[hydrogonian]

I know that I'd fuck up the light system and that little app would propel me into fatherhood with startling efficiency

[MiXX]

(03-24-2011 03:03 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

There's no way I'd trust that app, cycles are known to be off a few days every now and then. I'm too fucking paranoid.

I doubt you are more paranoid about being a father than me brotha. I'd fucking die of a heart attack if a woman merely tells me she is a few days "late"....I got way too much to lose, and my freedom is priceless.

I can understand your paranoia, I also have it. This app has not led me wrong in 2 years...seriously. The 2/4 day offset you speak of is taken into consideration, and if her period comes at a different date than you expected, you can immediately change it on the app, and it will adjust itself again, and keep learning/adjusting the trend.

Mixx

[MiXX]

(03-24-2011 03:05 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

I know that I'd fuck up the light system and that little app would propel me into fatherhood with startling efficiency

They thought about this. Right below the light there are BIG BOLD WORDS "NO BABY" or "YES BABY" or "MAYBE BABY".

Mixx

[gringoed]

Mixx- This chick you're rawdogging who doesnt want to get pregnant should just go on the pill. Wouldn't that give you two far more peace of mind, especially considering that sperm can survive inside a woman for 5-7 days after sex?

http://www.justmommies.com/articles/how-...live.shtml


As for Plan B, I see 3 major problems with relying on this.

1. Expense. Last time I bought it it costed $75.
2. A woman has to be present in order to purchase it. I doubt anyone will let you buy them in bulk.
3. Don't prevent STD's.

[Moma]

(03-24-2011 02:47 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

LOL! Man, we're a bunch of dirty dogs. If Roosh gets a lot of shit from those cunts in the blogosphere, we'd get fucking crucified for this shit. Intentionally giving a girl an infection with dirty hands? Crushing a Plan B into her food or a tasty beverage? I want to give you guys Nobel Prizes for this shit, but these are some nuclear options. Hilarious.

The only problem is that I thought it was pretty hard to get Plan B pills without a chick present. Where do you guys get your supply? It seems a Plan B pill is worth its weight in condoms.

I guess you could bring a rogue bitch with you to the clinic as a shill, but I imagine that might create a messy paper trail.

I see nothing wrong with sneaking the morning after pill into a woman's breakfast. It's unethical for a woman to force a man into parenthood. It's totally inconsiderate for his wishes as well as the wellbeing of the child.

Now the dirty vagina movement, that's questionable. But Mixx's approach, brilliant. Should charge 9.95 per head for that tidbit.

[gringoed]

(03-24-2011 03:05 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

I know that I'd fuck up the light system and that little app would propel me into fatherhood with startling efficiency

Someone on here should make a similar app except with the light colors switched. Green should = NO BABY.

If they could also have the app emit high levels of sperm-killing radiation they would be a millionaire.

[Moma]

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

Mixx- This chick you're rawdogging who doesnt want to get pregnant should just go on the pill. Wouldn't that give you two far more peace of mind, especially considering that sperm can survive inside a woman for 5-7 days after sex?

http://www.justmommies.com/articles/how-...live.shtml


As for Plan B, I see 3 major problems with relying on this.

1. Expense. Last time I bought it it costed $75.
2. A woman has to be present in order to purchase it. I doubt anyone will let you buy them in bulk.
3. Don't prevent STD's.

This is not a thread about STD's though. The pill, vasectomies, even condoms won't prevent STD's.

This is about prevention of fatherhood.

[MiXX]

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

Mixx- This chick you're rawdogging who doesnt want to get pregnant should just go on the pill. Wouldn't that give you two far more peace of mind, especially considering that sperm can survive inside a woman for 5-7 days after sex?

http://www.justmommies.com/articles/how-...live.shtml

Yeah, I told her this, but she often would forget to take the pill, and one day she forgets is enough to get pregnant. Also, she refuses to deal with the side effects of the 3 month birth control injection.

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

As for Plan B, I see 3 major problems with relying on this.

1. Expense. Last time I bought it it costed $75.

You'll be paying a lot more than $75 if she gets pregnant buddy!

