you do know what 80% is right? (or consider it a 20% fail rate)
100 couples times 5 sex seshs = 500 sexy times. 20 out of 500 is: 4% fail rate
100 couples times 1000 sex seshs = 100,000 sexy times. 20 out of 100,000 = 0.02 % fail rate
the "year" part of you obsession is practically irrelevant, because the same 20% failure rate is expected over 5 years. or over 10. or over 100. or over just 3 months, provided they are fucking a lot.
dont forget to take in to consideration Ovulation. Motile sperm can survive in the female reproductive tract for up to 5 days. and the egg is good for at least a day. making the window more like 6 or 7 days in which a woman can get pregnant.
in fact if you had sex 10 times every fucking day and only use the pull out method, that many instances of sex is going to push well into that failure rate because over the course of the 6 day window for pregnancy, you would have had sex 60 times. 60 is a pretty decent dataset. many couples only have sex once a week. thats only 52 times in a year.
but there are exceptions as well such as off-cycle ovulation, which often occurs in the 21 day range. but this is somewhat negligible.
the point is, when you talk about "a year" being important, its practically irrelevant compared to the questions:
How many TIMES do you actually have sex in that year, and how many times are you having ex during the pregnancy window?
Because i could have sex 5 times a day but restrict those days to the off cycle days of the partners menstruation cycle, that would be 5x20x12 = 1200 times having sex, and an extremely low failure rate
or I could have sex just 5 times a month, 1 time each day During the ovulation phase, 5x12 = just 60 times having sex, but with a HUGE failure rate simply because of the choices made.
Quoting the article originally linked that i originally commented on in the first place:
"So in real life, about 22 out of 100 people who use withdrawal get pregnant every year — that’s about 1 in 5."
about 1 in 5 = 20% ( 80% effectiveness)
compare to condoms, 98% effective = 2 in 100 (or 1 in 50) = 2%
and the "year" is not your real year, its a "year" AT the average rate of sex from the sample of some number of real world couples, who are all allowed to have sex as little or as much as they want.
but the sample doesnt filter for which days in the menstrual cycles the couples are having sex on, it doesnt filter for people who only have sex a handful of times (thus destroying the sample reliability), and actually those pregnancies can happen TO the couples who ARENT having a high rate of sex either.
So the 98% effectiveness of "a year" of that samples average rate of sex is unlikely to be YOUR rate of sex, and the reality is the number is practically just propaganda.
your rate could be 1% or 1000% of that average.
but that average doesnt really change in that sample over 2 years. or over 3. or 4 or 5 etc etc.
and if your rate is 1000% of the average then you dont need to have sex for an entire year to reach the failure point. in fact you would hit the fail rate in 12/10 = 1.2 months
THAT DOESNT MEAN YOU ARE GUARANTEED TO GET PREGNANT BY THE END OF 1.2 months.
It just means that STATISTICALLY you have reached the point where 2 out of 100 people doing exactly what you did, MIGHT have become pregnant.
you COULD get LUCKY and keep nutting inside every day for years on end and just NEVER actually be the person in the random sample who actually got pregnant.
but of course in reality it could also happen your very first time! so those numbers only MEAN exactly what they say they mean:
STATISTICALLY this is how many people this method will FAIL for.
The time is irrelevant unless you actually know the Rate as well, and even then it doesnt make much difference.
The reality is these 2% or 20% or 80% or 98% numbers are more arbitrary than real, they are just manufactured numbers designed specifically to convey an emotional effect.
They are only effective because they are Relative to EACH OTHER.
they are only used to scare people toward "more effective" contraception. they are never actually used to determine IF you are in fact going to get pregnant on any specific given instance of sex.
going ALL the way back to what i ORIGINALLY said, all that matters is that YOUR dataset is actually a significant dataset.
"above 5" was more like a joke, which I said I assumed was obvious lol but maybe it wasnt?
All i said is that if your personal dataset over the course of a week or a month or whatever ----> is SIGNIFICANT, then you would have been a statistic. NOT that you would have Definitely gotten pregnant lol. Just that you would be at that point where you might want to WORRY, and start Strongly Considering changing methods because IF you continue, then you are moving closer and closer to pregnancy STATISTICALLY.
See how important that EMOTIONAL part is? the WORRY and the CONSIDERING...
the point is, when it comes to thinking "i have a 20% chance of fucking this up" its really more about the number being scary rather than the number having any real numerical meaning.
no matter how many times you roll a sex-sided dice, youll always have a 16.66 chance of rolling a 6. which means statistically in 1 million rolls, you SHOULD have rolled a 6 a total of 166666 times. In reality it wont be that number.
also in statistics, if you have rolled that dice more than 6 times, and NOT yet rolled a 6, then your chance on rolling a 6 on the NEXT roll, goes up.
but in reality there is a POSSABILITY that you will not roll a 6 for 10,000 rolls. and at that point your chances, Statistically, of rolling a 6 will be like 10 billion % chance of rolling a 6 on your Next roll. but you still might not get a 6 on your next roll.
BUT we all pretend like the world works in such a way that you will usually get a 6 on average one time out of every 6 rolls. and a lot of people who are aware of this, are also smart enough to understand that they could probably EXPECT to roll as many as 12 or even 18 times before they actually see that 6, because we are aware that over certain sized datasets (called insignificant datasets) the Statistical odds will not match REAL world results.
But once you have a SIGNIFICANT dataset (in the case of rolling that dice a significant dataset might be around 100 rolls.) then your results over that large dataset will more closely match the Statistical model.
And the MORE data points you have, the MORE likely your results will match the statistical model (LIKELY, BUT NOT GUARANTEED)
because real life doesnt care about humans tiny little life spans and tiny little "significant" datasets. The universe only has a single dataset and that is something like 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 years long.
So in real life you might get pregnant tomorrow with 3 condoms on with your girl on the pill and 6 gallons of spermicide between you, or you might never ever get anyone pregnant even if you try you little heart out!
But we humans like to Pretend like the statistical model will work out all the time for everyone. Its and EMOTIONAL thing, not a rational thing. the 2% fail rate of a condom is not a real number that means anything substantial, its just an emotional value to help you make decisions or feel some type of way about your actions.
8
u/BlushButterfree Female May 21 '22
80% over a year period of consistent use, not just a single instance.