19 ms·
> I ... don't understand. Are people putting them on their fingers? Can someone explain? Abstinence has a "consistent and correct" usage rate of 100% (within
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> I ... don't understand. Are people putting them on their fingers? Can someone explain?
Abstinence has a "consistent and correct" usage rate of 100% (within rounding error). Of course, in the real world, abstinence has a pretty poor rate of preventing unintentional pregnancies, when not combined with other methods.
Real-world use encompasses everything from people keeping condoms in their wallet (exposing them to heat + friction) to people deciding not to use a condom (whether because they forget, because they believe the other person is on birth control, because they decide to just "take a risk this once", or anything else).
- userbinator 9y agoto people deciding not to use a condom I don't think that counts as part of the "use effectiveness rate", which AFAIK are only those who (claimed to?) have used one but failed.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> I don't think that counts as part of the "use effectiveness rate", which AFAIK are only those who (claimed to?) have used one but failed. It actually (usually) is, because that's a really important part of the effectiveness of a method. That's why I added the part about abstinence - it might work if you're consistent and committed about it, but people still decide not to use it as a method. If someone invented a condom that had a 100% perfect-use effectiveness rate, but it also made sex uncomfortable to the point that people decide not to use it most of the time even when it's available, it's real-world effectiveness would be low. And that's the important number to measure.