I think it's irresponsible to encourage or even support couples who want to attempt to "withdraw" as a form of birth control. I won't even dignify it by calling it a "method". There's only one practice I consider more risky... and that would be the so-called rhythm technique.

@102: There is a whole range of birth control options, ranging from spray-and-pray to sterilization. Each has different advantages and disadvantages; each has its own level of effectiveness. Each couple will choose the method that suits them and their risk tolerance for accidental pregnancy.

For some couples, the advantages of withdrawal (easy; spontaneous; no hormonal issues; etc.) are worth the higher risk of accidental pregnancy. I've used it at times when my partner and I weren't trying to get pregnant, but were willing to accept becoming pregnant.

I'd never use it for a one-nighter or in any situation where pregnancy was not. An. Option. But there are times when it is a reasonable choice.

@ Old Crow

I am not right-wing. However, I can't stand the fear mongering against Harper. He will not do the terrible things that some claim, and the other parties will not do the good that is attributed to them.

Okay, it's true that Conservatives are not NEVER elected in Atlantic Canada. I admit that sentence was sloppy. However, they do not hold a majority of seats here. You've made a lot of hay about a sentence that was never crucial to my argument. My point stands that no political party is going to take on the issue of better access to abortion in Atlantic Canada. This was my point. The other parties have had the chance to act and have not acted. This is true regardless of the party.

It's true that the Conservatives have been the most resistant to gay rights. But the history of all the parties has been disgraceful on gay rights over the last 15 years. All parties made comments against gay people that would today be considered unacceptable. That history still matters. This doesn't make Harper the devil and the other parties saints.

Your final point is really pretty unfair. It is the shitharperdid website that is hyperpartisan. It doesn't even mention the isotopes or any information that would indicate that there were two sides to the argument. As you would say, it is framed as only a hyper-partisan would frame it.

I pointed out the other side. It does not make me a right-wing partisan to point out the other side of an argument.

Another example of the shrill rhetoric against Harper is that he will stack the Supreme Court with right wing judges. This is pretty laughable in Canada. I'll go out on a limb and say that we don't have any right-wing judges in Canada to choose from. Harper appointed Crowmell, who if anything, has been to the left. It doesn't make me a right-winger to recognize that people are fear-mongering against Harper.

As you say, Harper can't get away with pushing a socially conservative agenda, if that's what he wants, because he would be thrown out of power. He may make grand gestures as a dog-whistle to social conservatives. But unlike in the US, he will not be able to remake Canada (if he wanted to) into some social conservative paradise. In practice it is a non-issue.

If you're voting in principle, then you shouldn't vote for any party but the Greens, who had the good fortune of not existing when the other parties were more openly homophobic. All gay politicians are members of parties that were until recently avowedly homophobic (ie. had MPs that said homophobic things)

I doubt you or anyone will listen, but I am an undecided voter. I feel no strong commitment or hostility to any party. I would be willing to vote for any party, depending on the circumstances.

I like that the economy is relatively stable, considering the recent economic crises. I like how Harper has handled our relationship with the US. But I don't like some other policies, for instance the way that police handled the G-20, and the overspending on the G-20. But I'm not sure that the Liberals wouldn't have behaved similarly.

But let me guess, "If you are not with us, you must be against us."

@96 - "every woman is different" Absolutely. But there's no downside to encouraging a woman to look at her vagina, cervix, and cervical mucus and get to know what's normal for her body.

@104: " But the history of all the parties has been disgraceful on gay rights over the last 15 years."

No. "All the parties"? "Last 15 years"? Just.... no.

If that is your honestly held belief, then you really don't know a thing about Canadian politics over the last fifteen years.

@106

The information I am basing this on is Tom Warner's book, Never Going Back, a really good history of gay rights in Canada. He documents and concludes that yes, the Conservatives were the worst, but the Liberals and NDP were bad on gay rights. All the parties had homophobic members. It took real arm twisting to get the parties to back gay rights and it was a product of a long campaign of concerted pressure and court victories. He concludes that political parties in general (all of them) can't be trusted on gay rights.

