fchan

discussion

Friends WITH Benifits

Pages:1 41 81
49Report
at 10 Jun 2006: 17:32

>>42  >>43
what ARE you talking about? if there is, for example, a 10% faliure rate, and nothing happened the first 8 times, then that does NOT mean there is a 50% chance of faliure the next time. there is still just a 10% chance.

you can do it a hundred times, and it would STILL mean that there is a 10% chance of faliure the next time. chance does not know what you did previously. every time is a clean slate with chance. (it's another story with jake, tho :)

50Report
at 10 Jun 2006: 18:07

>>49
OVERALL.  If a type of condom has a 10% failure rate, how many times can you expect to use that condom without any failures?  Well, there is a 50% chance of AT LEAST one failure in 7 trials.

Yes, there is a 10% chance of failure each time you use it.  But if you have sex with that condom 7 times, there is only a 50% chance that there was no failure in those 7 times.  There's also a nonzero (although increasingly unlikely) chance that there were 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 failures.

>>47
>>48
No lies.  However, I might have misinterpreted those stats, since Wikipedia doesn't really say.  So, okay, 3% annual failure with perfect use still isn't perfect.  It's low, but not negligible.  And clearly 15% isn't.  If that's what those stats do mean, there still must be controls in determining them.  (Perhaps sex twice or thrice a week.)  The more promiscuous (and irresponsible) you are, however, the higher you can expect your annual failure rate to be.

If I was correct in my interpretation of those stats, then let me at least qualify one thing.  A failure of a condom doesn't necessarily imply that a pregnancy will happen.  I'm not saying that with 15% failure rate, there will be a pregnancy 50% of the time after five uses.  After all, if no condom is used at all, that doesn't necessarily mean that a pregnancy will ensue.  What is the probability of a pregnancy GIVEN that the condom has failed?

I'll try to get to the bottom of those Wikipedia stats.

51Report
at 10 Jun 2006: 18:08

>>46 in the case of pregnancy, there are only two options: Abort, or give birth. If birth is chosen, adoption becomes an additional choice.

52Report
at 10 Jun 2006: 19:30

>>51
Thank you.  Now as I said, abortion is not an option for me because I believe it's a grave sin.  But what would YOU do?

53Report
at 10 Jun 2006: 20:34

>>48
Okay, I think you're right.  We're talking about an annual rate.  So with a typical annual failure rate of 15%, over a span of five years, you can expect a >50% chance of pregnancy.

You'd better make damn sure every single time that you're using the condom correctly so you can achieve the 3% annual rate.  Then your chance of pregnancy will be a "mere" 14% over the same period.  I don't know if the 3% rate takes into account breaks and slips, which DO happen from time to time.  It's perfect, ideal use.

Now let me ask again, but a little more specifically:
What would you, the MALES, do if your fuck buddy became pregnant?  It troubles me deeply that nobody seems to be able to provide an answer.

54Report
chao16 at 10 Jun 2006: 21:30

>>53 I'D MAN UP AND TAKE MY PLACE AS THE FATHER! =)

55Report
at 10 Jun 2006: 23:30

>>42 >>43 >>50

Your ignorance is showing.

First of all, you're supposed to use a brand new condom for each and every sexual act. You don't reuse the same condom over and over again! (Nasty!)

Second, your use of statistics shows the gambler's falacy. That is, when a gambler hears the odds (one in three chance of winning, for instance), they believe that for every two times they lose, they're guaranteed to win once. They believe that they are "owed" a victory by the statistics. The truth is the odds reset for every new game played. Likewise, the odds reset for every new condom used.

Finally, the odds in whatever article on Wikipedia are wrong. Every study I've ever heard of done by an unbiased lab shows a spermacidal lubricated condom is 99% effective against pregnancy, and suggest at least one more form of contraception partnered with it for a 100+% protection. The lack of fluid exchange means a 100% block of all fluid exchange based diseases (including HIV/AIDs), where the condom is in good (notice, not PERFECT) condition and properly worn. Condoms do have expiration dates, and are unreliable after these dates.

I suggest you get your condom facts from a reliable source (like an unsponsored medical journal or an independant study) rather than ANYTHING off the Internet.