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

2. A woman has to be present in order to purchase it. I doubt anyone will let you buy them in bulk.

Bring your sister, aunt, cousin, niece, stripper you met last night...and pay them off with a new pair of shoes.

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

3. Don't prevent STD's.

well, true...but again, we are talking about girls you decided to raw-dog knowing this risk. So, immaterial to your argument.


Mixx

[gringoed]

(03-24-2011 03:20 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

Mixx- This chick you're rawdogging who doesnt want to get pregnant should just go on the pill. Wouldn't that give you two far more peace of mind, especially considering that sperm can survive inside a woman for 5-7 days after sex?

http://www.justmommies.com/articles/how-...live.shtml


As for Plan B, I see 3 major problems with relying on this.

1. Expense. Last time I bought it it costed $75.
2. A woman has to be present in order to purchase it. I doubt anyone will let you buy them in bulk.
3. Don't prevent STD's.

This is not a thread about STD's though. The pill, vasectomies, even condoms won't prevent STD's.

This is about prevention of fatherhood.

I agree, but shouldn't STD's be a factor in choosing contraception?

If contraception A was identical to contraception B, except that contraception B also prevented STD's. Which would you choose?

[MiXX]

(03-24-2011 03:27 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

I agree, but shouldn't STD's be a factor in choosing contraception?

If contraception A was identical to contraception B, except that contraception B also prevented STD's. Which would you choose?

But, we are not talking about contraception man. We are talking about being able to raw-dog a girl (accepting the risks of STD's with said girl), and preventing unwanted pregnancies as a result.

You want to have contraception that MAY prevent both STD's and pregnancy? Use condoms! You can still catch STD's with condoms like: Herpes, HPV, Syphilis because the condom does not fan out tor protect the skin at the base of you penis that rubs against the woman during intercourse.

And even then, you better pray it does not tear on you or slips off your penis and gets stuck in her vagina with all spermies leaking inside her, as I've had happen to me many times with condoms which leads me back to running to grab my morning after pills to begin with, and pray the girl is not HIV+ or anything else.



Mixx

[hydrogonian]

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Now the dirty vagina movement, that's questionable. But Mixx's approach, brilliant. Should charge 9.95 per head for that tidbit.

I'm not saying that your wrong, but let me play devil's advocate here for a minute.

First, we're talking about two different sub-optimal situations that are being effected to the end of preventing pregnancy. Neither is good, as far as she is concerned.

1. A bacterial infection of the urinary tract

2. A pill-induced hormonal upheaval that aborts the pregnancy.

Neither is good. However, i would submit that the common UTI is less invasive than the hormonal manipulation. The UTI won't effect her body beyond that area. The hormonal change effects everything, including every organ, if only briefly.

Also, how much research has been done on the long term consequences of the morning after pill? And we're talking about administering it without consent. Lets say she were to 1. Get a UTI, which will never, ever be pinned on you. And it's more of an annoyance than anything. But let's say she finds out that you gave it to her 2. Get a blood test for some reason and the morning after pill were to be found in her system. If this were to go to a fictional court, and the judge were to be presented with both situations, which would he take a dimmer view of? Given that a UTI could ever be pinned on you, which it couldn't unless you were to admit to it. I would think that the pharmaceutical dosing would be much worse in the eyes of a judge and probably her. Girls get UTI's very commonly, and its actually just a risk with sexual interaction in general.

I'm not making a judgment or advocating either method, but just putting that perspective out there for the sake of argument.

[gringoed]

"But, we are not talking about contraception man. We are talking about being able to raw-dog a girl (accepting teh risks of STD's), and preventing unwanted pregnancies as a result."

This is a silly argument, but we ARE talking about contraception. Vasectomies (the title of the thread), Plan B, condoms, timing cycles, etc. These are all contraceptive methods.


On a different topic, when evaluating a birth control method they give you the effectiveness % (ie the % that it works). I've heard that the pull out method is 75% effective. Does that mean that every time you fuck a girl and pull out you still have a 1/4 chance of making her pregnant? Condoms are supposed to be 85% effective, but that would mean every 7 bangs with a rubber on would lead to conception. That can't be right...

