Sure but its about the same rate as female birth control. also fertilization cant happen every single day of the month, so in your scenario you only gotta worry about 2 to 3 days a month, when you could use condoms if you were really worried about it.
This is a fantastic alternative to the hell hormonal birth control can be for women.
Am a dude on thyroid medications - hormonal impacting drugs and hormone variations are fucking brutal.
I talked with my wife to get off BC and we started using condoms again after my ordeal of getting stable with thyroid meds. I was like why would you take that shit when condoms exist.
For folks saying 99% whatever - like my condom busts up 1 in 50 or so. So might be better odds on a med.
Contraceptive effectiveness is usually not measured by number of times sex happened, it’s measured by comparing how many pregnancies happen in comparison with the normally expected in a given time period.
The abject lack of sex isn’t a way to make sex safer. It’s dodging the danger of sex, not addressing it. Abstinence has 0% effectiveness as safe sex, as the lack of sex is not at all related to safe sex.
Playing linguistics games is exactly how abstinence gets pushed in the first place. Agreeing that these games are accurate, when they are wholley not, just reinforces those regressive polices.
It really is, avoiding risk vs mitigating risk. Birth control is summarized as avoiding unwanted pregnancies, not about baby safe sex.
And I’m not saying “don’t have sex if you don’t want babies” because that’s stupid ass argument considering we have so many other options for birth control for you to choose from
Even after tubal litigation it’s possible to still get pregnant if the fallopian tubes grow back together or if another tube/path forms. It’s somewhat rare (0.5% of women who have had the procedure could get pregnant again)
Vasectomies are a lot easier to double check. A woman released 1 egg a month. A man released a LOT of swimmers every shot. Go in a cup and check for swimmers.
Yeah sure but that’s not what sterilisation means. To be sterile means you’re not making any gametes whatsoever, which typically means a complete removal of the gonads (ie an oophrectomy or orchidectomy). Otherwise you’re not sterile, you’re just infertile.
That’s not how those percentages are calculated. It’s not per instance of intercourse, it’s how many couples end up pregnant after being sexually active for a year. 99% means you have a 1% chance of getting a woman pregnant if you’re sexually active throughout a year.
Bro, are you seriously against male contraception? The pill has failure rates of 9 friggin’ percent of typical use. 99% for typical use would be amazing.
99% effective is nowhere near 100%, perhaps counterintuitively. Sex twice a week for a year and you’re probably in deep shit.
Sure but its about the same rate as female birth control. also fertilization cant happen every single day of the month, so in your scenario you only gotta worry about 2 to 3 days a month, when you could use condoms if you were really worried about it.
This is a fantastic alternative to the hell hormonal birth control can be for women.
Am a dude on thyroid medications - hormonal impacting drugs and hormone variations are fucking brutal.
I talked with my wife to get off BC and we started using condoms again after my ordeal of getting stable with thyroid meds. I was like why would you take that shit when condoms exist.
For folks saying 99% whatever - like my condom busts up 1 in 50 or so. So might be better odds on a med.
I used to have the same issue with condoms, but closer to 1 in 3. It might be worth shopping around for condoms with a better fit
Contraceptive effectiveness is usually not measured by number of times sex happened, it’s measured by comparing how many pregnancies happen in comparison with the normally expected in a given time period.
Condoms are only 97% effective.
The 99% effectiveness is measured in the aggregate, not “have sex 100 times and you have a baby.”
The only birth control that is 100% effective is not having sex.
Abstinence is not birth control.
That’s like saying the only way to build a house that doesn’t fall down is to not build the house.
Abstinence is extremely effective. However, it’s impractical and associated with moralists and the piss-poor “sex education” that Americans get.
But it is 100% effective.
And yes, the best way to build a house that will never, ever fall down is to not build one. It is impractical, and beside the point, but it is true!
The abject lack of sex isn’t a way to make sex safer. It’s dodging the danger of sex, not addressing it. Abstinence has 0% effectiveness as safe sex, as the lack of sex is not at all related to safe sex.
Playing linguistics games is exactly how abstinence gets pushed in the first place. Agreeing that these games are accurate, when they are wholley not, just reinforces those regressive polices.
It really is, avoiding risk vs mitigating risk. Birth control is summarized as avoiding unwanted pregnancies, not about baby safe sex.
And I’m not saying “don’t have sex if you don’t want babies” because that’s stupid ass argument considering we have so many other options for birth control for you to choose from
The only safe way to fly is to not fly.
It’s not birth control.
Vasectomies aren’t 100% foolproof.
Now how in the hell is female sterilization not 100%?
Even after tubal litigation it’s possible to still get pregnant if the fallopian tubes grow back together or if another tube/path forms. It’s somewhat rare (0.5% of women who have had the procedure could get pregnant again)
Isn’t there a chance vasectomies don’t take either?
It’s a lot easier to double check in men.
It’s almost 100% because “proper usage” includes periodic checks.
But the same thing can happen with vasectomies so why isn’t it showing anything there?
Vasectomies are a lot easier to double check. A woman released 1 egg a month. A man released a LOT of swimmers every shot. Go in a cup and check for swimmers.
Yeah sure but that’s not what sterilisation means. To be sterile means you’re not making any gametes whatsoever, which typically means a complete removal of the gonads (ie an oophrectomy or orchidectomy). Otherwise you’re not sterile, you’re just infertile.
Guessing it’s more female “sterilization”
I remember hearing that in rare cases, getting their tubes tied can actually heal.
OK that’s great and everything and hurrah for the snipped, V for Victory yadda yadda…
But really, a chart on contraception made by Dr. Dick Beatty?!
I’m crying over here
I don’t get it. Does that mean on average a couple using condoms for 10 years will be pregnant 1.5 times?
The only birth control that is 100% effective is having HOT GAY SEX™
Alternatively become a Buddhist monk and hit yourself in the balls until you’re infertile, I guess
And there I was, thinking my vagina must be broken because I somehow still haven’t got my girlfriend pregnant 🤦♀️
Go back to the dark ages already
That’s not how those percentages are calculated. It’s not per instance of intercourse, it’s how many couples end up pregnant after being sexually active for a year. 99% means you have a 1% chance of getting a woman pregnant if you’re sexually active throughout a year.
Is that any different than the pill or other contraception methods?
Bro, are you seriously against male contraception? The pill has failure rates of 9 friggin’ percent of typical use. 99% for typical use would be amazing.
If you combine it with the 99.9% (made up number) of condoms then you are pretty damn safe tho.
Or just the wrong hole at the wrong time.