(Damn, Trojan should be paying me for this!)

56Report
at 10 Jun 2006: 23:36

>>53 I'd sell him to science and profit off his freaky man genes!

57Report
at 11 Jun 2006: 00:38

>>55
"First of all, you're supposed to use a brand new condom for each and every sexual act."

I was speaking of a "type of condom."  I said "type of condom," then I said "that condom," but it should be obvious to any fucking moron in the world based on the context of my post what I meant.

Second, no, your ignorance of statistics is showing.  I'm looking at a sequence of actions.  These are called Bernoulli trials, and anybody with even scant experience in statistics knows what they are.

Very simple example.  Let's look at the rolling of dice.  What is the probability of rolling a 6?  1/6.  What is the probability of rolling something other than a 6?  5/6.  How many times can you expect, WITH AT LEAST 50% PROBABILITY, to roll a die without rolling a 6?  (5/6)^4=.482, or 48.2%.  (5/6)^3=.579, or 57.9%.  So the answer is 3.  If you roll the die three times, there is a 57.87% chance that no 6 will be rolled.  There is a 34.72% chance that one 6 will be rolled in three trials.  There is a 6.94% chance that two 6s will be rolled in three trials.  There is a 0.46% chance that three 6s will be rolled in three trials.  57.9%+34.72%+6.94%+0.46%=100%, so we've covered all the possibilities.  I shouldn't have to explain this to you; this is very basic stuff.  How dare you try to pontificate to me about this if you don't know what you're talking about.

So, now that you know what Bernoulli trials are, you can tell me.  If a TYPE OF CONDOM has a 90% chance of failing when you use it, how many times can you expect to have sex with THAT TYPE OF CONDOM before there is a 50% chance of at least one condom failure? 

The gambler's fallacy does not apply.  The gambler's fallacy, for example, applies when the roulette wheel has hit ten reds in a row, and you think, "Gee, the odds of hitting a black now MUST be higher!  After all, it's hit red the last ten times."  Bernoulli trials ARE independent trials.  You are in WAY over your head, sonny.

And finally, I don't consider you a reliable source.  I trust Wikipedia more than you.  Show me some studies.  What the fuck is 100+% protection?  That's not even possible.  That statement alone shows me how stupid you are.  Why did I even waste my time responding to you?

58Report
at 11 Jun 2006: 00:46

>>54
Oh, and I knew you'd say something like that, chao16. But I've yet to hear from any of the advocates of fuck buddies.  ;)

59Report
at 11 Jun 2006: 04:33

Here's the page that Wikipedia used as the source:
http://en.mimi.hu/sexuality/typical_use.html

...doesn't even mention it on that page, but if you follow the links, you'll find out that the percentages _are_ the yearly rate, not per usage rate.

Anyway, condoms certainly aren't perfect.  If you're worried about pregnancy, I'd recommend IUD.  ...doesn't protect you from STDs, though.

60Report
at 11 Jun 2006: 07:21

>>57 Yes, being insulting proves you are much smarter than me, right? The very fact that you couldn't even hold off on being insulting in the first paragraph shows boundless intelligence. You even had to swear, as if that made what you said somehow more intense... You, sir, win at the Internet.

"And finally, I don't consider you a reliable source.  I trust Wikipedia more than you.  Show me some studies."

Did you even read what I said? I said GO TO MEDICAL JOURNALS! HELOOOOOO! MEDICAL JOURNALS ARE... NOT... ME... Did you just insult MY intelligence? Oh, I guess with your great big brain getting in the way you couldn't even see the obvious. Must be a terrible handicap there.

"Why did I even waste my time responding to you?"

Because you're the kind of person who absolutely has to be right, even when you're blatantly wrong, and you always have to get the last word in. Further, you probably lack social skills, so any lure you see on the Internet draws you right in. It's irresistable to you as iron filings to a magnet.

In short, you're an antisocial ass with way too much time on your hands and a major inferiority complex.

61Report
quoting_mungo at 11 Jun 2006: 07:34

I've had buddy sex. I suppose it's been decent, and if my current partner was not monogamous, I'd personally prefer an open relationship, because that's the kind of person I am. Some of it has even been good, but none of the relationships were consistiently good.

