conceive within a year assuming "typical use" of all three methods combined.

I think people should talk about their opinions about what to do with a potential baby before having sex at all, no matter how much birth control is used.

Your math fails horribly... sysadmin already provided the fun link and others have already explained how you're totally wrong about this.

As for that dear abby stuff... she's actually quite right. Because frankly, you act as if it's so clean cut... "Birth control is for both of us" therefore she has every right to ask about it.

Some girls prefer to be on the pill, where as the guy doesn't care about what kind of birth control is used. Why should the guy be forced to pay for half of her contraceptive when it is her choice what kind she gets. You don't know the situation, and for the most part, this is usually how it goes.

A guy normally doesn't know what kind of contraceptive the girl is on. There are dozens of different kinds. Some are much more expensive than others. The girl usually picks the one she wants, so why should a guy have to pay for it?

In retrospect... should a girl pay for half of the guys bathroom needs? Shaving cream? His body wash etc? It's shared right? He's grooming himself for her just as much as he is for himself.

In certain cases... yeah I agree, a guy should pay for half... but in others, definitely not. It's not that simple.

[Nyxyin]

If a condom is cited as "97% effective", it does not mean that 3% of women who have sex will automatically get pregnant.

However, (now that I've read your link) if condoms are cited as 97% effective (in a perfect use scenario), it means that 3% of the women using condoms "perfectly" in their study actually did get pregnant within one year.  Mathematically, having sex with just condoms for two years means that there has been a 5.91% of getting pregnant during those two years.  Doing it for ten years means that there's a 26% chance of getting pregnant.  Doing it for 25 years means that couples are "statistically likely to conceive" (over 50% probability of a single conception) by using condoms alone, even in perfect use scenarios, assuming a 97% perfect use effectiveness rate.  I can be convinced that the rules of probability do not apply here, but assuming the rules of probability hold, this math is correct.

See this link for an example.

OK, I stand corrected.

If you want to claim that "combining all birth control methods + human foibles" results in an average of "98% effective", that's one thing (although I'd like a citation).  But to claim that "statistically likely to conceive in one year" is outright bad math.

Technically, my primary error is "outright bad vocabulary".  I didn't know this definition before: "The effectiveness percentage refers to the number of pregnancies that occur per 100 woman-years of contraceptive use."

I can't find the site that was quoting closer to 70% effectiveness rates for typical uses of condoms and pills, but I wasn't examining the source, so you're right that it could've been a biased source, or it could've been the study used a purely teenage sample set or something.  Still, 30% * 30% * 25% = 2.25% failure rate, so if we were to assume 70% typical effectiveness of the other two methods, all three methods combined would still mathematically be a 2.25% failure probability.  My math is fine, but I do apologize for my poor vocabulary and poor web searching skills.

To go back and correct myself, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/BI99999/PAGE=BI00051 probably has more authoritative numbers.  It claims only 8% for the pill failure and 15% condom failure, which is drastically different from the 30% I had seen elsewhere (and can no longer find).

I didn't feel that it's fair for Stormfalcon to say that couples are stupid for not using more than a condom [...] to prevent pregnancy

just relying on that condom by itself is not a smart thing to do

I agree with both statements.  "Birth control" includes preventative methods (such as condoms and pills) and after-the-fact methods such as abortion.  I think "just relying on that condom by itself is not a smart thing to do" because I believe that it's very stupid to not have discussed what Jun called a "Plan B" before having sex.  However, to me, "Plan B" fully qualifies as "more than just a condom" -- in terms of birth control overall (not just pregnancy prevention).  In fact, given that conception can happen even with perfect use of three birth control methods (some people are just that unlucky), I think it's stupid to not have discussed a "Plan B" before having sex, no matter how many preventative measures are taken.

[Jun-Watarase]

When I mentioned Plan B, I referred to the popular brand morning-after-pill. In any case, most serious couples should already be aware of their options if an accident were to occur, e.g. an abortion. There are many different types of birth control, all of which serve their purpose, which includes condoms. Calling it stupid would be saying that relying on just the pill is stupid, relying on just an IUD is stupid, etc etc.