The Wikipedia article you link to never refers to his book. In fact, it doesn't footnote to any books at all.

Double posting to add this:

@104: "As you say, Harper can't get away with pushing a socially conservative agenda, if that's what he wants, because he would be thrown out of power."

No. Harper hasn't gotten away with it to date because he has only had minority governments. Give him a majority and watch out for more of this sort of thing. (Thanks for the link, Canuck.)

If you want to know what Harper will do with a majority, google Tom Flanagan.

MORE DATA on the risk of getting HIV from oral sex! I hope you're excited!

This study (which as chicago girl notes, is cited in that table in the Columbia AIDS handbook) uses a modified Bernoulli model to estimate the risk of each single episode of oral sex WITH ejaculation as 0.04%. To put that in perspective, it's:
- only 6.75 times less risky than being an unprotected bottom for a top whose HIV status you don't know (0.27%)
- 20 times less risky than being an unprotected bottom for an HIV+ partner (0.8%).
That is, NOT zero. And don't blow off this number just because it seems low for ONE EPISODE--think of HOW MANY TIMES you've swallowed in your whole life! And, you could always get unlucky with your very first blowjob.
[ http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/15… ]

This study shows that the population attributable risk of oral sex WITH ejaculation is about 7%, based on multivariate analysis. To define population attributable risk, if everyone stopped swallowing come, then the incidence of HIV would drop about 7%.
[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15851… ]

I posted that UCSF roundtable to give people (those who read it, of course) an idea of how difficult it is to tease out one risk factor from another, and how hard it is to get good data. And then, one can always view the data from various perspectives (is twenty times less risky than being the bottom of an HIV+ partner "low," "very low," or "exceedingly low"? Or imho, just "lower"?)

That's the data, folks.

@11: "then you might very well be pissing your vote away on someone who cant win"

Here's my reason for voting Green in a nutshell:

1. I think all politicians are lying assholes who will do anything for power. Exhibit a: campaign advertising (clearly, these people are assholes, and it's pretty apparent they're lying too). Exhibit b: everything they do when they get power; namely, nothing they *said* they would do in their asshole lying campaign advertising.

2. Because of 1, I would feel pretty bad if I voted for a lying asshole who got in, and they turned out to be a complete asshole.

3. Because of 2, I would *never* in a million years hold my nose while I voted for someone who I *knew* was a lying asshole, just so some other lying asshole *wouldn't* get in. How do I know that one lying asshole is no better than the other lying asshole? See 1.

4. So I started voting Green because I knew they hadn't a hope in hell. They still had thorough fringe-party status back then.

5. After I started voting Green, I found that they actually fall pretty close to a lot of my dearly-held beliefs, environmentalism aside. Yes, I also consider myself to be an environmentalist too. So I don't have to hold my nose when I vote. As far as I'm concerned, this is a win-win-win situation. Should some kind of miracle occur and the Greens actually win in my riding, then it will only be a win-win-lose sort of situation, if and only if my MP turned out to be a lying asshole (like *that's* not possible or something).

So if I'm pissing my vote away, good. Politicians *need* to be pissed on.

@109 interesting, but notice how all your stats are put in the form that makes them sound the worst

Population attributable risk of 7% makes it sound much larger then if you look at the chance per act with an HIV + person, because the number how contract HIV is a relatively small amount compared the the number who have oral sex with an HIV+ person.

Next, using the chance of contraction of being topped by someone of unknown HIV status, is to make it appear much smaller, as the % of HIV + people in the population is small. Thereby you make the oral contraction seem higher when you compare it to it.

Essentially, the statistics you pulled seem to be put in an alarmist fahion, but I agree that it is still greater than zero...