[Moma]

(03-24-2011 03:44 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Now the dirty vagina movement, that's questionable. But Mixx's approach, brilliant. Should charge 9.95 per head for that tidbit.

I'm not saying that your wrong, but let me play devil's advocate here for a minute.

First, we're talking about two different sub-optimal situations that are being effected to the end of preventing pregnancy. Neither is good, as far as she is concerned.

1. A bacterial infection of the urinary tract

2. A pill-induced hormonal upheaval that aborts the pregnancy.

Neither is good. However, i would submit that the common UTI is less invasive than the hormonal manipulation. The UTI won't effect her body beyond that area. The hormonal change effects everything, including every organ, if only briefly.

Also, how much research has been done on the long term consequences of the morning after pill? And we're talking about administering it without consent. Lets say she were to 1. Get a UTI, which will never, ever be pinned on you. And it's more of an annoyance than anything. But let's say she finds out that you gave it to her 2. Get a blood test for some reason and the morning after pill were to be found in her system. If this were to go to a fictional court, and the judge were to be presented with both situations, which would he take a dimmer view of? Given that a UTI could ever be pinned on you, which it couldn't unless you were to admit to it. I would think that the pharmaceutical dosing would be much worse in the eyes of a judge and probably her. Girls get UTI's very commonly.

I'm not making a judgment or advocating either method, but just putting that perspective out there for the sake of argument.

I agree that MAP may have long term effects that haven't been analysed but in terms of getting caught, how would she know that you spiked her lunch with MAP unless you blabber about your secret weapon?

And giving her the UTI, will playing with her vagina with dirty fingers GUARANTEE a UTI? What you play with her vagina with dirty fingers, she doesn't get a UTI..then what?

[MiXX]

(03-24-2011 03:47 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

"But, we are not talking about contraception man. We are talking about being able to raw-dog a girl (accepting teh risks of STD's), and preventing unwanted pregnancies as a result."

This is a silly argument, but we ARE talking about contraception. Vasectomies (the title of the thread), Plan B, condoms, timing cycles, etc. These are all contraceptive methods.


On a different topic, when evaluating a birth control method they give you the effectiveness % (ie the % that it works). I've heard that the pull out method is 75% effective. Does that mean that every time you fuck a girl and pull out you still have a 1/4 chance of making her pregnant? Condoms are supposed to be 85% effective, but that would mean every 7 bangs with a rubber on would lead to conception. That can't be right...

I agree: this is a silly argument. Nobody on this forum has the 100% bulletproof method of contraception that still allows for physical, and pleasurable sexual penetration. Morning after works for me....and I accept the risks of STD's with SOME girls I trust, much like I accept the risks of getting behind a steering wheel of my car driving to/from work daily and driving to go clubbing on weekends when everyone is drinking and driving.


Mixx

[hydrogonian]

(03-24-2011 03:52 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(03-24-2011 03:44 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Now the dirty vagina movement, that's questionable. But Mixx's approach, brilliant. Should charge 9.95 per head for that tidbit.

I'm not saying that your wrong, but let me play devil's advocate here for a minute.

First, we're talking about two different sub-optimal situations that are being effected to the end of preventing pregnancy. Neither is good, as far as she is concerned.

1. A bacterial infection of the urinary tract

2. A pill-induced hormonal upheaval that aborts the pregnancy.

Neither is good. However, i would submit that the common UTI is less invasive than the hormonal manipulation. The UTI won't effect her body beyond that area. The hormonal change effects everything, including every organ, if only briefly.

Also, how much research has been done on the long term consequences of the morning after pill? And we're talking about administering it without consent. Lets say she were to 1. Get a UTI, which will never, ever be pinned on you. And it's more of an annoyance than anything. But let's say she finds out that you gave it to her 2. Get a blood test for some reason and the morning after pill were to be found in her system. If this were to go to a fictional court, and the judge were to be presented with both situations, which would he take a dimmer view of? Given that a UTI could ever be pinned on you, which it couldn't unless you were to admit to it. I would think that the pharmaceutical dosing would be much worse in the eyes of a judge and probably her. Girls get UTI's very commonly.

