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.
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.