I've had casual one-night-stands. They've been sub-par. Many guys picking a girl up for a lay seem to not care to figure out what will make her tick. In-out-in-out? So lame. There's a lot more to sex.

I'm in a steady relationship now, and the sex is great. Is that because we're monogamous? Nope. It started out as buddy sex. Fuckbuddies do not need to automatically stop being friends when the fucking stops, either, in my experience. I'm no longer friends with some of the people I had sex with, but I've also lost plenty of friends I have not had sex with, and the reasons were similar in both cases.

I'm on the safest birth-control method available where I am. It's statistically been proved superior to IUDs as well as the Pill -- I'm as close to sterile as I can get without tying my tubes, which the doctors won't let me in another four years. It's a shame that the US is so focused on abstinence education that this type of contraceptive is unlikely to be available to women over there.

My partner and I know we probably won't stay together forever. We have different dreams, much as we love one another. This said, he has promised me, and I have no reason to doubt his word, that he will marry me in an instant if I would somehow magically get pregnant and couldn't have an abortion (which is virtually impossible).

Having fuckbuddies is not for everyone. Among other things, it takes a certain kind of attitude towards sex. If you feel that sex is sacred and meant only for the One True Love? Then fucking your friends isn't for you. If sex is just another dimension to friendly hugging and cuddling and whatnot, having sex with your friends is probably the right thing to do, provided they feel the same. I personally feel very deeply for my close friends, and while sex means more to me now than it has in the pasts, it's still little more than any other physical sign of affection.

62Report
chao16 at 11 Jun 2006: 10:00

>>61 I do not belive in the whole "One TRUE Love" for I beleave that there are many people we are conpatable with. Why else do people get maried more than once?

....You have given me ALOT to think about ma'am

63Report
at 11 Jun 2006: 13:12

>>60
"Because you're the kind of person who absolutely has to be right, even when you're blatantly wrong, and you always have to get the last word in."

No, I admitted I was wrong about the Wikipedia stats before you ever made your stupid comments.  I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong when I'm actually wrong.  However, you led off by saying, "Your ignorance is showing," then proceeded to demonstrate just how ignorant you are.  It's just too much fun to pass up.

64Report
at 11 Jun 2006: 13:32

>>61
"I'm on the safest birth-control method available where I am. It's statistically been proved superior to IUDs as well as the Pill -- I'm as close to sterile as I can get without tying my tubes, which the doctors won't let me in another four years. It's a shame that the US is so focused on abstinence education that this type of contraceptive is unlikely to be available to women over there."

Well, it might help if you tell us what it is.  Without knowing what it is, I can say in general that it's not usually abstinence education that precludes the availability of many of these methods.  It is usually the stringent testing and requirements imposed by the FDA that drastically increases the cost of bringing ANY drug to market over here.  Not to mention the wacky tort system and costly malpractice decisions.

We already do have lots of contraceptives and abortion on demand (can't get much more liberal than that).

65Report
at 11 Jun 2006: 18:05

>>23
Condoms help against everything but crabs.  They do not completely protect against genital warts (also known as HPV)since they are spread by skin to skin contact as well as sweat.  The girl i was dating at the time told me she gave it to me and didn't tell me so i could take the fall because (if a guy gets it, he's a pimp, if a girl gets it, she's a slut) and that it would be fine if i got it and she said i spread it to her, whereas if she got it herself it would "ruin her reputation".  I shit you not this is what happened.  It was a long time before i could even trust a women after that and even still i don't trust them enough to date them usually.

66Report
at 11 Jun 2006: 18:07

>>65
Oh yeah, this is still me.  This phenom is pretty common apparently.  They're called "givers"  And they purposely give there std's to people to make them feel better about themself usually denying ever having one once this happens.

67Report
Bizzle at 11 Jun 2006: 21:01

>>65  "Condoms help against everything but crabs."  Yep.  Nothing helps to avoid getting them except a discerning eye and a full-Brazilian.

Coincidentally, I read earlier that they have developed a vaccine for most kinds of genital warts and thus cervical cancer.  It's only available to people under twenty-six right now, though, which sucks for my wife and me who are just a couple years beyond the cutoff.  Unfortunately, there is still no cure for those who already have them.  It'll happen eventually, though.

