people these days...
A. A feeling of immortaility, usually stemming from a lack of significant loss,
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.
Life is not fair
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
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...
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.
Yeah, that's a reason to just not use them at all.
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.
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.
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".
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).
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
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.
Just wait till you're married. And don't get married before you get out of college. That's all I have to say.
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.
Break it down VA!!!
"Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman
I always put on three. In case two break.
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.
"If I have the ball, I will shoot it, you have to believe that," - Stephen Jackson
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.
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.
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
Of course not, because you disagree with him in a very strong way on a subject he expected to receive nothing but support on.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.
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.
Saying what you mean....
Meaning what you say....
I still don't get that... isn't it the same thing?
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?