@111

How are the data mentioned in @109 presented in an alarmist fashion? Swallowing come is not a risk-free activity. Yes, @109 states that the population attributable risk is 7%.....that's what the data show. @109 also states that the risk of contracting HIV from each single episode of oral sex with ejaculation is 0.04%.... how is that alarmist? How is considering all the data together an alarmist argument?

@116

How can you tell? I can tell when *I'm* ovulating; it causes pain and a change in vaginal secretions, but how on earth can you tell by *looking* at someone? However, if you really can tell, it's more polite not to mention it. On the one hand because you might very well be wrong (and since women often have no idea when they ovulate), and on the other because that's kind of personal and a lot of women might prefer to keep that to themselves.

@100

You read my whole post, right? I said I don't like to have sex during that time...

@116

I'm with 118, I'd say it's akin to saying "hey look, B is on her period!" Even if you were making some sort of educated guess (she looks bloated!) It's kind of offensive.

Besides, what were you basing it on? She looked extra pretty? She was wearing less clothing?

It's called "hidden" ovulation for a reason, most of the signs are subtle and anyone who's not actively fucking the girl is really just taking a shot in the dark.

Unless you know something I don't...

@116 I'll disagree here, I don't think it's akin to saying someone is on her period, I think it's funny...but same questions as the others, given that we aren't chimps who present rather obvious signs of ovulation, how would you know?

And as for jokes, my husband regularly warns people off doing certain things or dressing certain ways, as it will be sure to cause me to ovulate...we both joke about it. But then, we're Canadian.

@118: He doesn't know something you don't know. He's just a douche.

Dan's advice to HIV is absolutely perfect. As an HIV+ gay man with a zero viral load, I wish everyone would read it.

It's not necessarily irresponsible to vote Green. It depends on your riding. For instance, those in the Saanich should definitely vote Green because Elizabeth May has a good chance of defeating her Conservative opponent there. Also, there are some people in ridings where the winner is pretty much decided--many Alberta ridings are staunchly Conservative, so there's nothing much you can do to oust them. If you live in a Conservative-safe riding, you can consider voting Green just to up their national popular vote.

Anyway, I wanted to comment on the withdrawal method. As effective as it may be, I don't understand why people keep talking about how "convenient" it is. Doesn't it bother guys not to get to finish in the hole, as it were?

Given the number of people that comment on these articles, do we have a statistical sample of withdrawal method stories yet?

Are ~10% getting pregnant per year, (within simple counting errors)?

SOMEBODY COUNT!

@13, yes we do!

Over three years and one child as a result of him intentionally cumming inside me when we decided to have a child (yes, it only took one time and we got pregnant - he has a high sperm count and I'm quite fertile). So I know the pull out method works, our daughter is two and a half years old and we've never used any other form of birth control.

@20/21 listedasmygun

Thank you for those comments. It wasn't a surprise to me either as I've been using the pull-out method for years. And I agree with your second comment completely as well.

@125 - women sometimes release 2 eggs in the same 24 hour period; and women sometimes have short (15-day) cycles. But ovulating once and then again a few days later? That's exceedingly rare.

@48 WTF? Just a hint to you: the sensation of needle play and enjoying that and the desire to get high are two vastly different things. I LOVE needle play, I've had dozens of needles in my back (and elsewhere) and have no desire to EVER use intravenous drugs. People get high for a lot of reasons but I really doubt anyone has started using drugs because they like needle sticks.

As for safety: there are risks to needle play but everyone I know who does it is extremely careful, using brand new sterile needles that aren't opened until right before insertion, gloves, cleaning the skin thoroughly before and after play, immediately placing used needles in a sharps container, etc. However I would put the risk of properly done needle play as very low, not as safe as a blood draw in a hospital but few things are. Now if you aren't fluid bonded to your partner you probably don't want to play with the blood the way me and my partner do but that's private play, at parties we are extra careful about safety.