68Report
at 12 Jun 2006: 04:17

Hmm, all the male advocates of fuck buddies are nowhere to be found when asked about pregnancy.  I only asked about ten times.  Is this what they would do in the event of a pregnancy, then?  Abandon the girl and leave her to her fate?  Pretend it didn't happen?  Keep this in mind, >>64.

69Report
quoting_mungo at 12 Jun 2006: 05:13

>>64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implanon
That help?

If you keep an eye on any of the childfree groups online, you'll get my point, it's frightening how restrictive doctors are with more common long-term birth control such as IUDs (not even touching on sterilization, way too many doctors won't do that unless you've had a kid already). I'm fairly sure these implants are already out on the US market, in theory, but the chances for any one woman to get them is pretty slim since many contraceptives aren't widely offered. That's basically what my Health teacher in the US told me, as well, along with telling me that the US is generally several years behind many European countries when it comes to contraceptives.

And I'd be even more cautious with the "moral" crap pharmacists have been getting away with in the US.

70Report
at 12 Jun 2006: 08:03

>>68
Being in a "relationship" doesn't gaurantee that the guy will stick around either. It was common for girls to believe they were in "committed" relationships when, in reality, the guy just wanted to get into the girl's pants and would drop her at a moments notice. Most teen girls who became prengant also became single, even if they thought they where in a serious relationship. The only thing that's changed with "fuck buddies" is, the girl *knows* the true nature of the relationship, and hopefully will make better decisions instead of being lead astray by the phoney promises of a "relationship".

71Report
Bizzle at 12 Jun 2006: 13:36

>>68  It's not an issue for me, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend otherwise.

In the astronomicly unlikely event that one particular Super Sperm manages to bypass a condom and the spermacide AND the pill she's on didn't quite take (responsible people use contraceptives) AND she decides that she wants a baby, then the guy has to decide if he does or not.  If he does, great; if not, he's stuck making child support payments for two decades.  Should he marry her?  Unless it was on the agenda earlier, I wouldn't.  People who stay together for the kids aren't really doing them any favors.

>>69  Now, I don't know too much about IUDs, but, when my wife and I were exploring long-term contraceptive options, a doctor told us about some rather unpleassant side-effects associated with IUDS.  In my opinion, if a girl is thin and keeps in shape, the depro shot would probably be a better option.

>>70  From what I've seen, the guy is the one who is more likely to mistakenly read more into it than he should, particularly if the guy hasn't had a lot of sexual experience.  Either way, knowing the score and being honest with your partner is of the utmost importance.

72Report
Cache at 12 Jun 2006: 14:22

My wife and I have a closed poly relationship, where we date women together--as a couple.  Sometimes we develop good friendships, and sometimes things are not what people really wanted.  The biggest problem I have with someone saying they are waiting until marriage to have sex is that... well, it's really demeaning.  It puts far too much emphasis on sex in a marriage instead of a relationship in marriage--and so you get a high divorce rate, high adultury rate, etc. 

That's not to say that everyone makes that mistake, but it happens so damned often that even the Lifetime Channel won't make a TV movie about it.  Knowing what sex is before marriage, what you like, what you want is a tremendous amount of information, and I think it's a very valid thing to know about someone.  If you find you want sex four times a week and the new wife refuses to have sex except for once a month--it won't matter that you are compatible everywhere else in the relationship.  And something like that you just won't know until you explore sex with a partner, or potential partner.  If sex before marriage bothers you this much, how much would a divorce because you were incompatible bother you? 

Oh, and in the case a female partner with my wife and I became pregnant?  Then I'm going to be a father, and it's accepted.  For us, the gift of life is most sacred, and we would never turn away that gift.  We don't become sexually involved with partners until there has been discussion on the subject of pregnancy and kids--just because we're not monogamous doesn't make us stupid.

73Report (sage)
at 12 Jun 2006: 15:28

>>68
 Hey, I responded way back at >>44 and I'm a male.  Of course, so is my 'fuck buddy', so there ya go...  No birth control necessary.  :D

(Yeah, yeah, I know...  It doesn't really count, but hey...  Gay has it's advantages for sure, in that regard.)

