PDA

View Full Version : Why do people do this



317Kim
11-02-2005, 07:02 PM
:rolleyes: people these days...

Shade
11-02-2005, 07:03 PM
When you are ****ing 18, 19 and 20 years old, why would you

A. Have unprotected sex knowing what diseases go around

and

B. Let a dude bust inside of you?


At my place of work, we have three new people that just found out they were pregnant this week, and I am close to one of the girls. She just turned ****ing 19 years old, and she has been dating the baby father for all of 2 weeks.

Ill never understand the decisions some people make in life....

A. A feeling of immortaility, usually stemming from a lack of significant loss,

and

B. Hormones are a more powerful driving force than virtually everything. Most people simply don't have very strong wills. If anything, my will is too damn strong. :(

SoupIsGood
11-02-2005, 07:03 PM
Life is not fair

Shade
11-02-2005, 07:04 PM
Life is not fair

I'm living proof of that, unfortunately. :cry:

317Kim
11-02-2005, 07:21 PM
I'm living proof of that, unfortunately. :cry:

:console:

travmil
11-02-2005, 07:24 PM
I'm living proof of this fact. My daughter was born less than a month after I graduated high school and is now 10 years old. Hormones, man I tell ya. And have you seen how these chicks are dressing these days? They didn't do that back in my day and I had trouble then. I can't even imagine if I was a teenager today...

Pacersfan46
11-02-2005, 09:35 PM
Why do people think condoms help stop diseases? I still haven't figured that out. Let's check a couple facts, and let me ask you a question ....

A - Condoms only work on sperm roughly 75% of the time, ask the condom companies yourself ....

B - STD's are a viris. Those virus's are 450 times smaller than sperm.

So, if condoms only work 75% of the time on sperm, how often do you think it works on something 450 times smaller? Just a common sense deduction here.

Hicks
11-02-2005, 10:39 PM
Yeah, that's a reason to just not use them at all. :rolleyes:

Pacersfan46
11-02-2005, 10:41 PM
I never said that. Did I? Okay then, so roll your eyes at yourself. Slightly annoying when people think they're so smart they can infer something that was never implied.

They obviously don't hurt, but people act like they're a sure fire bet against any problems related to having sex.

SoupIsGood
11-02-2005, 11:18 PM
B - STD's are a viris. Those virus's are 450 times smaller than sperm.

So, if condoms only work 75% of the time on sperm, how often do you think it works on something 450 times smaller? Just a common sense deduction here.

Myth.

8.9_seconds
11-02-2005, 11:26 PM
I could be wrong, but I believe I've read all over the place that condoms are around 97% effective...unless I'm missing something.

SoupIsGood
11-02-2005, 11:28 PM
Scientific research by a group including the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms ... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus ... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".

http://www.unknownnews.net/031010vatican.html


The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples—couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not (166, 557). Studies of such couples have found low risks of HIV infection among consistent condom users (22, 166, 167, 177, 311, 378, 416, 557). In three recent studies infection rates were less than 1% per year among consistent condom users (134, 141, 473). A multicountry European study of 256 HIV-discordant couples followed for an average of 20 months found that not one infection occurred among such couples using condoms during every sex act (134).


Perfect use effectiveness. Among people who use condoms consistently and correctly, pregnancy rates are fairly low—about 3 pregnancies per 100 women in the first year of use. By comparison, sterilization, Norplant® implants, the TCu-380A IUD, long-acting injectables, and, when used correctly, oral contraceptives have the lowest observed rates of about one pregnancy or less per 100 women in the first year of use (538).

Typical use effectiveness. Typical use effectiveness varies greatly in various studies and among groups within studies. For example, DHS data suggest pregnancy rates per 100 first-year condom users of over 16 in Egypt, almost 6 in Indonesia, and over 8 in Thailand (20). The estimated typical pregnancy rate among condom users in the US is about 14 per 100 women. This rate is higher than for most other methods (367, 537, 538).



http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4_2.shtml

Pacersfan46
11-03-2005, 03:34 AM
How about you try "saying what you mean" not "meaning what you say"

You made it sound like condoms wouldnt help ****. Truth is, it can help enough, and frankly, hitting it raw is just plain stupid, IMO

I did say what I meant, it's not my fault your powers of deduction are horrific. You even admit as much even by saying "you made it sound" .... exactly. You inferred what you assumed I meant, because it wasn't actually there.

As for Soups information, you can believe what you want. There are links on the internet stating just about everything medically. Including on this matter. One day an egg is good for you, the next day a study says an egg is bad for you. They can't make up their minds about anything. I could easily come up with 20 links stating how condoms don't work nearly as well as your link claims, does that make one more right than the other? No.

