Relationship in the gutter.

[Persuader]

And since you are not married, you will be sleeping in separate rooms every night . . .in case you didn’t know . . .

Yeah, I know. It’s going to be torturous. No touching during the day, and no touching at night either! I will certainly be making sacrifices, that’s for sure. At least my gf will be grateful. We will have to sneak out for some alone time in the day, I guess. My gf probably has some friends we can visit.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

You know what? You’re not ready to go. If you can’t manage a few days of hands off and it’s going to be torturous and you are sneaking off to friends, then you’re not mature enough to go to their house.

They’re not stupid. And it’s an in your face “we’re going to do it right under your nose and you can’t stop us” mentality you have.

You’re also not ready for marriage if you can’t manage a few days without having intercourse.

It’s not a “sacrifice.” You don’t know the meaning of the word.

 

[Persuader]

You know what? You’re not ready to go. If you can’t manage a few days of hands off and it’s going to be torturous and you are sneaking off to friends, then you’re not mature enough to go to their house.

They’re not stupid. And it’s an in your face “we’re going to do it right under your nose and you can’t stop us” mentality you have.

You’re also not ready for marriage if you can’t manage a few days without having intercourse.

It’s not a “sacrifice.” You don’t know the meaning of the word.

I was only joking, calm down

Besides, I wasn’t talking about sex. I was talking about making out.

 

[monicatholic]

persuader,

i, too, think you were serious and was just now posting the twin response to Lib’s.

please do your brain a favor. read anything about theology of the body. you have ZERO understanding of the Catholic (aka authentic) view of sex. you really need some schooling.

this thread is so long i forgot-- did anyone suggest this? yes, right? OK, here’s a repeat. read this

:shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=16451

or this

shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=70

and this woman is brilliant
ourfatherswillcommunications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TOTBMC&Product_Code=JS13-C&Category_Code=JS

 

[Persuader]

persuader,

i, too, think you were serious and was just now posting the twin response to Lib’s.

please do your brain a favor. read anything about theology of the body. you have ZERO understanding of the Catholic (aka authentic) view of sex. you really need some schooling.

this thread is so long i forgot-- did anyone suggest this? yes, right? OK, here’s a repeat. read this

:shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=16451

or this

shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=70

and this woman is brilliant
ourfatherswillcommunications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TOTBMC&Product_Code=JS13-C&Category_Code=JS

Yeah, yeah. Look, I wasn’t referring to sex. Where did I mention sex? I said “touching”. Of course I would respect their rules whilst staying at their house. I am not uncivilized.

Now, I am not catholic, and I very much doubt I will be copying their views on sex. I heard, for instance, that I really shouldn’t even be wearing a condom in marital sex. Forget that. If my gf will not use contraceptives, I will. And I am awaiting the male pill.

 

[agapewolf]

Yeah, yeah. Look, I wasn’t referring to sex. Where did I mention sex? I said “touching”. Of course I would respect their rules whilst staying at their house. I am not uncivilized.

Now, I am not catholic, and I very much doubt I will be copying their views on sex. I heard, for instance, that I really shouldn’t even be wearing a condom in marital sex. Forget that. If my gf will not use contraceptives, I will. And I am awaiting the male pill.

So you have faith in condoms? Just so you know, there are no accurate statistics of how artificial birth control is effective. It’s impossible, because it doesn’t take into account infertile times.

NFP, however, does. WAY more effective than any kind of ABC.

 

[Persuader]

So you have faith in condoms? Just so you know, there are no accurate statistics of how artificial birth control is effective. It’s impossible, because it doesn’t take into account infertile times.

NFP, however, does. WAY more effective than any kind of ABC.

I doubt if it’s more effective than what my gf is on now, as it is has better success rate than sterilization. Condoms are pretty effective when used right. About 2% chance of getting pregnant in one year (if used right) if I remember correctly. We will see about the male pill.

 

[agapewolf]

I doubt if it’s more effective than what my gf is on now, as it is has better success rate than sterilization. Condoms are pretty effective when used right. About 2% chance of getting pregnant in one year (if used right) if I remember correctly. We will see about the male pill.

You aren’t reading.

The stats do not take into account the fertile/nonfertile times. Your 2% chance of getting pregnant with a condom is NOT an accurate statistic. 75% of the time that it was used a pregnancy wouldn’t have happened in the first place because the woman was infertile. So of the 25% of the time it was used when the woman was, many of those women would not have conceived for different reasons. So we are looking at less than a 15% success rate here, at best.

You can’t believe in God, when the earth exists to prove His existence, but you can trust that the people doling out contraceptives are giving you accurate statistics. Interesting where you put your faith.

 

[Persuader]

You aren’t reading.