74Report
chao16 at 12 Jun 2006: 15:55

>>72 You have given QUITE a bit to concider.

This is just getting more and more helpful as it goes on....

75Report
charphin#kltjFCOGEI at 12 Jun 2006: 16:16

Has Anyone here heard of the male pill
http://science.howstuffworks.com/male-bc-pill.htm  
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/
combined with the methords in >>72 It will help also use a female condom or diapham as well.
Note for other gays out there who thing they might be at risk of  STDs You can use the female condom as well up there so it will help stop infection.

76Report
charphin#kltjFCOGEI at 12 Jun 2006: 16:23

Ok so Its still indevelopement but guys who here would take it?

77Report
at 12 Jun 2006: 18:53

>>72
"It puts far too much emphasis on sex in a marriage instead of a relationship in marriage"

Wait, by NOT having sex, you're putting too much emphasis on sex?  I'm not quite sure that I follow that.  I DO prefer to focus on the personal relationship.  Can we do things together BESIDES have sex?  That is where, in my observation, the VAST majority of domestic problems arise.  Most divorces (bitter, nasty divorces) occur because the people hate each other.   Don't get me wrong; sex is very important.  But that ties into the overall relationship.  How honest and friendly are the couple with each other?  If people love and trust each other, they can talk and work through these problems, including the sex-related ones.  Although I could not live your lifestyle, Cache, it's apparent that you and your wife must have a wonderful, candid relationship.

My personal standard is that I will not have sex with someone whom I would not be willing to marry, should a pregnancy occur.  Which means that I need to know the lady pretty well before we have sex.

>>71
"People who stay together for the kids aren't really doing them any favors."

I'm not sure that I agree with that.  Now, if people KNOW they are not compatible, then that's a different story.  Adoption, I think, is the best option.

"In the astronomicly unlikely event that one particular Super Sperm manages to bypass a condom and the spermacide AND the pill she's on didn't quite take (responsible people use contraceptives)"

Absolutely true that the odds are very small with such a combination.  Personally, I do not condone the pill because it is abortifacient.  So is, apparently, the favored method of >>69.

78Report
at 12 Jun 2006: 20:47

>>77

You, my friend, are a breath of fresh air.

79Report
Bizzle at 12 Jun 2006: 23:34

**drunk**

>>72  "The biggest problem I have with someone saying they are waiting until marriage to have sex is that... well, it's really demeaning.  It puts far too much emphasis on sex in a marriage instead of a relationship in marriage--and so you get a high divorce rate, high adultury rate, etc."

Well said, and I know exactly what you mean.  It is too easy for someone who is waiting for marriage to have sex to, at least unconsciously, allow sex to become a reason to get married.  Realize that sex, whether you're having it or not, is a powerful driving force in your life.

>>76  Uh, no.  A vasectomy is surely more reliable, and you don't have to worry about any extra hormones affecting your body.

>>77  "Can we do things together BESIDES have sex?"

Of course, but make no mistake--you HAVE to have sex, and it has to be satisfying to both parties.  I don't care who is involved; if sex is a problem, then the relationship can not endure.

"That is where, in my observation, the VAST majority of domestic problems arise.  Most divorces (bitter, nasty divorces) occur because the people hate each other."

Actually, statisticly speaking, money matters are far more likely to doom a marriage.

"I'm not sure that I agree with that.  Now, if people KNOW they are not compatible, then that's a different story.  Adoption, I think, is the best option."

Oh, I've been that kid, and I do agree...uh...with myself.  I don't like to bitch about my personal life, though, so I'll leave that there.

Adoption doesn't always happen.  There aren't enough couples looking to adopt children.  Kids who don't get adopted find themselves in state homes or jumping from foster parent to foster parent.  Even those that do get adopted aren't guaranteed an positive environment.  Adoption is by no means the solution to unwanted pregnancies.

"Personally, I do not condone the pill because it is abortifacient."

As I understand it, the pill prevents an egg from dropping by causing the body to produce hormonse that simulate pregnancy.  I could be wrong; I'm no doctor.

80Report
chao16 at 13 Jun 2006: 09:40

>>79 Perhaes, I am looking at this the whole "Wait untill your married before you fuck her/him/hir" thing.

