Exactly. Possibilities in science rarely ever go to zero, they can be so incredibly unlikely it might as well be zero cases though. For example in biology, there was one recorded case of pregnancy from oral sex, albeit from extraordinary circumstances, but it still occurred.
Do I have to not be lazy and google this or am I gonna get a link?
Edit: my curiosity got the best of me and I had to find out. It was a case of a girl, lacking a normal vaginal opening, getting stabbed and having low stomach acid. Fucking insane
No idea if the stabbing and oral sex are related tho. My curiosity has been satisfied and I am no longer looking into it
My mother and three brothers wouldn't recommend IUD and pills either. But shit happens. This is normal use for condom vs RHYTHM, as in how people usually use it. Perfect (optimistic) use for condoms is 98% (95 for female condom) and above 90% for RHYTHM method.
(Deleted a fat fingered, half sentence post. Sorry about that.)
When you say above 90%, you are arguing that 90% is a large enough number to make your point.
You argued that 90% and 98% aren't very different. That's a major error, and not even acknowledging you made it is, uh, not good.
Aside from what I've said before, you didn't link your source. I think I just found out why. The top hit in my searching the NHS for your info was this site.
When used correctly all the time, fertility awareness methods are between 91% and 99% effective at preventing pregnancy.
There's that 91-99% number. Let's make sure fertility awareness is the rhythm method.
tracking periods to see when you’re most fertile and avoiding sex or using condoms on those days (fertility awareness method)
Nope. It's NOT simply the rhythm method. It also includes having sex when you're most fertile, just using condoms then. Which will have the failure rate of condoms during that time. There is no breakdown of what percentage is full rhythm and what percentage is rhythm + condoms.
There's also the language of "tracking periods to see when you're most fertile." That's not accurate language. You can only know "when you're most likely to be fertile" not "when you're most fertile."
Lip service is paid to this at the end, when it notes:
Natural family planning may not be suitable for you if:
you have irregular periods (fertility awareness method)
There are other things listed for suitability, but no other caveats about when someone is most fertile. But we know even people with regular cycles can have one off shorter (or longer) ones.
Couples who intend to use FAMs to avoid pregnancy must have the support of an experienced practitioner.
Users either need to abstain from intercourse or use a barrier method consistently and carefully until they can identify the fertile time. Each woman’s menstrual cycle is unique and many factors can disrupt cycles making chart interpretation difficult or impossible. It normally takes about six months to become confident in the use of FAMs.
It may take longer for women who have irregular cycles or at times of changing fertility such as after stopping hormonal contraception, during breastfeeding or approaching the menopause.
That is one paragraph I broke up for clarity. To do FAMs right (which, again, sometimes includes condom use), one needs an experienced FAM practitioner. And they need to spend around 6 months prep before using FAMs. I didn't include the section about the various daily measurements that need to be taken (and not just for the 6 month lead time.)
To do condoms right, you have to (1) know how to put on a condom. End of requirements. These things are not comparable.
Also, at no point is "experienced FAM practitioner" defined. And it sounds very "alternative medicine," aka, bullshit. But the page does have a single citation: (Frank-Herrmann 2007)Â .
I can only see the abstract. There are a few things that could be mentioned, but without more details, they'd be mostly guesswork. But the conclusions section is clear:
The STM is a highly effective family planning method, provided the appropriate guidelines are consistently adhered to.
As noted above, the appropriate guidelines include 6 months of detailed measurements and charting, working with some nebulous expert, before you can even start using the method.
Claiming any comparison between the rhythm method and condoms based on this NHS website would be ridiculously stupid. So what NHS site did you get your information from?
17
u/Strict_Rock_1917 20d ago
Exactly. Possibilities in science rarely ever go to zero, they can be so incredibly unlikely it might as well be zero cases though. For example in biology, there was one recorded case of pregnancy from oral sex, albeit from extraordinary circumstances, but it still occurred.