@104, You sound *very* naive about Harper. The guy doesn't care if the country goes to hell, he just wants power -- and will do anything to get it. Check this out.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorial…

@124: "Doesn't it bother guys not to get to finish in the hole, as it were?"

As long as I get to finish, I'm happy. Sure, it's nice to come inside, but it can be just as good outside. And there is something very hot about pulling out and coming all over her stomach, or ass, or tits.*

*(Cue someone who is going to post that this increases the risk of accidental pregnancy, as sperm can survive on the skin and make their way into the vagina and to use withdrawal correctly I need to immediately stick my dick in a Zip-Loc bag and make sure no little wigglers get away. Absolutely true. Which is why I only ever used withdrawal in situations where I was comfortable with an elevated risk of accidental pregnancy. And let me say again... hot.)

(And, I agree re voting Green in cases where the Tory is a runaway favourite to help raise their popular vote and profile. I've done it myself a few times.)

"Doesn't it bother guys not to get to finish in the hole, as it were?"

Hell, I'm a girl and it'd bother me - feeling those little spasms inside me is one of my favourite parts of sex.

(We always use condoms, btw. Always.)

And others have said this in response to comment #6, but I feel the need to repeat it, louder, to make absolutely sure the message gets through:

***DO NOT WEAR MORE THAN ONE CONDOM AT A TIME BECAUSE THERE IS A MUCH HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF BREAKAGE***. The layers will rub together and weaken each other. They taught us this in sex ed when I was twelve years old. I wonder how old #6 is?

I applaud the letter from and your response to Heteroflexible. I love how he called himself a "sugar baby." Personally, I prefer the term "sugar chicken"!

@102 - because we assume that others are adults and responsible for their own choices.

I have tried damn near every birth control method under the sun - the patch, the ring, the pill, the shot, the copper iud, the hormonal iud, condoms and withdrawal. I can't use the copper (allergies) or the hormonal (egg donor) iud, and all the other hormonal methods make me really moody, fat, tired, hungry and kill my libido. My partner is untrained in using condoms and they make him limp. They make me dry. And, we just plain don't like them. So, after a bunch of research and discussion with my partner, I chose withdrawal. These combination of factors make that choice make sense to me:
There is no sperm in precum (see citation)
My cycle is very regular
The number of days it's even possible to get pregnant are few
The number of women my age who get pregnant at all even when trying is not high
At least half of pregnancies end in miscarriage
My partner is incredibly skilled at withdrawal
My partner is incredibly honest
I keep the morning after pill in my nightstand in case of screwups

So, if after all this, I still get pregnant - it's the Messiah and I'll have to keep it anyway.

No sperm present in precum: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12286…

I would absolutely not recommend it for anyone who is not in a monogamous LTR, whose partner isn't awesome, who can use other methods just fine, and who absolutely would not be prepared to choose abortion or raise a child.

Oh yeah, and you should both pee and wash if you're going for round 2 or 3 or 412.

Hey Dan, thanks for commenting on Canadian politics. I didn't know that being an American columnist,provided you with such insight to our political situation.

We'll vote out Harper when you silence Sarah Palin, quit your love affair with the Gitmo landlord Obama, and stop your media from speaking about Reagan like he was a saint. Deal?...

@141: Oh fuck off. Dan's right. Harper is a douchebag and needs to be voted out of office. I reserve the right to comment on American politics, and Dan (and anyone else) is welcome to comment on Canadian politics.

right on 136. and to hell with all the dogmatic assholes wagging their fingers at anyone who doesn't adhere to the pc white noise. there's no "one" solution for everyone.

I don't blame sex educators for not advocating withdrawal as an effective method of birth control. I'm happily married and I'd never depend on withdrawal unless, like previous posters have said, I was "willing to accept" getting pregnant, which doesn't seem like the greatest way to approach pregnancy.

There's only a brief, magical window each month when women can get pregnant, but all 6 billion people in the world are products of couples hitting that window, most of them unexpectedly.

@109 thankyou for posting the links and revealing your sources.