I have some soulsearching to do....

81Report
Bizzle at 13 Jun 2006: 09:45

>>80  Well, good luck, man.  Whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best of luck with it.

82Report (sage)
MrUnimportant at 13 Jun 2006: 17:28

*shakes head dissapointedly*

there's a LOT of things said and assumed in this thread, that it might as well be propaganda.

let's deal with my first gripe, "sex outside of marriage means NO STDs" assuming that the people you get involved with aren't harboring, not issues, but SUBSCRIPTIONS.
some people WILL get hitched on the hopes that IT will fill the void in them and make 'em (yeah grammatically incorrect...and?)
whole, when this doesn't happen, things can get hectic,

83Report (sage)
MrUnimportant at 13 Jun 2006: 17:29

...accidently posted...stupid mouse

84Report
chao16 at 13 Jun 2006: 17:47

how can you accdently post that message. let's keep this spam free shall we?

85Report
MrUnimportant at 13 Jun 2006: 18:07

>>84
easier than you think.
I moved my mouse up to the typing window when the cursor dissapeared on it. unfortunatly, my pointer/icon, whatever only moved halfway.
I only noticed it after I clicked it.
since my comp's bogged down, I should have been less hastey.
I'm in the process of typing out my response, but I want to make sure it says what I want to say to both sides of this.

86Report
MrUnimportant at 13 Jun 2006: 19:00

>>85
*yawn*

alright, part 1 of what I was saying was that saving it for marraige may be your thing, but don't assume that it will make you imune
to the points most of you made against friend with benefits.
dispite what we wnat to think, sometimes the person you marry, might be different from the person you were engaged to.
what I mean is that when some people marry, it's for mistaking love, for being in love,
others for filling something inside themselves, (a feeling of emptyness...heads out the gutter now)
but if this change happens, and the person doesn't have the maturity to tell their partner, or is afraid of what their partner might think,
(beleive it or not the second portion is most likely, people can be practicaly lead by others opinions)
then eventually, you might wind up in worse shape then half the people you're talking about, because your
significant other might end up cheating on you, and to afraid to tell you.
this happens with men and women, and is only the reasons that I can think of off the top of my head, there ARE others

so basically to the abstinate:
follow the path you think is right, but don't let it persuade you that  it will only lead to a succesful relationship.
just because you may meet someone who is compatible with you, doesn't mean they
have their head on straight,or will have it straight after the honeymoon for that matter,
and if it isn't, don't assume it'll be obvious, or even visable, almost EVERYONE assumse that,
and they only lead themselves into a false sense of security.

but here we are at part 2, the sex friends portion,
I have heard and read a LOT of people saying the typical "it won't happen to me" stuff that I love so much
and using odds and percentages, to say, here's proof that it won't, well they, like those who assume marraige will work if
they're "careful", are only deluding themselves. percentages are a number, but chance has a funny way of catching up with you.
I'm guessing most of the people who thought that same thing end up in the stuff they thought would never happen.


but disease should only be half the concern. seeing as sex in creates an attachment in some people,(yeah some not all) and
if they're not honest with you, then you could end up in as bad a situation as some of the stuff in news papers.
but that goes with marriage as well.
I think there's something I missed, but I'll have to post it tomorrow, my eyes hurt now from reading over this, and I KNOW
I missed some grammar/spelling errors among other things,
plus I need sleep. I mean NO ill will with my post, just want people to realize everyone's lives are different.
there are some people poligamy(sp) can work for, but that is rarer than most typical men beleve
also, I would likely go for a friends with benefits deal IF
I felt like I knew her well enough, and that we BOTH could take all precautions neccisary, and i she DID get pregnant, I would take reasponsability.
well goodnight everyone, and sorry for mistakes I made, in this post and others.
*falls asleep on keyboard*

87Report
at 14 Jun 2006: 03:50

>>79
"Of course, but make no mistake--you HAVE to have sex, and it has to be satisfying to both parties.  I don't care who is involved; if sex is a problem, then the relationship can not endure."

I thought I implied that.  But yes, I do agree.  But if the parties have a good relationship, I see no reason that they can't resolve any sex-related problems that arise.

"Actually, statisticly speaking, money matters are far more likely to doom a marriage."