Yes, I feel that it's a smart move to have some back up, which is why I mentioned Plan B, but using more than one birth control method on a regular basis isn't entirely necessary. Say that the pills are $40 a month, and condoms are 50c. Plan B pills are $45 a package. The average couple pretty much has sex about 3 times a week, which would be 12 times a month. Plus, they're using condoms every time. Unless they're having accidents and getting pregnant every single month, using Plan B whenever an accident does happen would mean saving money, being safe, and saving the girl the trouble of taking it everyday and dealing with the extra hormones and side effects.

I'm not trying to convince people NOT to use the pill, though. I think the pill + condoms would be pretty secure, but again, not entirely necessary. Some people are unable to pile on several birth control methods with condoms, except maybe withdrawal. Not every form of birth control works great on every girl, and the ones that release hormones tend to be the most inconvenient, like bc pills, the ring, patches, etc.

Couples in a committed relationship that have sex at all should be smart enough to know how to practice safe sex and know their options. Sex is a huge part of a serious relationship, and discussing it over with a partner should be a normal thing to do as is. A figurative plan B should already be in mind if anything were to happen, but if not, it tends to be discussed and dealt with when the problem arises because the source of information on a person's options with birth control and abortion is readily provided on the internet or local clinic.

[ewu]

However, (now that I've read your link) if condoms are cited as 97% effective (in a perfect use scenario), it means that 3% of the women using condoms "perfectly" in their study actually did get pregnant within one year.  Mathematically, having sex with just condoms for two years means that there has been a 5.91% of getting pregnant during those two years.  Doing it for ten years means that there's a 26% chance of getting pregnant.  Doing it for 25 years means that couples are "statistically likely to conceive" (over 50% probability of a single conception) by using condoms alone, even in perfect use scenarios, assuming a 97% perfect use effectiveness rate.  I can be convinced that the rules of probability do not apply here, but assuming the rules of probability hold, this math is correct.

Your math is still not correct. The 97% means that 3% of the sampled population is likely to use it incorrectly and result in pregnancy. It has nothing to do with the amount of time using the contraceptive with the exception that the variable of time needed to be held static. If you use it correctly and there is no break or other accidents its is conceivable for it to be 100% effective for you. The 3% accounts for breaks, mis-use, accidents, and idiots.

[PyronIkari]

Your math is still not correct. The 97% means that 3% of the sampled population is likely to use it incorrectly and result in pregnancy. It has nothing to do with the amount of time using the contraceptive with the exception that the variable of time needed to be held static. If you use it correctly and there is no break or other accidents its is conceivable for it to be 100% effective for you. The 3% accounts for breaks, mis-use, accidents, and idiots.

The 3% doesn't account for breaks or mis-use. It accounts for correct usage where the person still got pregnant. It'd be way higher if it accounted for mis-use.

[Nyxyin]

The 97% means that 3% of the sampled population is likely to use it incorrectly and result in pregnancy.

According to the Mayo Clinic link I had above, male condoms result in only 85% effectiveness.  97% is a "perfect use" statistic.  http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html  The FDA sets "typical use" of male condoms at 14% and "perfect use" at 3%.  I suppose I could still be wrong about the vocabulary, but it seems reasonable to me that the difference between "perfect use" and "typical use" numbers would be to remove instances of "mis-use" (at a minimum).

It has nothing to do with the amount of time using the contraceptive with the exception that the variable of time needed to be held static.

Maybe.  That's the part in which I can be convinced that the rules of probability do not apply.  However, mathematically, if you say that there is a 50% of getting heads on one coin flip, and there's a 50% chance of getting heads on the second coin flip, then you have a 75% chance of getting heads on one of the two coin flips.  I can be convinced that probability and statistics aren't very closely related, but that says a whole lot of negative things about what is being passed off as science.

it is conceivable for it to be 100% effective for you.