The stats do not take into account the fertile/nonfertile times. Your 2% chance of getting pregnant with a condom is NOT an accurate statistic. 75% of the time that it was used a pregnancy wouldn’t have happened in the first place because the woman was infertile. So of the 25% of the time it was used when the woman was, many of those women would not have conceived for different reasons. So we are looking at less than a 15% success rate here, at best.

You can’t believe in God, when the earth exists to prove His existence, but you can trust that the people doling out contraceptives are giving you accurate statistics. Interesting where you put your faith.

What did the stats say? It gives a success rate of 2% (if used correctly). That means you have a 2% chance of getting pregnant by one year of use. That is what the stats say. What is the meaning of giving a 15% success rate? Is it right that you have a 15% chance of getting pregnant by one year of use (if used correctly). No, it isn’t. As you can see, you trying to break down the numbers, doesn’t change the fact of what I said.

 

[Norseman82]

I was only joking, calm down

Besides, I wasn’t talking about sex. I was talking about making out.

So you think this is a big joke, huh?

And let me get this straight - you say you are willing to stop the fornication, yet you are planning to find a place where you can be “alone” to engage in a behavior that will “get the juices flowing” with a woman who has an addiction to sex (and yes, I DO believe she has an addiction here). Do you honestly think this is going to work???

http://wasteddomain.com/gallery/d/568-1/picard-sigh.jpg

 

[agapewolf]

What did the stats say? It gives a success rate of 2% (if used correctly). That means you have a 2% chance of getting pregnant by one year of use. That is what the stats say. What is the meaning of giving a 15% success rate? Is it right that you have a 15% chance of getting pregnant by one year of use (if used correctly). No, it isn’t. As you can see, you trying to break down the numbers, doesn’t change the fact of what I said.

I explained it well enough… read what I am saying. The statistics are wrong…they are misleading. Do you undertsand the female body and how at least 75% of the time a woman can’t get pregnant? The 2 % statistic means absolutely nothing, because it does not take into account the fact that there would be no conception anyway.

I’m saying the condom works less than 15% of the time, at best.

You are not stating facts, you are stating some statistic that you read somewhere, and I’m telling you that it isn’t reliable…you seem to put your faith in people that are trying to sell things and put out an agenda, yet you can’t put faith in God.

 

[Norseman82]

persuader,

i, too, think you were serious and was just now posting the twin response to Lib’s.

please do your brain a favor. read anything about theology of the body. you have ZERO understanding of the Catholic (aka authentic) view of sex. you really need some schooling.

this thread is so long i forgot-- did anyone suggest this? yes, right? OK, here’s a repeat. read this

:shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=16451

or this

shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=70

and this woman is brilliant
ourfatherswillcommunications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TOTBMC&Product_Code=JS13-C&Category_Code=JS

Here’s another good speaker to check out:

youtube.com/watch?v=f_mMwiXZdCg

 

[flyingfish]

I explained it well enough… read what I am saying. The statistics are wrong…they are misleading. Do you undertsand the female body and how at least 75% of the time a woman can’t get pregnant? The 2 % statistic means absolutely nothing, because it does not take into account the fact that there would be no conception anyway.

I’m saying the condom works less than 15% of the time, at best.

You are not stating facts, you are stating some statistic that you read somewhere, and I’m telling you that it isn’t reliable…you seem to put your faith in people that are trying to sell things and put out an agenda, yet you can’t put faith in God.

Not arguing for contraception, but I don’t think you can say the condom works 15% of the time that way.

The statistics is something like:

-in one year 2 out of 100 couples using condoms will experience a pregnancy.
-85 out of 100 couples using no contraception at all will get pregnant.

So by using condoms 83/100 couples who would have gotten pregnant otherwise, did not.

But this doesn’t mean it works x% of the time. The statistics are done for a whole year, for 100 couples.

Assume for convenience that there are 10 days in a month when a woman can get pregnant, and that each of those 100 couples have sex on every fertile day in the month.

So that means 120 fertile days a year. That means 100 * 120 = 12000 fertile sex acts by 100 couples.

Out of all those, 2 pregnancies. So that’s 2/12000 * 100% = 0.017% for one fertile sex act with a condom probability of getting pregnant. (And if you s one couple have 120 fertile sex acts in a year, that turns 2.04% per year)

I don’t think you can do the same calculation for the couples using no contraception, because since 85/100 get pregnant we don’t know if they get pregnant on the first time they have sex or the last. And once you get pregnant you can’t get pregnant again while still being pregnant. This issue is still there with the condom users, but since there’s only 2 of them that get pregnant, it doesn’t have a big effect on the number of fertile sex acts they have.

 

[Norseman82]

However you derive your statistics, there is only one case that we know of in all recorded history where abstinence failed.

And we get a day off in December as a result.