Not in my observation.  Not as the source/catalyst.  Money matters (and property and child custody) become something to fight bitterly over during divorce proceedings.

"Oh, I've been that kid, and I do agree...uh...with myself.  I don't like to bitch about my personal life, though, so I'll leave that there."

So have I.  We each had our own experience; I can only speak for myself.  For me, there were indeed some rough times.  (I'm sure we could swap stories over some good beer.  But I don't like to bitch about my personal life, either.)  Overall, though, I think I turned out pretty well (better than I would've otherwise, anyway).

I just reread my adoption comment, and let me say that I phrased it horribly.  Please let me clarify.  You're right that not all infants are adopted.  I also believe a single mother who has the wherewithal to rear her child, in my opinion, is a better option.  If the single mother can't properly care (financially or otherwise) for her child, however, then I believe adoption is the best option.  And even if I were relegated to a state home or foster parents, I would rather be alive.

"Even those that do get adopted aren't guaranteed an positive environment."
There is no way to guarantee anything.  There is no perfect template that we can follow for these situations.  There is no guarantee that the natural parents would provide a positive environment, either.  That being said, of the people I know who were fortunate enough to be adopted, all enjoyed positive environments.  We can only try to make the best decisions we can on a case by case basis.

"As I understand it, the pill prevents an egg from dropping by causing the body to produce hormonse that simulate pregnancy.  I could be wrong; I'm no doctor."

All that is true.  I'm no physician either, so I don't claim to speak with any authority on this subject.  Based on what I've read, however, there is a very real possibilty that the pill thins the uterine lining, precluding the zygote/embryo from implantation (binding to said lining).  (Obviously, this can only happen when the ovum drops.)

88Report
Bizzle at 14 Jun 2006: 13:00

>>87  We're all learning something here.  Rather unique for an fchan thread, wouldn't you say?

"I thought I implied that.  But yes, I do agree."

I know; I was just driving the point home.

"But if the parties have a good relationship, I see no reason that they can't resolve any sex-related problems that arise."

If one partner isn't putting out nearly as much as the other would like (I think this is usually due to the party of the second part being particularly unsatisfying), then there really is no long-term solution besides maybe abandoning monogamy.  An unsatisfied partner WILL seek greener pastures.

"Not in my observation.  Not as the source/catalyst.  Money matters (and property and child custody) become something to fight bitterly over during divorce proceedings."

Don't take this wrong, but are you married?  Nothing strains a relationship like not being able to do the things you want to do.  Financial difficulties are difficult enough for an individual, but, when you put two people who are greatly unsatisfied with their standard of living together, they are not going to cohabitate well.

"So have I.  We each had our own experience; I can only speak for myself.  For me, there were indeed some rough times.  (I'm sure we could swap stories over some good beer.  But I don't like to bitch about my personal life, either.)  Overall, though, I think I turned out pretty well (better than I would've otherwise, anyway)."

I suppose I can say the same.  At least I didn't turn out like my sisters.

"And even if I were relegated to a state home or foster parents, I would rather be alive."

Existence isn't a choice until one already exists.  It's silly to site people who have already been alive for twenty-some years who are glad that they were born, because everyone is afraid of non-existence.

"That being said, of the people I know who were fortunate enough to be adopted, all enjoyed positive environments.  We can only try to make the best decisions we can on a case by case basis."

And how many people do you know who weren't--people like my eldest sister (half-sister really) who get passed from person to person often suffering horrific abuses until they are finally old enough that they can live on their own?  You're right, it should always be looked at case-by-case.

"All that is true.  I'm no physician either, so I don't claim to speak with any authority on this subject.  Based on what I've read, however, there is a very real possibilty that the pill thins the uterine lining, precluding the zygote/embryo from implantation (binding to said lining).  (Obviously, this can only happen when the ovum drops.)"

You, know, I think I heard that once.  That sounds right.

Hey, maybe we should set a ground rule in this discussion, because I feel it steering perilously close to the topic of abortion.  I've no problem talking about it (I love a good debate), but I would rather it not spread any further.  That's the kind of thing that may ignite less than civilized debate amongst our peers.  In my opinion, we should probably just leave it alone.

89Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage