Should women be imprisoned.............

[Bells]

Bells:

I've ignored most of your misandry, and instead chosen to address that little snippet.

From what I last read, condoms have a success rate of 50% when it comes to preventing pregnancy.

So quite simply, the only 'safe' method is abstinence. Ergo. A man/woman who never wants kids can never have sex. Well, I guess you could have anal/oral (if you classify that as 'sex') or resort to a prostitute, but that's opening up another can of worms.

Link?

It is one method. It prevents the spread of STD's as well as helps prevent against pregnancy. I am surprised so many seem so appalled at the thought of having to use one. If you really don't want her to get pregnant, use one and you should regardless, unless both have been tested for STD's. After all, isn't it a matter of better safe than sorry?

Estimated pregnancy rates during perfect use of condoms, that is for those who report using the method exactly as it should be used (correctly) and at every act of intercourse (consistently), is 3 percent at 12 months.

The most frequently cited condom effectiveness rate is for typical use, which includes perfect and imperfect use (i.e. not used at every act of intercourse, or used incorrectly). The pregnancy rate during typical use can be much higher (10-14%) than for perfect use, but this is due primarily to inconsistent and incorrect use, not to condom failure. Condom failure – the device breaking or slipping off completely during intercourse – is uncommon.
Link

Protection against pregnancy if used correctly is a tad more than 50% non?

Maybe you should read a bit more about condoms.. hmmm?

 

[TimeTraveler]

Some women who want babies but don't want those babies to have fathers, go out looking to have sex with 'any guy' in the hope they become impregnated by them. Should this be illegal given the HUGE ramifications.

Ramifications being fatherless child
Child meets 'fathers' son in later yrs, they get married (they do not know they are related or worse she marries her father)
Mother decides to tell child who 'father' is and he has to pay support

etc etc

Have women been getting away with this for too long?

Consider women who seek out celebs for one night stands and become impregananted as a result, unfortunate or deliberate?

Should men take more responsibility and make sure they use condoms, if not is whatever results due to their carelessness?

What is your view?

No the women should not be put in prison, thats even worse.

And if people marry their fathers or other stupid crap, they are in too small of a town and need to expand their dating pool/social network a bit.

Also, if a man is stupid enough to make a woman pregnant, he should take whatever comes. Because thats the whole point, when a man has sex he should expect a woman to run off with the baby and make him pay child support, thats how the scam apparently works. So guys should plan for these types of women, individually, and decide how they will respond when they make one pregnant.

The law will not solve these problems.

 

[TimeTraveler]

My thread post was a question, it DID NOT express an opinion.

My opinion however is thus:

I am a cautious person, I support precautions.

If men are 100% certain they do not desire children they should 'protect themselves' by taking 'precautionary measures'

they can do this by

wearing a condom with spremicide (though they can fail) so for 100% foolproof method of avoiding impregnation

not having sex

vasectomy



I know you guys in the majority dislike condoms and would dislike NOT having sex or having a vasectomy even more

BUT, if you are vulnerable and determined to avoid the possible 'side effects' of 'sex' you should take the necc precautions. Just as women are expected to do.

The matter of married women deceiving husbands is an issue of trust which has been broken. The man 'trusts' his wife to do as she states she is doing, BUT if he is THAT anti children he should take responsibility for this himself and not rely on the female. Vasectomy would be the best course of action in that situation.

Afterall, condoms are unreliable and why should the woman be on medication to protect the man?


Finally back to the point,

'women who go to bars for the sole purpose of becoming impregnated'
the majority view (mine included) is that men should take precautiuons to protect themselves.

Interesting double standard don't ya think? Given some of the views expressed in other threads regarding womens rights to behave as they wish without any regard to personal safety.

I agree women have this right, but still I am a cautious person.

Do men not have the right to NOT be used for 'sperm'?

They have this right, as women have the right, BUT rights don't protect you.
Thus guys, I reccomend you take 'precautions'. They may not result in complete success but may reduce the risk.

Pregnancy is a womans problem. Women can have abortions now, thats what the whole right to choose is all about. Men should worry only about STDs, thats enough of a worry to make a guy wear a condom. No guy knows where any of these sneaky shady women have been, especially the type of women who do one night stands, chances are it's not the first time they've done it.

 

[mountainhare]

Bells:

Link?

I'll find one presently. But first, a few corrections to your reply.