The article is indeed very revealing. As is the selective conclusion you decide to take from it.

Note for starters that the study lost a significant number of participants without gaining data from them. the consequences of that might skew the results. Also most of the analysis between potential infection points has been established through models and by comparing model results with the actual results. Thiss is highly speculative.

Most pertinent to the LWs concern addressed by Dan, a person who knows they have HIV is more likely to be on HART treatments and therefore less likely to infect than a person who belkieves they are negative or does not disclose, but who is positive and highly infectious. This study does not cover that distinction even in the cases of the (quite low) number of seroconverters with a known HIV pos partner.

But it does note there were no seroconversions among men in monogamour relationship with HIV pos partners. That might be a hint. But entirely my speculation.

This is a very interesting study but please avoid abusing its conclusions in an alarmist way.

@109 (Further to above 147)

Refer in particular to the qualifications laid out in the Discussions section of the paper about the failure/inability to make distinction in risk regarding the infectiousness of partners.

Sadly, just being the "green" party is giving the Green party countless votes from a few politically uninvolved groups:
1) the "Hey, we should save the environment!" people, who don't bother looking at the NDP's pro-environment vision that's been there for decades

and

2) the "Hey, I like weed. Weed is green. I'm voting for weed... maaaan." There are more of these than you think. Hopefully these idiots read a little further on the ballot and realize they can actually vote for the Marijuana party and make their voice (or cough) heard.

So that's that.

Re: strategic voting. I think it's bullshit. If we just keep voting strategically for the rest of our lives, it'll just be a Lib vs. Con battle - forever. The surge in the NDP has been caused be a lot of people refusing to just vote for the lesser evil, anad vote for what they believe in. Even if the results in a Con majority for the next few years, once we get through that hell, we'll have realized the true terror of the Conservatives (I hyperbolize, slightly). So vote for what you believe in. Strategic voting is bullshit.

@Hunter

I'm perfectly aware of that study, but just because a woman is looking fine on a particular night is not a legit sign she's ovulating. (Hint: there isn't one - from afar anyway) If you want to make a guess, that's fine, but expressing it is pretty creepy/innapropriate. Many of the (female) posters have tried expressing this to you - as well as your friends. It seems you're uninterested in any other opinions so I'm going to go ahead you were positing that as an amirite?? And assuming we were all going to agree that your friends are prudes.

You might think it's flattering, but we're trying to explain that commenting on the inner personal workings of a woman's reproductive system (no matter in how positive a way) is not really kosher. We don't like it. But eh, you've made up your mind.

For the record, I work at a bar and I've seen/been on the recieving end of a LOT of invasive behaviour and have a pretty high tolerance. But just because I accept it as an occupational hazard doesn't mean that I think it's okay. And no I wouldn't take "excuse me miss, you look extra attractive today, are you ovulating?" as a compliment.

First of all, to those looking for information on birth control, sexual health, etc, I strongly recommend scarleteen.com.

Next, I know this is a long way back, but I would like to second EricaP @74. I have dysmenorrhea, and I have to take the Pill, or I experience simply awful cramps and a cycle that is unfair in that I go a week on my period, two weeks off, and then begin my period again.

However, my libido is just hunky dory on the pill. I know it isn't true for everyone, but still.

Since I'm allergic to both latex and glycerin and generally am sensitive to chemicals, condoms are basically off the table. Our backup method is withdrawal; this is despite me being absolutely perfect about taking my pill. In three years on the pill, I can count on one hand the number of times I've been more than half an hour off and list where and when it happened.

But I still do all of this with the understanding that nothing is foolproof. If I were to get pregnant, I know what I'd do, and I've discussed it with my boyfriend.

No wonder there seem to be so few bisexuals - they keep inventing stupid words like "hetero-flexible" to describe themselves.

Hey 142, " Backyard Bombardier", go fuck yourself.

Sorry my French-Canadian brother. But this is the problem with the US. They want to crap in our backyard, but make no attempt to clean up their own.