I'm not making a judgment or advocating either method, but just putting that perspective out there for the sake of argument.

I agree that MAP may have long term effects that haven't been analysed but in terms of getting caught, how would she know that you spiked her lunch with MAP unless you blabber about your secret weapon?

And giving her the UTI, will playing with her vagina with dirty fingers GUARANTEE a UTI? What you play with her vagina with dirty fingers, she doesn't get a UTI..then what?

Oh, I didn't say it was full-proof by any means. I presented it as a "quick and dirty" option when there are no others. Whether dosing with a morning after pill is a practical (do you have one?) or moral option, above the UTI method, is up to you.

[Tuthmosis]

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)Moma Wrote:  

I see nothing wrong with sneaking the morning after pill into a woman's breakfast. It's unethical for a woman to force a man into parenthood. It's totally inconsiderate for his wishes as well as the wellbeing of the child.

Dude, don't get me wrong: I agree 1000% with this. I have no ethnic/moral qualms or hang-ups about taking care of my interests. Conveniently, men are held to a much higher moral standard when it comes to these matters. Most bitches will take advantage of the station afforded them by pregnancy in our society to wring the life out of you with no mercy, given the chance.

I was merely laughing at the diabolical genius of these ideas.

(03-24-2011 03:10 PM)MiXX Wrote:  

I doubt you are more paranoid about being a father than me brotha. I'd fucking die of a heart attack if a woman merely tells me she is a few days "late"....I got way too much to lose, and my freedom is priceless.

I'd probably give you a good run for your money. I've stopped short of fucking half-naked girls on my bed merely because they were "looking too fertile" or I had "a vision" of them with my kid. I avoided a string of ghetto-lyte chicks--that basically fell into my lap--because I figured they had nothing to lose (and, in fact, would gain a tremendous amount) by having me knock them up. With some chicks, one thin latex film isn't enough insurance. I've since eased up a little on this paranoia.

Incidentally, one of those ghetto-lyte girls (who was also a semi-friend of mine) got knocked up by the very next dude after me! Right after I started avoiding her to "let things cool off"--having stopped just short of fucking her because I got "a bad feeling"--she got knocked up by some poor, beta-looking dude. She swelled up into a chubster, keeping the baby weight along with the baby. Yikes!

I dodged that bullet.

[Gmac]

(03-24-2011 03:44 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(03-24-2011 03:17 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Now the dirty vagina movement, that's questionable. But Mixx's approach, brilliant. Should charge 9.95 per head for that tidbit.

I'm not saying that your wrong, but let me play devil's advocate here for a minute.

First, we're talking about two different sub-optimal situations that are being effected to the end of preventing pregnancy. Neither is good, as far as she is concerned.

1. A bacterial infection of the urinary tract

2. A pill-induced hormonal upheaval that aborts the pregnancy.

Neither is good. However, i would submit that the common UTI is less invasive than the hormonal manipulation. The UTI won't effect her body beyond that area. The hormonal change effects everything, including every organ, if only briefly.

Also, how much research has been done on the long term consequences of the morning after pill? And we're talking about administering it without consent. Lets say she were to 1. Get a UTI, which will never, ever be pinned on you. And it's more of an annoyance than anything. But let's say she finds out that you gave it to her 2. Get a blood test for some reason and the morning after pill were to be found in her system. If this were to go to a fictional court, and the judge were to be presented with both situations, which would he take a dimmer view of? Given that a UTI could ever be pinned on you, which it couldn't unless you were to admit to it. I would think that the pharmaceutical dosing would be much worse in the eyes of a judge and probably her. Girls get UTI's very commonly, and its actually just a risk with sexual interaction in general.

I'm not making a judgment or advocating either method, but just putting that perspective out there for the sake of argument.

She could never prove it unless she had more of what she ate/drank laying around.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I think I'll take my chance at an unplanned pregnancy rather than forgo baby making for life. As bad as it sounds, I don't care if I give a girl a UTI or some other infection, that's a risk she takes too. I wrap it up 99% of the time except with certain LTRs.