It is one method. It prevents the spread of STD's as well as helps prevent against pregnancy. I am surprised so many seem so appalled at the thought of having to use one.

I personally am not appalled at using a condom. Even if it provided no protection whatsoever against pregnancy, I would use it to prevent STD transmission.

Quite simply, my point was that condoms are not 100% foolproof. Hence, the only real recourse for a couple who don't want to have children is not to have (vaginal) sex.

Protection against pregnancy if used correctly is a tad more than 50% non?

Maybe you should read a bit more about condoms.. hmmm?

Your link is no way contradicts my previous claim.

I never claimed that as a result of condom use, the chance of a woman becoming impregnated was fifty percent. I claimed that CONDOMS HAVE A 50% SUCCESS RATE IN PREVENTING PREGNANCIES.

I also made another statement to clarify, in case anyone was confused:

... condoms cut the chance of impregnating a woman by half.

No wonder our legal system is so screwed up, when its advocates can't grasp the subtleties of simple statistical statements.

I await your apology for both the misinterpretation of my very clear statement, and also for your undeserved condescension towards me.

 

[Prince_James]

Fat chance, Mountainhare.

 

[Bells]

I'll find one presently. But first, a few corrections to your reply.

I await with bated breath.

Quite simply, my point was that condoms are not 100% foolproof. Hence, the only real recourse for a couple who don't want to have children is not to have (vaginal) sex.

You are correct. But if you decide to have sex, one would expect both parties to the encounter to protect themselves, non?

Your link is no way contradicts my previous claim.

Lets read your previous claim shall we?

"From what I last read, condoms have a success rate of 50% when it comes to preventing pregnancy."

And the WHO site states that condoms;

"Estimated pregnancy rates during perfect use of condoms, that is for those who report using the method exactly as it should be used (correctly) and at every act of intercourse (consistently), is 3 percent at 12 months."

You claim that it cuts the chance of falling pregnant (or prevents pregnancy) by half (50%). WHO state that the correct use of condoms have been found to cut the chance of falling pregnant or prevents pregnancy (as designated by the pregnancy rates by those who have used the condom correctly over a period of 12 months) by 97%. Which means that using a condom correctly could result in a 3% chance of falling pregnant over a 12 month period. If the girl is on the pill and spermicide is also used, I'd imagine the chance of falling pregnant would decrease even more. I repeat again, you claim it prevents pregnancy by half. WHO provide it cuts the chance by 97%.

Now I don't know about you but 50% pregnancy rate compared to a 3% pregnancy rate is a tad far apart. Not only does the WHO site blow your 50% figure out of the water, but it also makes you look a tad silly. Hell, read on the box and it tells you how effective it is if used correctly. I'd suggest you brush up on interpreting basic statistical information.

I never claimed that as a result of condom use, the chance of a woman becoming impregnated was fifty percent. I claimed that CONDOMS HAVE A 50% SUCCESS RATE IN PREVENTING PREGNANCIES.

I also made another statement to clarify, in case anyone was confused:

... condoms cut the chance of impregnating a woman by half.

1) My eyesight is fairly sound. You don't need to use huge letters to try and make a point. It only makes you look childish and frankly annoying.

2) So now you're saying it only prevents pregnancy by 50%? The other 50% is what exactly?

No wonder our legal system is so screwed up, when its advocates can't grasp the subtleties of simple statistical statements.

Our legal system becomes even more screwed up when people believe in and spout completely wrong information.

I await your apology for both the misinterpretation of my very clear statement, and also for your undeserved condescension towards me.

Ya. You can keep on waiting for that.

 

[Baron Max]

But if you decide to have sex, one would expect both parties to the encounter to protect themselves, non?

Why do we think that passion is so easily interrupted so as to pull out a condom, roll it onto the hard, throbbing dick, then go back to the passion? Is passion such that we're all totally in control all the time but we just lie about it? Or is passion one of those emotions that essentially take away our powers of reason and caution?

Girl: "Oh, wait, honey! If we're gonna' fuck, you need to put on a condom!"

Boy: "Oh, yeah, I remember that lesson from sex education classes."

Girl: "Yeah, I remember, too. Hey, do you remember that girl who always giggled so much in class?"

Boy, his dick already shriveling up as he struggles to put on the condom, while trying to concentrate on his girlfriend's conversation: "Uh, yeah, ....I remember her ....Sarah, wasn't it?"

