Studies: Pull out Method maybe not as bad

[Cardinal]

I would tend to think condoms, pullout, and vaginal contraceptive film might be a decent bet.

 

I just really dislike using three questionable methods at once. It seems much better to pick at least one more reliable method.

[HouseKitten]

Why risk it? You don't get any sort of sympathy if your girlfriend gets pregnant and you both cry 'but he always pulled out!'

 

If you don't want a kid, get some actual birth control rather than making a half-hearted attempt.

[kyivish]

My ex said birth control has added health risks. Like stroke and so forth. I hated wearing a condom, so withdrawl was the answer. I understood the consequence of getting her pregnant though. There was no chance in hell I'd not withdrawl in time.

 

When your rolling around naked in bed, science and studies just don't seem to enter your mind

[Cognitive_Canine]

There are sponges, diaphragms, and nonhormnal IUD's. There is really no reason to not be protected.

[Juxtapoz]

I hate condoms because the latex irritates the heck out of me. Maybe I'm allergic.

 

I couldn't take pills, made me have periods for months at a time.

 

So i relied on the pull out method for years. No problems.

 

But the guy I'm dating now likes to come inside (with a condom on, of course)

 

So i'm getting back on birth control. the ring this time because i don't have to remember to take a friggin pill everyday. i just hope i can handle being on something and not wondering if how i feel one day is merely a side effect of somethign else

[Mark_h]

I am not sure if this is true, but the liquid before ejaculation can apparently cause pregnancy as it can contain sperm. I have found that before I actually ejaculate, there is a lot of thinner, clearer fluid that comes out, and so it could be possible to actually get your girl pregnant even if you withdraw in time.

[Joshb]

I am not sure if this is true, but the liquid before ejaculation can apparently cause pregnancy as it can contain sperm. I have found that before I actually ejaculate, there is a lot of thinner, clearer fluid that comes out, and so it could be possible to actually get your girl pregnant even if you withdraw in time.

 

studies are showing this is a myht, pre cum does not have sperm in it, only after u recently ejaculated, but if you pee that cleans it out.

 

I wish they came out with a male form of birth control pill, id gladly take that as well lol. any word on that coming out in near future?!

[Mercurial Girl]

Condoms break at the worst times WAY too often to be considered safe.

 

My problem with condoms is that they all too often BREAK right when the man ejaculates and when he ejaculates with a condom on he is usually doing so INSIDE the woman! So if the condom breaks, you're hooped and need to take an EC. If he pulls out (caveat is that he has the self control to do so ON TIME) you *know* where that sperm is going.

 

Also with the issue of precum...I honestly don't buy the precum bit. There has been more data to back up that precum does not contain sperm (unless he has very recently ejaculated) than data to prove that it does contain sperm.

 

I don't care what size, brand, way of putting it on, etc etc etc, condoms simply aren't trustworthy at all. Condoms break much too frequently.

 

The safest method would be to use BOTH condoms AND withdrawal together (and isn't this what they taught in sex ed for those of us lucky enough to receive it?). I honestly think to just rely on a condom is absolutely foolish.

 

And this is coming from someone who solely relies on withdrawal.

 

But at the end of the day it's all a crap shoot isn't it?

[pinkelephant]

who cares? why risk it? it's a baby you're talking about.

[scared and alone]

I have a niece and nephew from the pullout method.

[Joshb]

i agree heavily with this, pull out may not be trusty, well i dont think a condom is neither...they break on me all the time. I have came inside girlfriends before due to condom breaking, thank god for birth control. I dont think u should rely on condoms neither..mine as well just rely on pull out ..both just as bad. Birth control and one of those 2 methods probably best.

[Dragunov-21]

That's a dangerous way to think. Look at it this way. If 50% of women are able to get pregnant over a one-year period, then guess what?

 

The zero-contraception, stay-in method is 50% effective.

 

Try it with two fertile people, and you're gonna be changing a lot of nappies.

 

The fact is that statistics on birth-control do not take into account individual fertility (and cannot), and the pull-out method is subjective - I can almost guarantee no-one pulls out before pre-ejaculate is present

 

i agree heavily with this, pull out may not be trusty, well i dont think a condom is neither...they break on me all the time. I have came inside girlfriends before due to condom breaking, thank god for birth control. I dont think u should rely on condoms neither..mine as well just rely on pull out ..both just as bad. Birth control and one of those 2 methods probably best.

 

If your condoms are breaking, you're using the wrong condoms for our size/shape/activity. Proper use of condoms is vastly more effective than pulling out.

[Mercurial Girl]

link removed

 

“If the male partner withdraws before ejaculation every time a couple has vaginal intercourse, about 4 percent of couples will become pregnant over the course of a year,” the authors write.

 

For condoms, used optimally, the rate is about 2 percent. But more significant, the authors say, are the rates for “typical use,” because people can’t be expected to use any contraception method perfectly every time. Typical use of withdrawal leads to pregnancy 18 percent of the time, they write; for typical use of condoms 17 percent of the time.

 

People are naysaying using withdrawal, and supporting condoms, because it's 1% better? I don't get the "whatever, just use condoms" tones, as if condoms are much safer at all (STIs aside). If withdrawal is not reliable at a 18% failure rate, condoms are also unreliable at a17% failure rate, no? So instead of "just use a condom, geez!" shouldn't folks be saying "use an condom AND withdrawal, geez!"?

[Dragunov-21]

17% failure rate for condoms is the highest figure I've ever heard quoted, and that's the problem.

 

I've heard figures as high as 99.8% effectiveness for condoms, I've heard figures as low as 12% effectiveness for pulling out. (Not to say these are the correct figures, merely the most supportive of rubbers and least supportive of pulling-out)

 

People use statistics without understanding them, and that's dangerous.

 

ie, there are different definitions of effective.

 

Let's say, for argument's sake, that over a trial period of one year, you garner the following results from 100 people using condoms, and 100 using withdrawl:

 

- 5 people using condoms fall pregnant over the trial period.

- 25 people using withdrawl fall pregnant over the trial period

 

What would you rate their failure rate at? 5% and 25%? Seems logical enough, but when talking contraception, you have to compare it against a control to get real-world data.

 

So you take a control sample of 100 people having sex with no contraception. With the following results:

 

- 50 out of 100 people fall pregnant.

 

When you take this into account, the real failure rates, ie, those quoted with respect to sex with no contraception, the actual failure rates become 10% (condom) and 50% (withdrawl), because even if the contraceptive is completely ineffectual, only 50 people would fall pregnant over the trial period.

 

Statistics quoted by abstinence-focussed organisations (including some US government initiatives) will inevitably state the highest possible failure rate, with a good (often guesstimated) margin tacked on to "simulate" those who are not using contraceptives exactly as per the instructions, because their agenda is to stop people having sex, and fear of pregnancy is a useful tool.

 

Those figures quoted by family planning organisations are often wildly different (and I would suggest, more accurate). They may even draw upon the same studies, but interpret them differently.

My point is, unless you understand the statistics quoted, and have bothered reading the details of the studies they stem from, they're just dead numbers, and people will use whatever figure best suits their purpose, without giving it context.