I'd rather err on the side of common sense. Which is on my side of the argument. As I've said, you can call the condom companies themselves. I believe the exact number was 78% of condoms worked. Unless they've had some major break through since I was going through a medical class in which that fact was laid out in front of us .... I sure can't explain the huge jump in effectivness.

This doesn't even begin to mention that I knew a lady who after a divorce was curious if she could even get a man, as she was getting fairly old. She had sex ONE time, with a condom, and ended up pregnant. Not only that, but the baby has an menal illness, and now she'll spend the rest of her life taking care of him. Even though she acted "responsiblly" according to some here. I haven't sworn off sex all together, but it's actually crossed my mind. The trouble it can bring is nowhere near the fun you get out of it. Whether it be a spiteful ex taking half your check to get her hair done ... I mean ... for diapers. Or whatever else.

You want to avoid STD's, and pregnancy. Don't use condoms .... the solution is to not have sex.

Suaveness
11-03-2005, 07:54 AM
Just wait till you're married. And don't get married before you get out of college. That's all I have to say.

Anthem
11-03-2005, 02:45 PM
Just wait till you're married. And don't get married before you get out of college. That's all I have to say.

Worked for me, and I have no regrets.

Kaufman
11-03-2005, 08:50 PM
Break it down VA!!!

travmil
11-03-2005, 10:45 PM
I always put on three. In case two break.

Pacers#1Fan
11-03-2005, 11:10 PM
I always put on three. In case two break.That would be a little uncomfortable.

Pacersfan46
11-04-2005, 03:43 AM
Wow, acting hard over the internet.

Must make you feel really big

How was I 'acting hard'? All I did was explain how he can't infer something that wasn't there, and then used even his wording to explain that it is, in fact what he did.

Did I say I was going to beat him up? Say anything about meeting me in a parking lot or something? You're silly.

:laugh:

PHC Fan
11-04-2005, 05:14 PM
just turned ****ing 19 years old, and she has been dating the baby father for all of 2 weeks.

Ill never understand the decisions some people make in life....
That man isn't the baby's father. At least, the chances are really, really slim. I have three kids, so I'm pretty familiar with how the whole 40 week gestational period works.

Since86
11-04-2005, 05:25 PM
That would be a little uncomfortable.


Might last a little long than the 2mins the rest of us do.......:blush: :blush: :blush:

Wait.....I mean.:D

Pacersfan46
11-05-2005, 03:20 AM
I never said it was fact. I said it was a common sense deduction. Reread it.

Again, there is no such thing as a fact in medical science. Hell they said "alcoholism is genetic", and it was all over the news. Months later when they changed their minds and said "Oh, we messed up, it's not genetic", it wasn't reported anywhere, and people still believe it's genetic. The only one who knows the "facts" are god himself. If he exists. Otherwise the rest is conjecture.

However, I surely don't trust just "studies" as those "studies" are funded by people with agenda's. If you haven't read "Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About", do so. Some of what he says sounds asinine, but a lot of it is grounded in truth, and makes complete sense.

Regardless, back to the orginal point, I say my view is the side where common sense is laid because it comes from the condom companies themselves. If they had any reason to lie, it would be a lie that made their product sound better, not worse. Otherwise people won't buy them. Then by studying the size of sperm when compared to a virus it's just absolute common sense that the virus will find it's way through the condom much easier.

Lastly, as far as the "acting hard", if that's the case, then wouldn't his smart *** comment and "rolling eyes" smiley account for acting hard as well? In which case I'm just fighting fire with fire, and you should be riding him for it, not me.

SoupIsGood
11-05-2005, 04:14 AM
Look, viruses transmitted through secretions like semen or vaginal fluids (especially HIV) simply do not penetrate latex very well at all. Proven fact. The animal tissue condom things are a different story however. Same with diseases that create an ugly mess on the skin in your genital area that the condom cannot cover, condoms obviously won't help a whole lot with preventing those from spreading.

What you're describing sounds like the very nature of science. Question, re-question; prove, disprove. However, if you want to actually disprove something, don't just cast it aside because nothing is ever 100% assured of being true. Go get your own damn research that suggests the contrary and maybe you can say the info doesn't matter. Ignoring something because there may have been an "agenda" is a cop-out IMO. When ever someone sees something they don't agree with, it seems they pull the "agenda" card. Please.

You can make all the deductions you want, but don't try to convince us that this deduction is common OR makes any kind of sense. You're basing it all off one one stat you heard from a condom company (which can easily be explained if you look at the improper usuage %'s and allow some +/- leeway), and have chosen to ignore ALL other information. Please excuse me if the 'common sense' in all this isn't exactly slapping me in the face.

Fool
11-05-2005, 04:18 AM
Lastly, as far as the "acting hard", if that's the case, then wouldn't his smart *** comment and "rolling eyes" smiley account for acting hard as well? In which case I'm just fighting fire with fire, and you should be riding him for it, not me.

Of course not, because you disagree with him in a very strong way on a subject he expected to receive nothing but support on.

Btw, my daughter was conceived despite the correct use of a condom. It also happened to be the first time I had had occation to use one. While this anecdotal evidence is far from scientific, I don't find it hard to believe that condoms are less than 99% effective. I rather prefer to believe however, that it was simply my daughter's steely determination that latex companies had little to no chance of matching up against.

SoupIsGood
11-05-2005, 04:27 AM
Saying what you mean....


Meaning what you say....


:confused:

I still don't get that... isn't it the same thing? :duh:

Pacersfan46
11-05-2005, 09:06 AM
Soup -

I understand a lot of what you're saying, but you still cannot explain to me why a condom company would do a study, and while doing so sabotage the results against themselves by using incorrecly placed condoms. They want to shed the brightest light possible on their product. Doing a study that would in any way skew the results out of their favor would be stupid.

SoupIsGood
11-05-2005, 09:51 AM
I worngly labeled it as 'incorrect' usage there. (:sigh) It's actually typical usage, which I'd guess is a mix of correct and incorrect usage. I would imagine that most condom companies do both types of studies, perfect and typical usage, to test the effectiveness of their product. Maybe you only got the results of the 'typical' sudy? Maybe they make really bad condoms? I don't know.


My main point is this: A condom's effectiveness against viruses like HIV comes and goes with the condom's overall evectiveness. Condoms obviously aren't miracle products and defintely have their faults, but viruses don't slip through the latex at a significantly higher rate because of their smaller size.

Pacersfan46
11-05-2005, 09:46 PM
Im glad you can get into my head........

Oh wait, you cant, and you have no clue what the **** you are talking about.........

If you want to play mind-reader, go do it with someone who has the time to deal with that BS.


Wow, acting hard over the internet.

Must make you feel really big

Sound familiar?

Pacersfan46
11-05-2005, 10:37 PM
So, suddenly you want to go by my definition of acting hard, because you did the exact same thing as me.

I mean, wouldn't want to admit to being a hypocrite, would we?

Pacersfan46
11-05-2005, 10:52 PM
Of course it is ... of course it is ;) Including your use of vulgar language, right? So it really is, I suppose. Yours goes even beyond mine.

How would I be a hypocrite? I haven't done anything I've pointed the finger at someone else for.

Regardless, I'm done with this topic.

H_Saur
12-02-2005, 06:23 PM
It's a crazy world. Atleast I had some sense when I was that age.

Harmonica
12-02-2005, 06:44 PM
You want to avoid STD's, and pregnancy. Don't use condoms .... the solution is to not have sex.

You're either a.) asexual, b.) asexual, or c.) asexual.

Anthem
12-02-2005, 07:44 PM
You're either a.) asexual, b.) asexual, or c.) asexual.
Or patient.

Harmonica
12-02-2005, 07:53 PM
Or patient.

This from a guy who got married before he got out of college.

Anthem
12-02-2005, 11:01 PM
This from a guy who got married before he got out of college.
I think you've got me confused with somebody else.

I wasn't even engaged until 6 months after I graduated.

Harmonica
12-02-2005, 11:17 PM
I think you've got me confused with somebody else.

I wasn't even engaged until 6 months after I graduated.


Just wait till you're married. And don't get married before you get out of college. That's all I have to say.

Worked for me, and I have no regrets.


....

Anthem
12-02-2005, 11:21 PM
I'm not seeing a contradiction here. I'm affirming what my good friend Suaveness said.

Am I the only one that reads it that way?

Harmonica
12-02-2005, 11:23 PM
Man, that's impressive. Have you been saving that for a rainy day?

That being said, I'm not seeing a contradiction here. I'm affirming what my good friend Suaveness said.

Am I the only one that reads it that way?

Hmm. Could be read either way. And no, I wasn't saving that for a rainy day. I responded to the thread earlier today and saw your post.

Anthem
12-02-2005, 11:40 PM
Ok, I re-read the thread. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. It doesn't look like a statement that goes either way, it looks like me saying I waited and it worked for me.

You know where I'm coming from here. I believe it's better not to have sex outside of a marriage relationship. I never said it's easy. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm magically immune to hormones. But I control them, they don't control me.

Faith and morality aside (heck, even pregnancy and STDs aside), it just makes sense. I know a lot of people whose lives would have been a whole lot better if they could have kept from jumping in the sack.