Probability deals with the future.  Obviously, if you use condoms and never conceived, all the condoms you used up until that point were 100% effective.  But, we're talking about probabilities.  The fact that all the previous condoms were 100% effective for you doesn't mean that your next condom won't break, no matter how perfectly you use it.  Even with "perfect use" of the condom, your next sexual encounter still has a 3% chance of conceiving.

[Nyxyin]

breaks, mis-use, accidents, and idiots.

By the way, I find it fascinating that the Mayo Clinic link I mentioned above claims that the "rhythm method" (aka "Natural family planning -- calendar") is more effective than male condoms (in typical use scenarios):  87% for the rhythm method and only 85% for the male condom.

[ewu]

Honestly though, does the percentage really matter. In the end you will use contraceptive or you will not. I highly doubt that the percentage value will affect your decision to have sex or not. Yes, it does affect what kind of contraception you will choose, but I am willing to bet you will use whatever is available and convenient for you....still gonna have sex:P

[PyronIkari]

Honestly though, does the percentage really matter. In the end you will use contraceptive or you will not. I highly doubt that the percentage value will affect your decision to have sex or not. Yes, it does affect what kind of contraception you will choose, but I am willing to bet you will use whatever is available and convenient for you....still gonna have sex:P

Ding...

and that's why this thread totally went off topic for no reason.

Not like she can see my replies seeing that she set me to ignore, but wwwwwwwwwwww. This was about birth control usage and shared responsibilities. What a couple does, what people merely shacking up do, who pays for what, and why.

Nyx turned it into "ZOMG CONDOMS ARE MATH, AND YOU ARE STUPID, I HAVE TO TEACH YOU!" for no reason.

[Nyxyin]

If you're asking about me personally, then yes, the percentages matter a lot to me.  Percentages do affect my frequency of heterosexual vaginal intercourse and views about alternative forms of play.  A lot of sex is in the brain, and I do have to be in a certain head space to enjoy it.  I doubt I would be able to enjoy heterosexual vaginal intercourse if abortion were illegal.  There are many forms of intimacy that do not risk conception.

For a more general "you", I don't expect the percentages to change anybody's minds about their own sexual behaviors or their own contraception choices, but I believe the information still matters.  I think a comparison of these particular percentages can affect attitudes towards people who use the rhythm method.  I've heard this joke many times:  "What do you call people who use the rhythm method?  Parents!"  But, according to the Mayo Clinic statistics, they're no more often parents than people who use condoms.  Even if the exact numbers aren't important, I think it's interesting that the statistics here are reversed from what popular culture claims.

[ewu]

Even if the exact numbers aren't important, I think it's interesting that the statistics here are reversed from what popular culture claims.

Only when the statistics are interpreted incorrectly.

More support, the percentages have even less bearing when people don't even know what the numbers represent or how they correlate, especially to their own lives.

[Jun-Watarase]

If you're asking about me personally, then yes, the percentages matter a lot to me.  Percentages do affect my frequency of heterosexual vaginal intercourse and views about alternative forms of play.  A lot of sex is in the brain, and I do have to be in a certain head space to enjoy it.  I doubt I would be able to enjoy heterosexual vaginal intercourse if abortion were illegal.  There are many forms of intimacy that do not risk conception.

For a more general "you", I don't expect the percentages to change anybody's minds about their own sexual behaviors or their own contraception choices, but I believe the information still matters.  I think a comparison of these particular percentages can affect attitudes towards people who use the rhythm method.  I've heard this joke many times:  "What do you call people who use the rhythm method?  Parents!"  But, according to the Mayo Clinic statistics, they're no more often parents than people who use condoms.  Even if the exact numbers aren't important, I think it's interesting that the statistics here are reversed from what popular culture claims.