@149

I don't think it's insulting to publicly speculate that a woman might be ovulating, just a bit rude. If someone talked about me that way, I wouldn't be insulted, just annoyed.

@154: Yes, it's entirely Dan's responsibility to make sure no one in the US is doing anything objectionable before he comments on politics outside the US.

Dick.

For those of you who remember PATH's woes (no sex with wife for 2 years, since he stopped initiating) from the "I Want My MTV" Savage Love two weeks ago-- he just posted an update in that thread.

Hey 157, go tote the " Manifest Destiny" doctrine..

As your wizened, learned Buddha " Dr.Phil" has said to you: " How is that working' for ya?"..

God bless our socialist country...

Douche-bag...

@37

The Language Police would like to inform you that 'primary' (as in 'primary form of birth control') does not mean 'only', it means 'main'.

As you were.

Geez, rocketman2u, chill out! Backyard Bombardier and I have spent our fair share of time defending the right of people from other countries-like Canada- to comment on US politics on these threads, so it follows that informed, caring people from the States should be free to comment on Canadian politics. (We're the interloper Canadians on this US blog...remember??)

If SFMi is really that worried there are over-the-counter fertility tests for men and women now. They're available in the UK from the chemists, and probably by mail order from the internet too. Cheaper (though a bit less thorough and accurate) than going to a fertility clinic to find out.

It is not impossible that SFMi or his partner has compromised fertility despite all these stats about withdrawal working - the younger you know, the more time you have to decide if and what you might want to do about it. Age is by far from being the only way that people lose their fertility.

Having said that I have friends who couldn't get pregnant together and they discovered after IUI worked first time that the reason was they were never both at home when she was ovulating. So you never know.

I can't believe this, but I'm sorta kinda siding with Slidebone, here.

Vilification of the Conservatives does us no good. There are plenty of reasons for a thinking person not to vote Conservative based on their policies (and on their contempt for Parliament); it's not necessary to paint Harper as some right-of-Bush monster. Conservatives are not evil; they are people with a different vision for this country than mine and I will never vote for them, but their Canada would still be a reasonably livable place.

The incumbent Tory MP in my riding is an incompetent blowhard, and I'd love to see him out of office (won't happen, I'm in rural Alberta). The incumbent Tory MLA, on the other hand, is a competent and reasonable person with a moderate viewpoint. I'll still never vote for him because I disagree with too many policies of his party, but I'm not going to go into mourning when he gets reelected in the next provincial election.

I'd like to pick up on a personal pet peeve of mine - let's not get into the habit of becoming too leader-centered in discussions on Canadian politics. The only people in this country voting for *Harper* will be the voters of Calgary Southwest. We're not Americans, we do not vote for our Prime Minister.

@162- "they discovered after IUI worked first time that the reason was they were never both at home when she was ovulating.

This is why prospective parents should be understand the woman's fertility window! Anyone who is having any trouble getting pregnant should try charting for a few months. Compared to raising a newborn, it's no trouble/expense at all, and it tells you unambiguously the few days each month when you have to screw if you want to make a baby.

Screwing outside the window = fun, but no baby. Screwing inside the window, and not getting pregnant within a couple of months = evidence that you may need to consult a doctor about fertility issues.

agony, I think the thing that worries me so much about Harper is that he has tried, unsuccessfully, to put same-sex marriage up for debate again, he's anti abortion, and although he says it won't be revisited, read this:
http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/04/abortion-…
He tries to come across as innocuous, but I think he'd be a very different, very dangerous man with a majority government. If a little vilification makes people think twice, or look deeper into his background, I think that's okay, but that's just my take on it...

www.shitharperdid.com is an awesome website. And don't worry Dan, it looks like tomorrow will be an historic election, possibly with a Conservative minority and the very left-leaning, woman friendly, anti-war, pro-gay NDP party as the official opposition. Pure awesomeness.