 

[agapewolf]

Not arguing for contraception, but I don’t think you can say the condom works 15% of the time that way.

The statistics is something like:

-in one year 2 out of 100 couples using condoms will experience a pregnancy.
-85 out of 100 couples using no contraception at all will get pregnant.

So by using condoms 83/100 couples who would have gotten pregnant otherwise, did not.

But this doesn’t mean it works x% of the time. The statistics are done for a whole year, for 100 couples.

Assume for convenience that there are 10 days in a month when a woman can get pregnant, and that each of those 100 couples have sex on every fertile day in the month.

So that means 120 fertile days a year. That means 100 * 120 = 12000 fertile sex acts by 100 couples.

Out of all those, 2 pregnancies. So that’s 2/12000 * 100% = 0.017% for one fertile sex act with a condom probability of getting pregnant. (And if you s one couple have 120 fertile sex acts in a year, that turns 2.04% per year)

I don’t think you can do the same calculation for the couples using no contraception, because since 85/100 get pregnant we don’t know if they get pregnant on the first time they have sex or the last. And once you get pregnant you can’t get pregnant again while still being pregnant. This issue is still there with the condom users, but since there’s only 2 of them that get pregnant, it doesn’t have a big effect on the number of fertile sex acts they have.

I threw out the 15% randomly, but my point is that the statistics were NOT taking from ONLY fertile times. They include non-fertile times as well, which cannot count towards a statistic…they wouldnt’ have gotten pregnant anyway. and I wonder where the figure that 85/100 couples would have gotten pregnant anyway comes from.

The stat I believe comes from the fact that 2% of the times that condoms were used, there was conception.

 

[flyingfish]

I threw out the 15% randomly, but my point is that the statistics were NOT taking from ONLY fertile times. They include non-fertile times as well, which cannot count towards a statistic…they wouldnt’ have gotten pregnant anyway. and I wonder where the figure that 85/100 couples would have gotten pregnant anyway comes from.

The stat I believe comes from the fact that 2% of the times that condoms were used, there was conception.

I gave the source in my post for the statistics: link

But it has to do with the way you get them in the first place. You can’t very well take a single couple using condoms and get the chance of pregnancy from them. You need to look at a large number of couples to get a result that means anything.

You might take 100 couples using condoms, keep track of them for a year, and record how many of them got pregnant. (Similarly you might look at 100 couples who aren’t using any methods of contraception for a year and note how many get pregnant.)

In my calculation I only used the fertile times.

 

[agapewolf]

I gave the source in my post for the statistics: link

But it has to do with the way you get them in the first place. You can’t very well take a single couple using condoms and get the chance of pregnancy from them. You need to look at a large number of couples to get a result that means anything.

You might take 100 couples using condoms, keep track of them for a year, and record how many of them got pregnant. (Similarly you might look at 100 couples who aren’t using any methods of contraception for a year and note how many get pregnant.)

In my calculation I only used the fertile times.

Your statistic does not match up… the number of pregnancies that would have happened is not based in reality.

 

[flyingfish]

Your statistic does not match up… the number of pregnancies that would have happened is not based in reality.

Well, that particular statistic is for correct and consistent use of condoms, i.e. “perfect use”. When people either don’t always use, or use incorrectly it’s more than 2 pregnancies per 100 women per year.

But I don’t see why it’s unrealistic to you, if it’s 2% chance per year to get pregnant, you’d expect to have your “accident” in 50 years (with perfect use).

“Typical use” (i.e. people not using condoms correctly, or not always using) is 15 pregnancies per 100 women per year. I googled this a bit, these statistics seem to be stated in many different sources.

Here’s the WHO link: who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/

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.

They have perfect use statistics for 3 per 100 per year, and typical use as 10-14 per 100 per year.

If it were 2% per one act of sex as what you think it means, then condoms wouldn’t be effective at all. It would mean that after 50 acts of sex you’d expect to get pregnant. That’s not what’s observed.

 

[BrokenFortress]

The statistics being stated here all kind of confuse me, but the thing I’m wonder for the stat on who got pregnant without any contraceptives, were those people not charting when they could get pregnant? Because then the two stats aren’t really comparing the same thing.

If they’re taking the stats on couples who got pregnant while trying to avoid, then it would at least be close to similar. But if they’re having sex any time of the month, then of course their pregnancy rate is going to be higher. Because they had sex during a fertile time.

I just don’t know that you can compare the two things.

 

[agapewolf]

My point is still being missed entirely.

These statistics for condom use do not take into consideration that most of the time, and woman could NOT have conceived anyway. NFP stats are at least somewhat reliable because they take the fertile times into consideration.

My challege to the OP is the faith they are putting in these stats when they are outright lies… , yet the OP does not have faith in God.