Girl, already losing the desire to fuck: "No, it was Lisa ....you remember her, don't you? Blonde hair and kinda' skinny?"

Boy, hopelessly soft and has lost any and all earlier passion and is still trying to roll the condom onto his shriveled up wet noodle: "Oh, yeah, Lisa. Hey, what were we doin' anyway? I can't get this fuckin' thing on!"

Girl: "Oh, don't bother ...I've lost the passion. Maybe we can do it next week, okay?"

Boy, flinging the condom aside in anger: "Ah, fuck! This is stupid ...you get me all hot and bothered, now you don't want to do it?! Fuck you, you dirty bitch ...I hope you burn in hell!"

Girl, now a bit frightened: "What's wrong, honey?"

Boy, starting up the car. "Fuck you, bitch! Get out and walk ...I don't ever want to see you again. And I'm gonna' tell all the guys that you're a fuckin' cock tease!! Get out and walk home, bitch!!"

Ahh, the passion of it all, huh? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

[Bells]

Why do we think that passion is so easily interrupted so as to pull out a condom, roll it onto the hard, throbbing dick, then go back to the passion? Is passion such that we're all totally in control all the time but we just lie about it? Or is passion one of those emotions that essentially take away our powers of reason and caution?

Girl: "Oh, wait, honey! If we're gonna' fuck, you need to put on a condom!"

Boy: "Oh, yeah, I remember that lesson from sex education classes."

Girl: "Yeah, I remember, too. Hey, do you remember that girl who always giggled so much in class?"

Boy, his dick already shriveling up as he struggles to put on the condom, while trying to concentrate on his girlfriend's conversation: "Uh, yeah, ....I remember her ....Sarah, wasn't it?"

Girl, already losing the desire to fuck: "No, it was Lisa ....you remember her, don't you? Blonde hair and kinda' skinny?"

Boy, hopelessly soft and has lost any and all earlier passion and is still trying to roll the condom onto his shriveled up wet noodle: "Oh, yeah, Lisa. Hey, what were we doin' anyway? I can't get this fuckin' thing on!"

Girl: "Oh, don't bother ...I've lost the passion. Maybe we can do it next week, okay?"

Boy, flinging the condom aside in anger: "Ah, fuck! This is stupid ...you get me all hot and bothered, now you don't want to do it?! Fuck you, you dirty bitch ...I hope you burn in hell!"

Girl, now a bit frightened: "What's wrong, honey?"

Boy, starting up the car. "Fuck you, bitch! Get out and walk ...I don't ever want to see you again. And I'm gonna' tell all the guys that you're a fuckin' cock tease!! Get out and walk home, bitch!!"

Ahh, the passion of it all, huh? ...LOL!

Baron Max

Ah the joys of not using a condom and contracting an STD, AIDS or the girl getting pregnant.

Don't know about you Baron, but I'd guess most people would prefer to use the protection instead of contracting something like AIDS. But hey, to each their own right?

Passion or the rest of your life living with AIDS because you couldn't be stuffed putting on a condom or taking a few seconds to put on a condom.. decisions decisions.. Which would you pick Baron?

And if a "boy" does not know how to roll on a condom, he shouldn't be having sex anyway as he's either not ready or he's too stupid and shouldn't risk plagueing the world with his offspring.

 

[Baron Max]

Ah the joys of not using a condom and contracting an STD, AIDS or the girl getting pregnant.

Well, I guess you missed the whole point of that little "conversation", huh?

Oh, well, it gave me some practice typing, I suppose ....and kept me from doing anything useful or productive with my time.

Baron Max

 

[Bells]

I saw and chose to ignore.

But it's ok Baron, I'm sure one day you'll find a girl who's more.. ermm.. willing.. Just practice more with the condom in the meantime.

 

[Bowser]

Some women who want babies but don't want those babies to have fathers, go out looking to have sex with 'any guy' in the hope they become impregnated by them.

Such woman exist?

 

[mountainhare]

Bells:

You claim that it cuts the chance of falling pregnant (or prevents pregnancy) by half (50%).

That's right. I fail to see why my above comment is so hard to understand.

WHO state that the correct use of condoms have been found to cut the chance of falling pregnant or prevents pregnancy (as designated by the pregnancy rates by those who have used the condom correctly over a period of 12 months) by 97%.

