If birth control was only made for men, and 90% of men were on birth control, you could end up with far more pregnancies than if it’s for women and 90% of women were on it.
The conclusion is exactly the opposite of the argument.
For what it is worth, my son was the result of the mother deciding where I would ejaculate through the use of “in the moment” physical force. So no, it was not really something I could control (though the risk of being there was my doing I understand).
Yes, that’s exactly the point of the post in the first place, 1 man can impregnate many women, a woman can’t get impregnated (contemporary) by many men
But a woman can deny as many potential pregnancies. The count ignores women who are already pregnant, both as men or women.
A man can cause up to X pregnancies and thus prevent as much, a woman can only cause 1 but can prevent as much as a man. The important point is that this all matters before pregnancy. After, it doesn’t make sense anymore.
Idk why I got downvoted. I just don’t understand, I’m not trying to make a point.
I meant the 10% of men aren’t having more sex to make up for the 90% that are on birth control. They would be having the same amount of sex either way.
This is just logically wrong.
If birth control was only made for men, and 90% of men were on birth control, you could end up with far more pregnancies than if it’s for women and 90% of women were on it.
The conclusion is exactly the opposite of the argument.
I don’t understand you logic. Are you saying the remaining 10% of men would impregnate a disproportionate amount of women?
By the logic of the image, yes.
Yes. Because 10% of men is enough to impregnate all the women.
As a guy though, I wish there was male birth control. I do not love that women get to decide if they are going to make me a father or not.
I mean there’s condoms, and there’s not ejaculating inside women. If you don’t want the risk of being a father, those are things you can control.
Not ejaculating inside is risky and not 100% reliable, but it surely gets the odds in your favor indeed
For what it is worth, my son was the result of the mother deciding where I would ejaculate through the use of “in the moment” physical force. So no, it was not really something I could control (though the risk of being there was my doing I understand).
What bejeesus does in the moment physical force mean?
Besides, I believe there have been drug trials for hormonal birth control for men, but they never got approved.
Take with this a mountain of salt though, I need to check my sources. I’ll update later if I can find them again.
Oh I see. In my head, the 10% of men weren’t having sex with 100% of women either way.
I assumed the number of partners they had wouldn’t change.
Yes, that’s exactly the point of the post in the first place, 1 man can impregnate many women, a woman can’t get impregnated (contemporary) by many men
But a woman can deny as many potential pregnancies. The count ignores women who are already pregnant, both as men or women.
A man can cause up to X pregnancies and thus prevent as much, a woman can only cause 1 but can prevent as much as a man. The important point is that this all matters before pregnancy. After, it doesn’t make sense anymore.
Idk why I got downvoted. I just don’t understand, I’m not trying to make a point.
I meant the 10% of men aren’t having more sex to make up for the 90% that are on birth control. They would be having the same amount of sex either way.
Maybe I’m over thinking it.