For me, I seriously dislike the negative, personality based direction our elections are taking, and don't want to buy into any aspect of it. If he cannot be defeated on the issues, maybe we deserve him.

I also think the vilification does our side harm, because the tendency would not be to make people look a little deeper, but instead, recoil in disgust at the negativity. It really is not our way. Overstating the case, only telling one side of the story - most Canadians do not like that style.

I think a Harper majority would be very bad for this country. However, I think US style polarization of politics would be worse.

The hope for this country is consensus building, and one of my biggest issues with the Conservatives is the way they threw away the chance these last two minority governments gave them, to work together with the other parties to enact legislation that everyone can swallow. Mr Harper, personally, has shown very clearly that he cannot play nicely with others, and that alone is enough reason to not vote for his party.

starshine_kitten, dream on. I'd love to see it, but it ain't gonna happen.

"Withdrawal is a much more effective birth control method than most sex advisers are comfortable acknowledging," but it is a bummer. Part of the joy is comming into that squishy delicious membrane called vagina. Granted, not all the time, but whenever desirable and/or possible.

However, Dan's advice should not, by any means, be taken as permission to withdraw at all times. Ask the thounsands of unwilling pregnant women who happen to have gootten that way by a bad withdrawers. Especially teen single mothers. My advice: use any method other that withdrawal --unless you don't fear getting pregnant-- and be conscious of the consequences of your acts.

@ 6 - "I guess you could also switch holes at the last minute just like they do in the movies."

___________
No wonder your comments are so immature and repulsive!
Hey, there, TROLL, you may wish to remember that the PERSON you are fucking is a human being and NOT a "hole."
Newsflash: women are NOT "holes" - no matter how much your teenage boy mind likes to think of them that way.
Grow up, and do it before you go and have sex with someone else. Oh, wait. Maybe that is why you "watch movies."
Here's another newsflash for YOU: those movies aren't REAL.
You are a creep and I don't give a damn who thinks otherwise.
Go and learn some self-respect and try to refrain from using other human beings as "holes."
It is men like you who make me - and alot of women - think twice about fucking ANY of you at all. And, sweetheart, I'm not alone in that assessment.
The next time you sit around all bitter and moaning about all the "bitches" in the world (and, yep, we can all tell that is EXACTLY what you get up to when you don't have to be "polite") look in the mirror and ask yourself this: "maybe if I didn't think of women as "holes" then maybe I'd be able to engage in the act of sex with them?" Or, how about the next time one of "your kind" meaning, creepy-self-entitled-immature-but-the-world-owes-me-something-men" joins the peanut gallery of sitting around degrading women, YOU actually speak up and say something to set them straight.
Enough with the "games," the lies, the bullshit that men like you perpetrate simply because you have LOW SELF-ESTEEM and think that by bringing women (in general, mind) down to your level, you've "achieved" something.
By the way, honey, "love" isn't found in your dick.
Also, sweat doesn't make the human vagina wet, by the way. That is down to lubrication.
Here's a biology lesson for YOU: sweat contains SALT which dries out membranous tissues, unlike vaginal lubrication.
Once again, that "hole" you fuck is a human and not a rubber doll. You can't just pour water - or "sweat" over the hole and then get your jollies.
It is astonishing that men like you make it out of grade school - much less to adulthood (and, THAT is a big assumption, indeed, because I'm sure that you are a teenage boy and just don't know any better).
It will be a fine day when "movies" go back to being about people fucking and not about male neuroses and their ignorance of the female body.
I feel sorry for you children, nowadays.
Yes, even if you're in your 40s (doubtful) you are still a child as far as I'm concerned.
Now, go troll somewhere else - or better yet, read a biology book or go learn something that contributes to humanity.
Yep, I know I gave you an audience and cheap thrill for your trolling but maybe someone else will read this and see a different perspective to your marlacky that you insist on posting.

What do you call people who use the "rhythm method" as a form of birth control? Answer: parents.