Like ewu noted, I think you're confusing what the numbers are representing. Take for example, the statistics shown for a vasectomy are 99% or more, but for the large majority, it is 100%. However, that 1% is still there, for those with complications with getting a vasectomy and somehow having it fail, etc etc etc... that 1% doesn't necessarily apply to you.

Outside of the subject of poorly interpreted maths and statistics, I've done both withdrawal and the "rhythm method" before for quite a long time without fail, but I still acknowledged the risks. As long as one pays extremely close attention to their ovulation periods and has adequate control, it could be done easily, but with its high risks (despite what statistics say, I'm basing this off of circumstances) I wouldn't advocate it. I only stopped this method because my ovulation schedule was knocked off-track from stress from other things, and plus, using other forms of protection offers better peace of mind for my partner, as he isn't the one that does the ovulating.

[Nyxyin]

Like ewu noted, I think you're confusing what the numbers are representing. Take for example, the statistics shown for a vasectomy are 99% or more, but for the large majority, it is 100%. However, that 1% is still there, for those with complications with getting a vasectomy and somehow having it fail, etc etc etc... that 1% doesn't necessarily apply to you.

While I agree that statistics don't apply to any individual in general, many modern sciences seem to usually use them as a guide in estimating probabilities.  If someone is deciding on whether to shell out money for a vasectomy, then I think it matters that something might go wrong.  Furthermore, until the person either conceives or dies off, he doesn't know whether or not he is that 1%.  What we do know is that people who have had vasectomies succeeded in conceiving.

As I said earlier with lines like "I can be convinced that the rules of probability do not apply here" and "I can be convinced that probability and statistics aren't very closely related, but that says a whole lot of negative things about what is being passed off as science", I can be convinced that many modern sciences are just plain wrong.

I've done both withdrawal and the "rhythm method" before for quite a long time without fail, but I still acknowledged the risks.

Condoms have risks too, and it seems like people don't understand how much.  "Lowest Expected Rate of Pregnancy" statistics (ie "perfect use" or "method was always used correctly with every act of sexual intercourse") for "Male Latex Condom" is "3%", while it's "1-9%" for "Natural Family Planning".

This is an interesting link: http://skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-08-22.html
However, it's actually book review, and it doesn't get into the probability and statistics discussion until about halfway through.  So, I'll just quote certain pieces:

The statistics vs. clinical intuition debate has ensued for decades in psychology. Where one sides in the debate is largely determined by what one makes of a single phrase: "Group statistics don't apply to individuals." This claim, widely believed, ignores many of the most basic concepts of probability and statistics, such as error. Yes, individuals possess unique qualities, but they also share many features that allow for predictive power.  If 95% of a sample with quality X has quality Y, insisting that someone with quality X may not have Y because "statistics don't apply to individuals" will only decrease accuracy. Insistence on certainty decreases accuracy.

Uncertainty is exactly why statistics apply to individuals: they give us the best guess available given the level of uncertainty at hand. It does not behoove anyone to ignore uncertainty and pretend it is not there.

If people want to read the statistics discussion without reading the whole book report, skip down to "Group statistics don't apply to individuals".  The discussion goes briefly into why people who go around saying that the statistics don't apply aren't improving their accuracy.

The basic problem is there is a very fine line between the fact that statistics don't apply to any individual and the uncertainty that makes statistics become reasonable probabilities for individuals to use when making decisions.

[Jun-Watarase]

Just arguing Schrodinger's Cat, now. In any case, the statistics and percentages only apply because you're unsure of whether or not you're prone to actually be part of that 1%, that 3%, that any %, which is the only reason to be concerned. Most people already take the precautionary measures to prevent being a part of the percentage of people who fall into the risks, but it's still undeniable that some people just aren't part of them to begin with.

[lyricaldanichan]

Best way for birth control  is

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

.


Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.

JMO

[PyronIkari]

Best way for birth control  is

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

.


Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.

JMO

Should I explain how incredibly stupid this is? Not only that, this is the second time you've said it now...

