4 ms·
The first number you give is wildly inaccurate. It rises to about 35% in the +/-1 day window around ovulation, with lower probability during a wider weeklong wi
by MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
The first number you give is wildly inaccurate. It rises to about 35% in the +/-1 day window around ovulation, with lower probability during a wider weeklong window, and very near 0 for the rest of the menstrual cycle. I'm fairly sure the actual compounded odds of conception from procreative sex at a random point in the woman's cycle is much closer to 1 in 1000.
Also unprotected sex does not necessarily equal procreative sex, which I realize is a somewhat controversial statement, but nonetheless true.
- hackbinary 10y agoReally? Controversial, yes. Do you have any science to back that up?
- MaxfordAndSons 10y agoIt's really a matter of semantics, not science. Either party could be incapable of providing the needed input. But also yes, to address the controversiality, the withdrawal method, used perfectly, is a 96% effective [0] contraceptive method vs. 98% for condoms used perfectly [1]. Obviously the prerequisites for perfect use are different and YMMV. [0] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdr... (there's no fragment, it's under the effectiveness section of the accordion) [1] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom...
- stcredzero 10y agoThe first number you give is wildly inaccurate. I knew that when I posted it. When I posted it, I thought I had clearly indicated it, but looking at it again, that must have been forgotten before it could be enacted. My intention was to play with the two wildly inaccurate figures together.