@150: If you properly understood what strategic voting is about, you'd know that it isn't about a "Lib vs. Con battle - forever". It's about a "any candidate but Conservative" battle. Why don't you go to www.democracyproject.ca, look up your riding to see how the votes fell during the last election, and see which Liberal/NDP/Green/non-Conservative candidate stands the best chance of beating a Harper crony. Then vote for that person, and hope that every other Canadian who can't stand Harper will do the same.

As long as our votes are all split on the left, we're never going to get rid of Harper, so let's get smart about our voting strategy.

Whether or not Harper stays in office, this will stay in my vocabulary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…

Whether or not Harper stays in office, this will stay in my vocabulary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…

Well, starshine_kitten, I guess I need to at least partially eat my words. Never thought I'd see an NDP opposition - hope they don't squander their opportunity. Very happy tonight, even with the Tory majority.

@149 Luckily, there is this handy comic that will clarify why you are an idiot without me having to explain how science works to you knowing full well you won't read what I wrote or ever care how science works unless you can use the information to justify acting like a cunt in a bar.

On the FAM issue, my late partner and I used it for over 20 years, only using condoms on potentially fertile days (roughly 4-5 days a mth, to allow for the the life of both the egg and the sperm). I kept basal temp. charts for several years to track my ovulations, but eventually gave it up, since I could tell from other signs when I was fertile.

Studies on "FAM" that don't take into account whether or not couples used the "strict" method (no unprotected sex pre-ovulation...we didn't, ftr), or always APPLIED the method properly are worthless.

23% chance of pregnancy, on average, over a year? Not bloodly likely IF the couple was actually, consistently, practicing FAM, either with abstinence or protected sex during fertile times.

We produced 2 children in 23 years, neither one of which was a result of a failure of the method (one was a broken condom baby and the other a "WTF/let's do it" baby, conceived through condom-less sex with full knowledge that conception was likely:)

Never tried withdrawal (or wanted to).

"What do you call people who use the "rhythm method" as a form of birth control? Answer: parents."

True. Going by a calendar instead of the woman's body is a fool's game. I've always been regular as clockwork, with 28 day cycles, but even so, I spent years charting my temps and learning to recognize the other signs (soft, opening cervix, fertile mucus, etc..) of approaching or actual fertility (and since sperm can live inside the woman's body for up to 3 days, it is important to PREDICT ovulation, not just CONFIRM it after the fact; perfectly possible to get pregnant from sex a few days BEFORE the egg is released).

One amazing device now available is a small magnifying lens which you can smear with vaginal secretions or saliva and hold it up to the light...if fertility is approaching, fern-like patterns are formed on the lens. Otherwise, just a smudge. And these changes occur far enough in advance of ovulation, as the hormones shift, to effectively prevent pregnancy if observed. Such knowledge and devices are a boon to those in areas where access to other birth control is limited or absent, as well as being pretty cool :)

I used withdrawal for six years with six partners. No pregnancies, no other forms of BC (except for Plan B on a few occasions when they came inside me). The ONE TIME I said, "Fuck it, I'm on my period, just go ahead"-- pregnant.

I think withdrawal works, but I don't really want to do the expense or ordeal again so I just do the ring now. Might combine ring + withdrawal just to be on the safe side.

Can I just say, even if history says that there's less than 5 recorded instances of HIV transmission through blowjobs doesn't that still allow for the possibility that this sugarbaby could still contract the disease from his partner? With those kinds of odds I wouldn't play, I'm trying to stay HIV negative so if I know for a fact my partner is positive then goodbye bj's...

my husband and i have been together since high school so 8yrs and 2 of those are married yrs... we used the pull out method most of the time and i never got pregnant.. when we were ready to actively try and conceive it happened and i now have a wonderful 9mo old son... i think anyone that doesnt have safe sex needs to be prepared for the "what if" though not just with pregnancy but STIs/STDs