Masturbation is pretty much well accepted every where in the world(don't bother citing places or religions where it's not, because it's besides the point... as even within these places it still happens). Secondly... despite it being regular practice, it doesn't change anything. Masturbation is not an adequate replacement for sex. If it was, people wouldn't bother having sex, as they would get the exact same pleasure out of masturbation, thus wouldn't have to go through all the effort to get sex.

Your proposal doesn't even help the problem, because it's more about feigning ignorance than educating people into making better decisions. It's the same idea as Nyxyin or whatever's proposal to remove racism by forcefully make everyone mix breed. It's an idea of forced alternative than tolerance and education.

But uhm, just to explain. Try asking these pregnant teens if they've ever masturbated, and if they masturbate regularly. 99.999% of them will say yes.

Just because someone masturbates, doesn't mean they don't want to, nor don't have sex.

(Secret, I masturbate... and so does probably everyone on this forum. I still enjoy sex more, and have sex).

So, what was your point again?

[lyricaldanichan]

Best way for birth control  is

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

.


Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.

JMO

Should I explain how incredibly stupid this is? Not only that, this is the second time you've said it now...

Is it really? I lost count ;-)

Masturbation is pretty much well accepted every where in the world(don't bother citing places or religions where it's not, because it's besides the point... as even within these places it still happens). Secondly... despite it being regular practice, it doesn't change anything. Masturbation is not an adequate replacement for sex. If it was, people wouldn't bother having sex, as they would get the exact same pleasure out of masturbation, thus wouldn't have to go through all the effort to get sex.

Your proposal doesn't even help the problem, because it's more about feigning ignorance than educating people into making better decisions. It's the same idea as Nyxyin or whatever's proposal to remove racism by forcefully make everyone mix breed. It's an idea of forced alternative than tolerance and education.

So, what was your point again?

You missed the point :(.

[Jun-Watarase]

You missed the point :(.

What? Okay, let's relay on what you had posted.

Best way for birth control  is

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

.


Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.

JMO

You're implying that people should just masturbate in place of sex to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is ridiculously stupid because... masturbation isn't a replacement for actual sex. It's temporary relief to curb sexual urges.

Like Mikey mentioned, most people who have sex, masturbate along with sex, and most of those who masturbate would prefer sex. There's no comparison. And even then, people are ABLE to have sex while preventing pregnancy with AVAILABLE technology. Why should they masturbate instead when they have the option to have safe sex?

You mentioned how it'd supposedly be better if masturbation is acceptable in society. Are you saying that people have sex in place of masturbation because they're forced to by society? Pfffffffffffffffff. No. People masturbate to put off sexual tension. People have sex because they want to have sex. If they couldn't responsibly have protected sex and prevent themselves from pregnancy and STDs, that's their own damned fault, but masturbation isn't a solution to it. People will continue to have sex and prefer it over masturbation, which is natural.

Why did you even bring up this utterly pointless suggestion? How does this contribute ANYTHING at all?

I take it that you've never had a sexual partner, otherwise you wouldn't be saying so god damned stupid.


Girl: Hey honey, let's do it.

Guy: No thanks. I'm gonna go jack off because I don't want to get you pregnant.

Girl: What? But I have a condom...

Guy: NO, I don't want to take the chances! Masturbation prevents pregnancy!

Girl: But I can't get pregnant if you wea--

Guy: SHUT UP, YOU'RE RUINING THE MOOD!

[PyronIkari]

You missed the point :(.

Oh then, please explain the point... because you realize, these posts are about on par as with Leslieloveschu with their, non-inherent messages, seemingly baseless ideas, and going ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE in any attempt to explain... but instead replying with one line answers that accomplish NOTHING?

Good job mod!

[lyricaldanichan]

You are welcome! Happy holidays  ;D

You missed the point :(.

Oh then, please explain the point... because you realize, these posts are about on par as with Leslieloveschu with their, non-inherent messages, seemingly baseless ideas, and going ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE in any attempt to explain... but instead replying with one line answers that accomplish NOTHING?

Good job mod!