No, it didn't. It found that the chance of falling pregnant was 3%, while wearing a condom correctly.

This doesn't mean that the condom (when worn correctly) cuts the rate of pregnancies by 97%. Remember, the chance of impregnating a woman when you have sex with her without any protection isn't 100% (I'm shocked that I need to mention that to the self-proclaimed guru of birth control. *sigh*).

The rest of your drivel is ignored. Until you can grasp the simple concept that the statement 'Cuts the rate of pregnancies in half' does NOT necessarily mean 'A 50% chance of impregnating the woman', this conversation will go nowhere.

Quite simply, I suggest you take your own advice, and 'brush up' on interpreting basic statistical information.

I continue to await my apology. I don't hold my breath.

 

[draqon]

Some women who want babies but don't want those babies to have fathers, go out looking to have sex with 'any guy' in the hope they become impregnated by them. Should this be illegal given the HUGE ramifications.

Ramifications being fatherless child
Child meets 'fathers' son in later yrs, they get married (they do not know they are related or worse she marries her father)
Mother decides to tell child who 'father' is and he has to pay support

etc etc

Have women been getting away with this for too long?

Consider women who seek out celebs for one night stands and become impregananted as a result, unfortunate or deliberate?

Should men take more responsibility and make sure they use condoms, if not is whatever results due to their carelessness?

What is your view?

my view is....anyone has a right to do what they want. Women dont need men anymore...they dump them...women need men, they get them.

 

[Bells]

Bells:

No, it didn't. It found that the chance of falling pregnant was 3%, while wearing a condom correctly.

And the other 97% is what exactly? If out of 100 women who had sex with a condom, 3 got pregnant, it would mean the other 97 who also used a condom did not fall pregnant, one could assume that the use of the condom helped prevent the pregnancy for those 97 women. I don't know about you but the evidence would point that way. 100 women have sex with a condom (used correctly) and only 3 get pregnant, you think the 97 women who didn't get pregnant, did not do so because of the use of the condom? Keeping in mind that not using a condom has a 100% chance of resulting in a pregnancy? Ermm ok. I did stats in school and uni and I can tell you now, if I came out with some of what you have claimed in this thread, I'd have failed shamefully.

Now if there is 3% pregnancy rate with a condom, it would mean that 97% was prevented while using a condom. It is afterall what they are designed for. To prevent pregnancy and to prevent the spread of STD's.

This doesn't mean that the condom (when worn correctly) cuts the rate of pregnancies by 97%. Remember, the chance of impregnating a woman when you have sex with her without any protection isn't 100% (I'm shocked that I need to mention that to the self-proclaimed guru of birth control. *sigh*).

The chance of impregnating her when no condom or other forms of protection are used is 100%. However, read on the pack or the WHO site and it basically tells you that the rate of protection against pregnancy is 97%. Ergo, wearing a condom can have a 97% chance preventing pregnancies from occuring.

Oh and any person who has ever used a condom or even read the pack would understand how they work. It seems you have yet to grasp that little fact. I'd suggest you go to a chemist or supermarket, find a packet of condoms and read on the back exactly what it says. Because how anyone can simply not know or understand their usage, instead coming out with some strange figure, seemingly plucked out of mid-air, and claiming it as fact, is beyond me and frankly quite shocking.

The rest of your drivel is ignored. Until you can grasp the simple concept that the statement 'Cuts the rate of pregnancies in half' does NOT necessarily mean 'A 50% chance of impregnating the woman', this conversation will go nowhere.

Oh I understand your statement and I also understand it is wrong and false. Until you have proof from a reputable site that wearing a condom "cuts the rate of pregnancy by half", I'd suggest you refrain from making false and misleading statements.

By your understanding, using a condom "cuts the rate of pregnancy by half". However what of the other half? It somehow does not exist? When you make a statement with 50% chance of preventing pregnancy, the other 50% of the equation simply disappears in midair? Give me a break.

And you can keep waiting for that apology because I can tell you now it's not coming.

 

[Huwy]

Ah, so it could be that with condoms used properly its 3% pregnancy, without condoms its somewhere between 50% and 90% pregnancy in a 12 month period?

But cutting rate by 50% would imply that unprotected, 6% of females fall pregnant from continuous/regular use, and i'm sure it would be higher than that - in a 12 month peroid.

Unless you two are arguing about different time periods - say a year versus one incidence...