SycamoreKen
12-03-2005, 01:31 AM
Ok, I re-read the thread. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. It doesn't look like a statement that goes either way, it looks like me saying I waited and it worked for me.

You know where I'm coming from here. I believe it's better not to have sex outside of a marriage relationship. I never said it's easy. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm magically immune to hormones. But I control them, they don't control me.

Faith and morality aside (heck, even pregnancy and STDs aside), it just makes sense. I know a lot of people whose lives would have been a whole lot better if they could have kept from jumping in the sack.

Anthem don't you realize what you are saying? That would mean that people would have have self-control, self responsibility, and the ability to live their lives at a higher level than a common ***** in heat or stray alley dog looking for the next one. We live in the era of "it's not my fault so don't blame me".

Since the people involved were not wise enough to keep this situation from happening, they will probably just visit a clinic to take care of the problem.

Pacersfan46
12-03-2005, 11:16 AM
You're either a.) asexual, b.) asexual, or c.) asexual.

Where did I say that's what I do? :laugh:

Harmonica
12-03-2005, 01:38 PM
Ok, I re-read the thread. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. It doesn't look like a statement that goes either way, it looks like me saying I waited and it worked for me.

It could go either way. You wrote it, so you see it the way you intended. I interpreted it the exact opposite. I'll even break it down for you:

"And don't get married before you get out of college. That's all I have to say."

To which you responded:

"Worked for me, and I have no regrets."

Which could be interpreted as: Hey, I got married before I got out of college and it worked for me. So there goes your theory.

In other words, you're dispelling his notion. Seems pretty clear to me.

Hicks
12-03-2005, 01:58 PM
Anthem don't you realize what you are saying? That would mean that people would have have self-control, self responsibility, and the ability to live their lives at a higher level than a common ***** in heat or stray alley dog looking for the next one. We live in the era of "it's not my fault so don't blame me".

Since the people involved were not wise enough to keep this situation from happening, they will probably just visit a clinic to take care of the problem.

I agree with you. This is a very me-first society that when something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault.

Hicks
12-03-2005, 04:30 PM
va, I can't speak for SycamoreKen, but personally I am being general when I say that.

Anthem
12-03-2005, 04:37 PM
EDIT: Just for the record Anthem, when I first read this thought, I also thought you meant you had gotten married while you were still in college.....
Fair enough. I'll be more explicit next time.

Hicks
12-03-2005, 04:42 PM
va, it means you have a heart.

SycamoreKen
12-04-2005, 01:33 AM
I have no idea what your friend's situation is, I was talking in broad terms. Did she have to sleep with him in the first place in order to stay with him? It's too bad she is in this situation, and I do hope she is doing well. My point was, and still is, that people need to look before they leap and think about the big picture.

SycamoreKen
12-04-2005, 05:27 PM
As for your first question, I have no clue..

I agree with your overall point.

Sorry if I sound touchy, like I said this one just hit a little to close to home..

I understand. I have relatives and former students that have put themselves in the same situation. Its hard to deal with.

Hicks
12-06-2005, 12:27 AM
Your slang makes infants cry.

SycamoreKen
12-06-2005, 08:17 PM
Just to answer your question SycamoreKen, I heard some **** on the sneak today.

Supposedly dude was not dating younger, but they was just messing around.

She had a mans at the time, and they was all chilling, whatever, whatever.

I heard that she was all about telling him she was just trying to "have a good time" and he was cool with that.

I just heard this jonk today, but if that is true, then Im not sure what they expected to happen.

If you dont pull out, babies happen.

Either way, its hard to tell. They was beefing, I guess she gots a new man, but I aint triopping none.

They be to much drama round the way, and its kind of trufling how they business all on the streets like that.

I just hope they can put the beef aside and do what they do when the child is born. The child aint go no choice on what fam. it was born into, sadly...

Cool. Thanks for the lowdown.

I like tha slang. It makes your stuff fun to read. Does "trufling" mean "trifling?"

8.9_seconds
08-15-2006, 02:02 PM
Sorry for the resurrection, but I didn' really want to start another thread.

I was listening to my friends having a discussion a while back about condoms and birth control and I just wanted to know which was correct.

One of them was scared that the condom may have broken while during one of her 'sex sessions', but wasn't sure.

The other told her that there was no way she/he (her man) could have not felt it.

My question is, Is there anyway that the man wouldn't be able to feel it if it did break; and what about small rips or tears?

Hicks
08-15-2006, 03:31 PM
If it was a gaping hole in the condom, he'd likely feel it, but I wouldn't bet on feeling a small tear.

vapacersfan
08-15-2006, 06:19 PM
It is possible for a condom to break, and at times it is even possible for a condom to fall off and for a person to not realize it.